10 posts • joined Thursday 27th September 2012 10:21 GMT
After reading a number of articles on their "business practices" (deliberately duping their customers), which came up on several blogs recently (Naked Capitalism for example), I can only say that RBS should just die and their managers should be prosecuted.
This latest c**c-up just shows they are not even remotely interested in offering proper services to their customers. The only thing they're interested is money and they don't care about the how and why. How is it possible that they still exist given their track record?
That was already so in 5.1
There are some strong reasons to get rid of the classic client and VMware has made some functionality web client-only in version 5.1 already. The main gripe I have with the Web Client is that it uses Flash, which doesn't get much love for various reasons. Also there seems to be a lack of support in Linux for it, so the platform independence argument doesn't hold any more.
If you really hate the Web Client, you can access certain functionality using PowerCLI or another comparable tool as well.
It's probably somewhat different
I've seen some presentations and examples of content for this track some years ago and we (me and other attendants, all MCTs by the way) had the following reservations:
- 2 Weeks at Redmond for intense training (this has been dropped)
- It's ONLY valid for a specific version of the product/technology (Exchange 2010, Sharepoint 2007, SQL 2008)
Our big question mark was; is it worth the time/money and effort? Obviously people have spoken and the answer is clear; no it's not. It might be useful, but given the required investment and the fact that your efforts have to be recognized by potential customers, it doesn't make enough sense from a business perspective.
Re: At the risk of...
Now the technology may have improved, but there's lots of OLD nuclear reactors around. The Fukushima reactors were more or less end of life (reactor design from end 60s/begin 70s), but the Japanese government allowed TEPCO to keep them running for some 10+ more years.
On top of that the efficiency of current reactor types (which mostly use enriched uranium, which can also be used for nuclear weapons) isn't particularly high. There are some better options in development, like the much quoted thorium reactor, which should receive more attention. But we still have loads of old reactors around and there's NO simple and cheap option to get rid of them.
My biggest gripe is that the management of TEPCO, as well as the Japanese government, handled this disaster in a very unconvincing way. In my opinion there were some fishy things going on, long before things went wrong and the actions performed by TEPCO have not done much to actually solve the problem.
The biggest problem for nuclear is mismanagement (read: corporate greed) and sheer stupidity from a design point of view (nuclear reactor in an inappropriate location, too many reactors at one location, inappropriate designs, no way to decommission reactors safely and cheaply).
Nuclear can be a good, or even better, alternative for wind and solar, but only if we take into account these very important characteristics.
Re: Nuclear power will be a terrible loss
Agreed on that one. I haven't heard much about the progress of these new reactors in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant) , but it's way over schedule both from a time and money point of view. I think that smaller, simpler units are the future. These huge designs, requiring big teams of people to even build them, prove to be unworkable/unmanagable.
Re: Why, not How?
Given the cost of SCVMM (it's NOT free), there's still an important alternative for smaller shops (up to 3 ESXi Servers, 6 sockets) which includes vCenter Server - Essentials (Plus). Note that you get lots of functionality (Replication, Backup, HA, vMotion) already with the Essentials Plus version. So VMware isn't necessarily much more expensive then Microsoft.
In general however, licensing is just one of the costs of running a platform. Just like a number of other people noted; management is something totally different. And there things might turn out to be radically different.
Also, migrating to a new version seems to be a real pain with Hyper-V, whereas it's relatively easy with VMware.
The point is that you do not necessarily need all those features. Furthermore, Hyper-V with SCVMM isn't exactly free either. If you go down that path, I'd say put everything on Linux (Xen or KVM).
On 3 ESXi Servers you can run enough VMs for the average small business and in this environment it's very easy to setup and everything just works. Hyper-V, in my opinion, still has some parts that need some polish, like Cluster Shared Volumes.
For SME's there's the Essentials or, better, the Essentials Plus license. That means 3 ESXi Servers with a vCenter to go with it for a reasonable price point. And it still has vSphere Replication, HA, vMotion, Data Protection as features.
The complexity of the product is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. If you want to use all functionality, it becomes more complex and if you use only a subset of its' features it's less complex. In my opinion it's not the VMware side of things that is difficult; it's the storage and network side of things. I'm very much in favor of the bottom-up approach (I'm talking to you MS); first design your hardware platform and only then install and configure your hypervisor.
Having a broad overview and some depth when it comes to storage and networking is key for making any virtualization solution work. In contrast, the software is relatively easy to configure.
My impression is that there's more to it then just pricing. Up until now, MS didn't have the feature set to compete with VMware. This is the usual thing; MS overpromises and underdelivers. So, in the meantime, lots of environments have already settled on VMware. It's hard to get that installed base to move away to a new and unknown platform.
What you do see is hybrid solutions, consisting of multiple hypervisors. That's the way they will slowly gain some ground. As to the actual merits of Hyper-V. It seems to run nicely, but there's no feeling of control. If something goes wrong in VMware/Xen/KVM you can grab logfiles and check out what's happening (even "real-time" with tail). In Hyper-V you're more or less locked out of advanced configuration settings and logging. That is something I'd really miss when migrating.
There are concerns about GM crops for a reason. To stimulate the expression of the added genetic material, you use promoter genes. And the big question is what these promoter genes will do to the crop or to the person or animal (GM soybeans) eating it. So some reservation is appropriate.
It's unfortunate that an extremely evil company (Monsanto) has made it nearly impossible to get some decent research and discussion possible about what we're doing here. Also the whole agricultural-political complex in general doesn't have a good reputation for a reason.
In the case of Roundup ready crops the solution is, IMHO, not dousing your crops with a herbicide, but to use other techniques (less monoculture!) or improved crops. We see the problems pop up already in the US, where resistance to Roundup has become a serious problem.
It's a bit reminiscent of the use of anti-biotics; overusing them creates selective pressure for the bacteria, which stimulates the development of resistance. So long-term this is not the way to go.
And as to the saving millions of people part; as far as I'm concerned the bigger problem to tackle is population growth, but that's a completely different discussion.
- Facebook offshores HUGE WAD OF CASH to Caymans - via Ireland
- Microsoft teams up with Feds, Europol in ZeroAccess botnet zombie hunt
- Justin Bieber BEGGED for a $200k RIM JOB – and got REJECTED
- Review Bigger on the inside: WD’s Tardis-like Black² Dual Drive laptop disk
- Inside Steve Ballmer’s fondleslab rear-guard action