Hmmm, regarding Spectrum sales, wonder if the FTC should get involved and investigate the FCC's allotments? Then that might mean the consumer gets even fewer choices than now... Why does this seem like a Kobyashi Maru scenario?
412 posts • joined 15 Oct 2010
Re: But you will still need Excel
"I've even seen a hospital board's entire financial system run on Excel."
Umm, they're holding it wrong. :) (part joke, but also true...)
"I assume those docs were not created on LO or OO? "
Correct. These were documentation files that had never seen OO/LO ever. I went out on a limb taking the actions I did, since at the time OO wasn't technically allowed for documentation work where I was... Afterwards the stance lightened up as other folks internally were running into the same problem and using the same solution. As of Office 2010, it still had a problem importing complex documentation from their own DOC format that LO didn't. Haven't been in a position with complex DOC's since 2013 came out to test it, but I'd hope the current MS Word has compatibility with MS Word DOC's by now. :)
Ribbon works fine for the average user, but I keep doing unexpected things and it never adjusts properly for what I'm trying to do that second. So for me, menu/toolbar interface is way faster. Although ribbon did encourage me to learn keyboard shortcuts to bypass it altogether where I could. That kind of efficiency translates well regardless of interface. :)
".. I am convinced that she would not know what an .ODF document was...."
If the document opens up, she probably wouldn't even notice. Most of the end users I've run across don't know what any of this is anymore. They don't seem as knowledgeable as the end users in the 1990's which would've questioned it. *sigh* My wife surely doesn't anymore, she just expects documents to open, but she would've noticed a difference in the 1990's.
Re: What's up DOC?
"No it doesn't, An Open format no more "guarantees" anything will open these documents decades in the future than a proprietary one. "
You've TECHNICALLY got a point. The best kind of point. ;) How 'bout it makes it more likely that the document can be read decades in the future as opposed to a proprietary format where the vendor went out of business years before, or the product was decommissioned after an acquisition, the dog ate the source code, or any number of things.
Re: But you will still need Excel
depends on what you're doing. 90-95% of the population don't use the features that are missing. The feature gap also continues to decline over time. With that said, Excel itself is still missing some finance related functions from Borland Quattro Pro, (which is still my favorite spreadsheet). :) For me, the current Libre still functions adequately for 99% of what I need, but when it doesn't, I'm still dusting off Quattro Pro to handle the rest because Excel is missing features too.
ODF isn't well supported until Office 2013 though. Since SatNad's in charge now, I think MS will likely raise the white flag, but they need to help ODF fill in some feature gaps first, and then go ahead kill off OOXML. Truthfully, them maintaining their OOXML document standards just takes time away from development of the product itself. Nobody cares about ODF/OOXML at the end user level, but they do care about user interface and the application though, which is where MS is actually making their money.
Back when I was doing a bunch of documentation I had DOC compat probs with Word 2007 and 2010. To get many Word 2003 (and below) legacy docs to open in Word 2007+, I've had to open/save them in OpenOffice, (now LibreOffice) to fix the formatting in a way that Microsoft can read its own file...
Re: Old chip
Umm, Opteron 6386 is a new chip. Now the systemboards could be 5 years old, but thats because its a stable platform (which now desperately needs refreshed for PCIe3, DDR4 and such).
Re: New technology - jets
CV6 - Enterprise (Yorktown class) was retired because she was overweight, beat to hell, obsolete compared to an Essex, and a class of ONE after her other 2 classmates and 1 near classmate were sunk (ala an expensive to maintain oddball).
Many of the Essex class were retrofitted from hydraulic catapults to steam (like Lexington), but they still couldn't carry as much in way of ordnance, fuel and planes like a supercarrier of the Forrestal and later classes. In most any other postwar navy, the Essex would have been awesome to have (still would be really, it proved to be a good design). However, in the large US Navy, the Essex were just too small for effective/sustained power projection.
(yeah, nothing to do with Netapp, Naval history is a passion of mine)
Re: unworthy argument for such a worthy topic
The analogy only broke down because CV6 was beat all the hell towards the end of the war, and needed to be decommissioned anyway. The last of the Yorktown class carriers, she was still under Treaty limits for weight. This meant towards the end of the war with all the additional changes made, she was overweight, under protected, and far less desirable than the Essex class carriers which were over-abundant by that point with 3 Midway class ships nearing completion. (Incidentally - all these years later the Essex class is still a decent/balanced design for what is now a small carrier, whereas the Yorktown class preceding it is not.) Perhaps a better analogy would have been the Iowa class Battleships, which didn't get very heavy usage, but were very modern and extremely capable ships left without a role.
was beat all to hell by the end of the war. Not as bad as the Essex class USS Franklin which had a twisted hull, but she'd still paid her dues. She was also the last Yorktown class left, which would have made her ideal for a museum....
Re: Seems like an article set up for bashing NetApp, but...
For NetApp, they need to train their own employees for cluster mode, because they don't know anything other than 7 mode based our experiences with tech support so far, as well as the installer that was sent out for our new one. It was almost enough to put them back on 7 mode so we could get better support from NetApp on a version they no longer "support".
I'm currently plopping up some spare Supermicro and Dell equipment and going hyper-converged via the oVirt(RHEV)/Gluster combination. Definitely a learning curve to it, but the experiment is looking increasingly like its going to work out, which will ultimately lead to less requirements for NetApp in my environment. Its not just NetApp that hasn't been paying attention (to both their current customers and the future), several other old school awesomeness players like VMWare and Cisco haven't kept up either to the oncoming storm.
Re: "NeXT failed"
NeXT inc was acquired by Apple, and then took over Apple, so it was actually quite successful. I agree that BeOS would be a better example.
"Despite having licensees, NeXT failed."
I wouldn't necessarily consider it failed per se, it was acquired by a larger company, and effectively took over that same larger company, which isn't a fail normally. :) NeXT is the very foundation of the current OSX Mac's and the underpinnings of their iThings as well.
@Charles 9 ok, I will cede the point. :) If the patent is sold, but NOT applied, then it should not be enforceable. That would still allow for the assets of a major company whose only assets are patents (like Nortel), to have an orderly liquidation during a bankruptcy.
and since its Friday - here's a beer on me.
or, make the patent only apply to the original holder. They can license all day long, but make it so the patent cannot be sold. In the case of companies like Nortel that went bankrupt, they could choose to keep part of the business alive for patent revenue as part of restructuring, or all the patents would just expire. I'm sure there would be some unintended consequences for that, but at least patent trolls or groups of patent trolls wouldn't be buying patents off the carcasses of failed companies then.
Re: Bet it won't apply
That was my thought as well. MS in particular has been using unknown patents for extortion. If they had declared the patents, then fine, that's their right since they have the patents (even if they're found invalid later). But not declaring them and threatening for a legal shakedown? Sounds to me like they could be prosecuted under RICO if any federal prosecutor wanted to. (hint - they won't)
Put the USPTO on the hook
The current patent system is geared to the lawyers to just mint money. I think the legislation proposed will help, but it doesn't address bogus patents being issued to start with.
They should make all the US claims have to get approved/disapproved by the USPTO before going to court proper. It would be cheaper on all sides that way (except for USPTO). If a patent is invalid, then make sure to dock the employee(s) that approved it. If they get X number of docks, then fire them. Then figure out how to give bonuses for approved patents which are valid. If the patent is validated and the USPTO thinks there is infringement, then let the lawsuits begin in earnest. Right now the courts are getting clogged with crap for months or years that the USPTO should be able to clarify within a week, since they are the ones that approved the patents to begin with...
Rob's comment nailed it...
For your last bit "Don't we all use SSL tunnels for this already?" - for data in flight yes - this is for encrypting data INSIDE the tables while at rest. This seems like a good feature to have integrated straight into the DB engine without having to take an overhead hit of encrypting everything, but maybe not. I'll need to do a lot more research before I come to a conclusion on it.
Re: if the Chattanooga voters want the city to run an ISP
"Commerce among States". Not inside the State. In case anyone has forgotten why that clause is there, the first/original post-independence/confederated United States (under the Articles of Confederation) actually had tariffs between the States (like New Jersey and New York slamming each other with tariffs)... It made commerce near impossible between the "United" States prior to the current v2 Federal United States.
Agreed. CIO's appear to me to be 3 year hires on average. Just long enough to shuffle a lot of tech, switch the teams around, bring in cronies from prior job, pad the resume and then quickly leave before it completely craters. in 5 years? The company would be midway through the next CIO trying to fix the previous CIO's issues who was trying to fix the previous CIO's issues before them, and so forth. :)
@AC - That is already what HP does. This is just for a lower tier.
I worked for a company at one point that oem'd HP servers, which is how I found that out, since first article inspections were at Foxconn plants.
Without the server biz, I think they are about to find it even harder to turn things around. They need to get an advertising budget around their cloud crap, because nobody I'm around knows anything about it. I just get blank stares followed by an immediate "when did IBM get into cloud?" when I mention they have a cloud product.
@fishman Re: Good enough - ship it
"If you waited to get all the obscure bugs out, it would never get released."
Software never releases - it ESCAPES!
(line I've used for a while in final bug review meetings before a software release when evaluating defect severity's)
Re: I miss the old days
">>4.x ... Microsoft abandons its own OS kernel, adopts Linux.
>Choose any common expression of something that has a probability of less than 1 in 100 billion, and you have the chance of that happening. Just being realistic, here."
People don't buy Windows Servers for the kernel specifically, they buy it for the technologies that run on it. Same with Windows desktops. Remember, the kernel portion of Windows (and related OS areas) is a major cost center for them, not a profit center. MS sells applications, development tools, server software, and gui's across servers and desktops, not kernels. :)
I agree that MS wouldn't adopt the Linux kernel (licensing issues), but I do suspect they will adopt BSD and follow in Apple's path, and probably sooner than later. This would NEVER happen with Ballmer, but with Satya Nadella in charge it becomes a real possibility. After having done OEM Windows OS development work I can tell you underpinnings of the OS (ala interactions with several craptons of various hardware) is expensive to develop for and even more expensive to test for. In my case that was with MS already having done the most expensive heavy lifting under what my team was doing. Why not "outsource" the lowest levels which allows Microsoft to then concentrate on the MS technologies that actually make their money - AD, Exchange, SQL, IIS, S!@#epoint, etc?
Re: They shot themselves in the head
You are likely correct, since Lenovo consumer division uses different factories than Lenovo Business (formerly known as IBM's PC division) and they are pretty separate entities like all the various companies of Sony that operate independently. The last time I was dealing with doing first article inspections on OEM'd IBM servers with my previous company the former IBM PC division (Lenovo) was still in the same mfg floor as the IBM servers, but Lenovo consumer was NOT there.
HOWEVER - since it all says Lenovo on the nameplate - it still gives you pause on buying the next bit of kit from them, regardless of if its Lenovo consumer or business. Whether that is a long term pause, or short term will likely be determined by their actions in the next few weeks.
Needs more ....
Re: you have to make your mind about it.
"I have to wonder what would happen if MicroSoft just bowed down, adopted Linux as the OS, and focused on Office for it's profit margin?? Would they gain??"
Well, lets take a similar case. Apple adopted that strategy with BSD for its iDevices and dropped having its own proprietary MacOS. It is now at record profitability partly due to having outsourced the lower (and expensive to maintain) levels of the operating system to the greater open source community (and it does contribute some back to). The bowels of the OS don't generate profitability/value for stockholders, and really doesn't differentiate you like the API's and UI on top of the OS do, so why maintain that crap yourself? Given the current CEO Nadella who is very cloud and post PC era focused, I think MS will follow Apple and convert to BSD underneath to lower their overall development costs.
(and no, I'm not an Apple fan, but credit where credit is due, buying NeXT from Jobs and basing the "NeXTgen" Mac OSX on it was a stroke of genius)
Re: Price of everything, ....
Technically its all just paper and a meaningless figure. But there are some real world impacts because it does end up affecting things such as credit ratings and employee retention however. Both will make it more expensive to do business. (having been rank and file in a major tech company, I can tell you - employees with too many vested/unvested stock options being underwater with no hope of going back above water are much more likely to walk.)
Re: Usual Public Relations Nonsense
Totally agree except for "first-year coding mistakes".
Shouldn't that be "first week coding mistakes"? :)
(Paris Hilton because I suspect not even she would make that mistake.)
Re: a mere 20 years...
"I CAN'T HEAR YOU, THE HP'S ON. WHAT?"
@Trevor_Pott - ummm normally only happens on HP servers if the Insight Management Agents aren't installed. If you've installed the Management Agents, then the fans go down to a tolerable level after management agent services come up. Otherwise, you are spot on - its so bad, you find yourself wishing to be behind a 747 taking off for some peace and quiet... The newer G8's and higher I believe are finally agentless and as a consequence the fans don't continue to scream if you haven't installed the agents.
For the record, and for the money - I'm leaning into the Supermicro camp as well nowadays for the general purpose workhorses. I started experimenting with them for the home lab with some opportunistic eBay grabs, really liked the fit/finish compared to some of my other "roll your own rackmounts". I really didn't pay attention to this before, but after getting familiar with the cases, I then realized how MUCH of the equipment in the racks in my Datacenter was actually OEM'd Supermicro. That has also made me more comfortable with it, since I was already running a good amount of business critical functions on their OEM'd servers and had no clue it was Supermicro. For the money - its hard to beat.
Re: In situations like this, I find it useful
hehe - looks like the letters make out to be - Don't Panic - :)
Re: Trained to use
10-20+ years of experience AND fresh certs - the certs mean something, namely you are continually retraining and staying up to date. 2 years and same certs, welcome to junior level ranks, but at least you stand a better chance of getting in the door than 2 years of experience and no certs. Just don't try to pass yourself off as an IT god at that point young padawan. :)
Re: Hell, I had this idea when I was 10
Probably works for Jupiter Mining Corp hoping nobody figures out he's actually "Dennis the Doughnut Boy".
" look at the tie die"
>> Really! Professional shills ought at least to be literate. The correct spelling is "dye".
It might have been "Deutchlish" - then it would translate to "tie the shirt" ? If that is the case, they might have a point. Tied shirts like those worn by Daisy Duke and other backwoods beautys would be unprofessional in the workplace. Not that I've seen a Linux using Daisy Duke in IT yet.... *sigh* hehe
Re: How do you think 'script kiddies' get away with it for so long
>>just because you don't know about the flaw doesn't mean no-one does.
@Magnus_Pym is quite correct. In the current era of a menagerie of criminal groups, government agencies (globally, pick a country, any country), and others like hacktivist groups, there are a LOT of flaws that are undisclosed, already found and WAITING for the right time to exploit. This isn't the good old days with a solitary kid in his basement hacking away for the lulz of it, its now serious business. Responsible/timely disclosure should be mandatory, because other people probably already know about the vulnerability and are holding the exploit for it in reserve until the "time is right".
"Hipsters don't have ponytails"
Indeed. Current "Hipsters" seem to wear suits and ties. :)
(and no, I'm not sure if I'm joking or not either, but I've been seeing a weird trend starting in my neck of the woods...)
Re: Many people don't own their cars..
@Jes.e - Yeah, you are frightfully correct. If you LEASE the vehicle, there would be little you could do to stop this sort of thing. Unfortunately - if you think about it, even if you get a bank loan, the Bank could put provisions in there to give a better interest rate if you agree to getting tracked. Or they could be complete asses about it (since its technically their car until you pay it completely off) and make it mandatory... I'm not sure I like where this might be headed... Once businesses see new ways to further monetize current revenue streams, it seems to be hard to stop.
@thames - Well, Digital Ocean has been growing very quickly. I didn't realize it had been growing quickly enough to get on the radar like this though, but at the same time it would not completely surprise me if it passed Azure in the last 6 months. I've got one VM with them. Pretty nice service, my VM runs FAST, and its quite affordable to boot. No complaints on my side.
"Brand names online can build trust and security." ???
>"Brand names online can build trust and security."
Say what? Most of the time now, corporations have already outsourced their online marketing presence to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc etc. So people won't be going to .cocacola, they're already going to socialmediaofyourchoice/cocacola, and even that isn't a direct path, mostly due to so many people always googling the company, then going to one of the top links. We're starting to hit a point now where even the .com addresses have substantially less value then they once did just a few years ago. If it was 1997, then all these boutique names might make sense, but I personally don't see the point of adding much more than ".club" for non-prof clubs (and that one is a maybe after 20 years of people just going to .com first, and then .org), and then ".xxx" for well, you know, wink wink and a nudge.
Most average users have no clue whether that link is .com, .org, .co.uk, or .whatever. Worse than that, most average users don't care as they can't be hassled with security. This describes a large chunk of my own family unfortunately who are already ripe for security exploits as a result. Increasing numbers of boutique domains just exasperates the problem.
Re: Chile first, Munich coming
There is still huge potential gains on Munich's transition. Even *IF* it cost more on this initial transition (and right now a good chunk of this is transition/startup costs like all new ventures), most of the money stayed inside the EU, Germany, and to a lesser degree Munich itself. Thats opposed to Munich, Germany just sending a fat check to Seattle, Washington. There is a fair amount of Munich/German Government money that stayed close by in their own greater economy as it got spent instead of disappearing half a world away never to be seen again. Right now they are in the "sunk cost" initial phase, it gets cheaper from here. Kinda like building a class of ship. The FIRST one is godawful expensive, but successive ships in the same class get less expensive as economy of scale and engineering/process improvements occur.
Re: Booting a laptop, even to a full desktop, proves nothing,
> Unfortunately, at that point it's probably meaningless to the security git, the bomber git, and all the poor gits in the immediate vicinity.
Sounds like a git push? You know this wouldn't happen on SVN. ;)
Re: Region Locks
> In other words - a cartel cornering the market. Things like that are illegal in every other industry. Why should they be allowed for media rightsholders?
While I agree that its probably of questionable legality in view of various international treaties on trade, WHO is really going to both challenge it and have the proper legal standing in International courts? The Governments who signed the treaties but also did various local bits of legislation that allows region locks? Probably not...
> (guess reading sites such as TechNet and MSDN is really old school ;)).
You got that right. Both have excellent resources available and code snippets out the wazoo. It seems that a good chunk of current batch of 'Softies seem to be experts in "next, next, next, Finish". Unfortunately I've learned that the hard way with Sharepoint "experts" that didn't know anything about IIS and MS SQL. Their initial deployment was installed exactly as stated, and had to be completely demolished and re-done by old timers who knew how to configure old skool crap. The kids had no clue on web server farms and clustered SQL servers... Much of Corp Management is also convinced MS means "next, next, next, Finish", so trying to talk to them about configuration issues as you've mentioned is as productive as talking to a brick wall. What I would get back a lot of the time is "Its installed and working isn't it?" Ugh..
Which gets us into why Macros are still a problem ~20 years after the first attacks... I agree that Code signing is the solution, but invariably Finance will push back because it'll break some legacy spreadsheet from 1997 that the author has left the company 12 years ago, nobody understands how it works, and they're unwilling to even test. (and yes, I've had several very similar scenarios, very frustrating, and a reason why Excel 2003 was still required on a lot of machines rather than actually updating the sheets in question with modern code so as to be able to upgrade Office...)
Re: Necessary XKCD Reference
"... The problem is, it worked by transmitting all data about the subject to the destination, where it was reconstructed, then the original (which was not harmed by the process itself) was normally killed. The aliens saw this as a necessary clean-up operation, the humans ... objected"
That's also the understood premise of the "Star Trek" transporters, which use additional energy to then destroy the original after transport is complete. It would be less costly energy wise to keep both copies, but presumably there would be a population explosion of clones and the writers didn't want to deal with that. One "accident" creating two Rikers is already over the top right??? :) Then based on how the "Trek" transporters operate, how the !@#$ did they have transporter accidents every other episode?
The biggest issue is the computing power and energy required to transmit the quantum state data of an entire being and recreate it on the other side, which is nearly off the scale to start with. Not impossible, but it seems unlikely in our lifetimes. Maybe in the 2100's.
> Has anyone ever encountered a working and productive SharePoint install? Because I never have.
While I'm sure there *MUST* be one that exists based on what consultants that came in to fix the last installation said, what I've actually seen so far would indicate you'd have better luck finding the Loch Ness Monster or Sasquatch. Too many people in the "click next, next, next, finish" crowd handling the design work and installations.
(and no, the consultants didn't fix it per se, although they did get it actually performing better.)
+100. The last company I was hell bent on deploying it, and I was pretty skeptical, particularly as my other sysadmin buddies at other companies were emphatic about NOT deploying it. I sent those reservations upstream but to no avail. I had no personal exposure before that deployment to bring to bear and stop it... Long story short - my exposure to Sharepoint 2010 and 2013 was enough to have me make sure any company I'm working for DOESN'T have Sharepoint. I never want to see that steaming pile ever again. Ironically MS apparently feels the same way by pulling it from o365. :)
Re: did I miss something?
@Jim 59 - you didn't miss anything. The vulnerability is limited to users that could already utilize it. With that said, if an application got fired off with that user's rights and then escalated, then we might have a problem. :) As always on servers (regardless of OS), if you are on the physical console (or virtual physical for vm's), you should have a good reason for doing so.
Net takeaway - be sensible in your assigning of sudo rights, and be sensible in how you access your servers. That is nothing new to seasoned sysadmins.