I know, right? Kids today, with their terrible music, appalling taste in clothing, disrespect for their elders, etc. Back in my day, we had universally fantastic music like 2 Live Crew, 'N Sync, Kylie Minogue, and all the other greats of the era. Truly, those days will never come again!
770 posts • joined 4 Jun 2007
"I want more life, fucker." -- Steve Jobs
Re: Obviously a bad thing, but...
2) Also irrelevant. I have no idea whether the malware spreaders have done a cost-benefit analysis, but your point has to do with optimizing for maximum profitability rather than whether a net profit is being obtained. It may be that the bitcoin miners are not making the optimum profit for their labor, but that doesn't mean they're not profiting.
Re: Obviously a bad thing, but...
Incorrect. If you are using someone else's compute power, it is free (to you), therefore any income derived is considered profit. Obviously, this does not include the time taken to write the malware, but that can be considered a sunk cost.
Re: So what prevents Google from load balancing to power budget???
If that question made the least amount of sense, perhaps someone could answer it.
Re: Marketing VP?
He's a VP of Marketing. Excess twaddle is what they're paid for.
The problem . . .
. . . with sorting out one's storage is that the market is moving very quickly right now, making it difficult to choose a best-in-class solution. Storage is also stupidly expensive, and storage decisions are difficult and time-consuming to unwind, leading to a certain conservatism when it comes to deployment: if you make the wrong choice, you'll be stuck with it for years. Also, the tendency in the storage arena is to over-promise and under-deliver, so one must take with a grain of salt any vendor statistics, performance metrics, etc., and be sure to read the fine print.
The reason for all this is simple: storage is about the software, not the hardware. Any numpty, even Eadon, can throw a bunch of hard drives in a box. Designing and implementing a sufficiently robust architecture is more challenging but essentially a solved problem. Writing software which can efficiently and effectively use that hardware is much more challenging. Unfortunately, the hardware and software are usually packaged together and/or buying the software standalone is sufficiently expensive that changing platforms is an option undertaken only with a certain caution. On the other hand, most incumbent storage vendors charge so much for maintenance that, past a certain point, it's no more expensive to switch than it is to stay with one's current provider, hence the proliferation of storage start-ups.
Re: Not a single person error...
OK then the processes that allowed a junior member of staff to do this task is at fault.
The process that allowed a junior member of staff to do this task without senior supervision is at fault. Of course, all the senior people had been fired . . .
Re: Not outsourced
I see what you did there, but I'm not going to upvote you because you're probably hitting too close to home with regard to what upper management thinks.
It depends what you consider efficient. NetApp can do about 2x deduplication on a good day, which about pays for the overhead of WAFL and RAID-DP. It also only runs in the background, so there's no in-line dedupe, which means that there's a buildup of redundant data followed by a slow period when the maintenance is being performed.
Re: Confusing a server filesystem and enterprise storage again
Matt Bryant alert.
Re: HOW DARE U CENSOR ME
That's an interesting perspective--have you asked any actual women about how they feel?
Re: Tom Maddox Gordon Phil Gordon Gordon AC Destroyed All Braincells.....
In point of fact, Matt, I have no particular allegiance to Sun, but it has always amused me when you've flung yourself into threads about Sun with a venomous rage, which you have been doing for some years now (and on multiple sites, I note via a quick Google search). So, we've pinpointed the mid-90s as the time when Sun touched you in a bad place; what happened, pray tell?
Anyway, best of luck with your jihad. I look forward to the continuing entertainment!
Re: Gordon Phil Gordon Gordon AC Destroyed All Braincells Gordon BTRFS? You must...
Give it up Matt, you are just coming across as a juvenile angry neckbeard with mysterious chips on the shoulder.
Poor Matt, he's had a lifelong hatred of Sun (the origin of which I'm somewhat curious about). He is also pathologically incapable of admitting any error on his part. As a result, this thread is pretty much guaranteed to wind him to his maximum level of aggravation because:
1) It involves Sun technology.
2) He appears to be quite wrong (caveat: I'm not a ZFS user, but credible people throughout the storage industry have nothing but good things to say about it).
Now where's that popcorn?
Re: 5 whole gig? I'm jealous!
If you're getting 2 gig service as you say, you have nothing to complain about!
Re: Facebook changes
Well, you cared enough to comment on the article, so perhaps you should answer your own question.
Our company uses images of black monoliths with two-digit integers and the words "AUDIO ONLY" emblazoned in red.
I must get this for my videoconferencing avatar.
Successful pre-IT companies
Successful companies also existed before electricity came along. Successful companies learned to use electricity; unsuccessful ones went out of business. Technology is an essential part of most businesses, one which reduces overall costs by automating repetitive manual tasks or which adds value by creating capabilities where none previously existed. Excel, these days, is more than just a replacement for paper spreadsheets, it's actually a development platform in its own right which enables business analysts to automate their own business logic. Arguably, this capability allows them to bypass IT, but who do they turn to when Excel crashes?
IT definitely does need to be service-driven (and most IT departments, in my experience, actually are), but saying that companies don't need IT is simply incorrect, by and large.
“They are not close to Microsoft or VMware, but it is pretty good if you are not trying to do dramatic things like moving virtual machines around.”
If by "dramatic" you mean "essential," this is an accurate statement.
Re: Death to the cloud
My local servers are built with an eye towards application-layer redundancy such that, even if a major failure occurs, we should still have userland access available. There are certain cataclysm-grade incidents which could take our systems down, but the ensuing floods, cloud of fallout, horde of zombies, etc., would probably be of greater import than restoring services to the users (if my employers are reading this: I kid. As a loyal employee, I would, of course, place business continuity above protecting my own family from radioactive mutants.)
That said, the cloud is a very reasonable place to keep your work, assuming your work is not important or is easily duplicated.
Adobe's ColdFusion web development software is to blame for the downtime of the US Government's National Vulnerability Database.
The malware infected two servers . . .
ColdFusion has officially been classified as malware, apparently.
Ah, Matt, dripping as ever with the milk of human kindness, I see.
Re: Where the "report errors" link gone
Ahem, I think you mean, "Where has the 'report errors' link gone?".
Grammar nazi hijack
The appropriate abbreviation for "advertisement" is "ad;" the appropriate abbreviation for "advertisements" is "ads." "Add" and "adds" refer to mathematical operations.
This has been a note from your friendly neighborhood grammar nazi.
That's it, really.
Fortunately for web users the world over, the exploit "is not very reliable", the researchers write. In most cases, the payload fails to executive and leads to a JVM crash.
So, it's just normal Java code, then?
Well played sir, well played.
A commentard such as yourself should
Reprehensible behavior such as you did.
There is not enough beer
You must construct additional breweries.
Re: Microsoft refused to allow the OEM’s to pre-load BeOS ..
Good job, kain, you failed to read the first line of the article you quoted:
BeOS is an operating system for personal computers which began development by Be Inc. in 1991. It was first written to run on BeBox hardware.
Or the paragraph right above your quote:
Initially designed to run on AT&T Hobbit-based hardware, BeOS was later modified to run on PowerPC-based processors: first Be's own systems, later Apple Inc.'s PowerPC Reference Platform and Common Hardware Reference Platform, with the hope that Apple would purchase or license BeOS as a replacement for its then aging Mac OS. Apple CEO Gil Amelio started negotiations to buy Be Inc., but negotiations stalled when Be CEO Jean-Louis Gassée wanted $200 million; Apple was unwilling to offer any more than $125 million. Apple's board of directors decided NeXTSTEP was a better choice and purchased NeXT in 1996 for $429 million, bringing back Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.
In fairness, I misremembered some of the history myself, such as the Hobbit, but your claim that BeOS was originally written for the Mac is clearly false.
@Gene: It wasn't F/OSS, no, but I'm not sure where the "closed as hell" comes from, in that is was no more closed than any other desktop operating system. Be definitely caught a lot of hell from the Linux fanboys, basically for not being Linux.
@kain: No, BeOS was designed for its own system, the BeBox, which happened to be based on the same chip as the Mac at the time, which meant that porting it to the Mac would have been much simpler than porting it to x86 was. Gassee tried to sell BeOS to Apple, who wanted to pay far less for it than he wanted, and, of course, Jobs was making his comeback and brought NextStep in instead. Be then made a move to the x86 platform and tried to position BeOS as a competitor to Windows, which failed in part due to Microsoft's efforts to keep OEMs from bundling any competing operating system with their computers.
The lack of apps was definitely an issue, so Be pitched the OS at specialist users such as graphic designers and sound engineers who could make use of the pervasive multithreading and high responsiveness of the UI, but it never really took off in that market. It was definitely unfortunate, because it was the most responsive and advanced OS, from a user perspective, available in the market at the time, but the company didn't really have a notion of how to sell it, especially against Microsoft's market power.
Back in the day, BeOS implemented a filesystem (called, natch, BeFS), which did all the things WinFS was supposed to do. It used metadata extensively with a database-like filesystem which allowed applications to access and store various data types in the filesystem without an intermediate store. It was also blazing fast due to the filesystem index being a built-in feature instead of an add-on.
Unfortunately, Be took on Microsoft at the height of its power and never really had a compelling story about why one might want to run BeOS instead of Windows, so it has vanished into the dustbin of history.
Re: not a bug in the hypervisor
I'm reading it as a bug in one of the drivers provided by the VMware Tools package allowing privilege escalation in a Windows VM running the affected driver.
Re: Am I the only one who likes the Ribbon interface?
Anything that takes 5 years to become less difficult shouldn't have been released in the first place.
You mean like . . . Linux?
Says it all, really
The previous code was just really horrendous," Meeks said. "Dialogs were constructed and drawn by hand – in fact, not even by hand. Programmers just sort of entered random numbers to lay them out, and it really looked awful.
This says it all. I believe this is the design philosophy behind all F/OSS and, indeed, all *nix GUI-oriented software.
Re: I'm not even going to pretend to care.
If you had $30 million in VC money riding on what someone else thought of your attire, I'm willing to bet you'd learn to care.
I haven't used Server 2012, but I have used 2008 R2, and I've found it to be robust and stable, and much easier to configure and use than any version of *nix, so I'm guessing that Microsoft has done some good work enhancing those qualities with 2012.
Note that I say this as someone who has deployed various flavors of Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Solaris over the years. I recall very well Microsoft's dirty tricks. Nonetheless, I'm willing to sing the praises of Windows as it now runs because it meets my needs and the needs of the business I support.
Finally, I'm entirely fed up with this knee-jerk fanboy mentality in the technology. Maybe you should try judging technology on its actual merits instead of engaging in childish my-sideism. Eadon, I'm looking at you.
Re: expect FUDD from Microsoft dupes
I notice that, like most *nix zealots, you ignored the detailed post which addresses your points and chose to focus on the troll.
BTW, I'm not sure what FUDD is. FUD is Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt; FUDD is presumably Elmer Fudd's XBox gamertag, and I'm not sure how that's relevant.
We here at the CRA . . .
. . . have no sense of humor that we're aware of.
Re: Won't take my money
I see what you did there, even if no one else did.
Layers upon layers
All that's happening is the next step in an ongoing evolutionary process. Over the past few decades, the number of intermediate steps between slow storage and fast compute has been growing, with on-die CPU cache, level 2 cache, level 3 cache, system RAM, HBA/controller caching, onboard flash cache, storage array cache, on-drive cache, and now array flash storage providing yet another layer designed to improve the speed of transfer from static storage to active compute. The slowest storage has essentially stagnated, from a speed perspective, merely growing in capacity. The next tier up, "fast" spinning disk, is itself turning into yet another intermediary layer for staging data.
All any of this means is that same as it always has: ultimately, the goal is to touch the disk as little as possible and keep the relatively small amount of data you're actually using somewhere else.
You think that mistyping slashes is a skill?
<FoghornLeghorn>It's a joke, son.</FoghornLeghorn>
The project manager, meanwhile - and this is a man who is known to have struggled for some minutes to find the main menu in the new FireFox - has written a Python program that interrogates his diary in Google Calendar and switches on the central heating in his holiday cottage in Wales so that everything is nice and toasty when he arrives for the weekend.
So, the typical Reg reader, then?
Hey, now, don't let logic, reason, and law get in the way of a perfectly good American Hate thread.
Re: Why not just buy a fully converged and integrated stack from one Supplier?
The idea of buying converged systems from a single supplier is often pooh-poohed as "proprietary", especially by suppliers who don't have the three technologies needed in-house, and the main three suppliers in that position are Cisco, EMC and NetApp. Both EMC and NetApp are trying to attract the attention of Cisco, the great converged stack prize, and hoping to be chosen as its preferred partner.
I think that might answer your question.
The problem with the "converged stack" theory is that it's the mainframe redux: you're locked into buying giant units of equipment from a single vendor. Virtualization ameliorates this issue somewhat, insofar as you can easily move your processing workloads elsewhere, but storage lock-in is especially pernicious since storage is the hardest resource to move away from. The discerning IT equipment purchaser will look for the opportunity to retain flexibility.
Also, take your Huawei shilling elsewhere.