17 posts • joined 27 Sep 2012
Odd, I thought that CCl4 was pretty much off-limits in the industry because is it is very carcinogenic. I do remember a chemistry professor mourning that he couldn't use it anymore as a solvent for reactions involving radicals, which it is very well suited for.
I didn't know that it is bad for the ozone layer as well. If Chinese companies use it on a large scale for whatever reason, I'd really not like to be anywhere near them.
Re: Revenue generator
Very true, back from the start it was all about the money. It's the combination of certification and training which can be quite profitable.
What vendors seem to forget, is that you need properly trained people to get your products to work in the marketplace to begin with. That should be the driving force and not making money, but I guess this will never come true.
The whole ITIL and PRINCE2 thing is something I've never understood to be honest. My guess is that it's really popular in large, rigid, top-heavy (as in too many managers, red tape) IT organizations. The problem with both is that they try so hard to be risk averse, that you create a very static environment, which is almost violently opposed to changes.
MCA and MCM had poor ROI, certification in general
Well, what they don't tell, is that you didn't get enough ROI on getting a master certification. Since it was rather costly, but only valid on a specific version of a product (Say: Exchange 2007), you would have to go through it again and again. Add to that, the fact that the added value of this certification wasn't properly acknowledged in the marketplace, so it's no wonder people were not lining up for it.
As to the regular certifications, I think any IT professional should be aware of the fact that just having passed exams doesn't say a lot. There's a lot of web sites out there which "offer" exact copies of the live exams so the only skill you need is memorization. I've known someone who passed the Exchange 5.5 exam without having seen the product! On the other hand, a lot of IT professionals are required to pass exams for their employer and experience can/will work against you sometimes, so here the vendor creates a problem for themselves.
I agree with exams reflecting real life scenarios and actual understanding of the topics involved. Unfortunately, vendors tend to use it to push certain technologies/features or stupid memorization of facts. Also, there's a definite lack of teaching the basics. In the early days you were supposed to pass the Networking Essentials and TCP/IP courses; which proved to be invaluable many years on. Now that's taken as a given, although I see some changes in the course ware come up lately.
The PowerShell hype is getting to me a bit as well, it's all over the course ware for one of the Win2012R2 courses (20410) and I think that's overdoing it. In a recent VMware exam they showed how it should be done; you had to fix an existing script instead of writing one from scratch; now that shows that you understand what you're doing.
Re: Those treaties typically don't benefit democracies
You're very right about this one. The sheer arrogance of the US in enforcing "trade agreements" which effectively mean "give up all your rights for our big corporations" is stunning. The secrecy surrounding this agreement says it all. It's appalling that the mainstream media isn't calling out the US on this treaty. We're effectively throwing away our rights and granting them to corporations.
Something as simple as banning smoking advertisements can get you into court with the tobacco industry. Also coming up is a try by the big pharmaceutical companies to drive up prices of medicines (getting them at the same level as the US) and even increasing patents concerning healthcare.
Why even bother calling it a trade agreement?
A link (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2014/04/new-obama-administration-report-targets-tpp-countries-public-interest-policies-as-trade-barriers-to-.html) containing some actual recommendations for countries like Malaysia and Japan, was so gross and so insensitive to those countries' sovereignty, that it was almost laughable.
Is the US completely out of it's mind? Any sane politician wouldn't sell out it's countries citizens to the corporatist regime in the US. You might as well let the US (it's corporations that is) take over your country, there's not a lot of difference.
What really bothers me about all this, is the fact that mainstream media is completely ignoring what's going on and the implications of the measures in this so-called trade agreement. They should be screaming murder over this. Also, why does the US still think it can force it's stupid policies on any other country in the world?
Re: What a load of developer old tosh
Totally agree here. I'm supporting my mother, who has only recently started using a PC. She acknowledged that you cannot go without one any more, so we try to support her as best as we can. This really changes the way you look at this. Whereas we, as experienced users, can relatively easily find our way, there's a lot of stuff which is simply illogical, or even stupid, and trying to look at it from an inexperienced person's point of view is something more people should do.
Re: VW Badge
No, the Beastie Boys are opposed to any sort of commercial use of their songs. That's something the offending company could/should have known from the start. Note that this type of thing is a matter of principle; lots of bands earn money by having commercials use their songs.
Now, Goldieblox took things one step further, by pre-emptively suing the original artist. With that, you've lost any semblance of sympathy in my book. The suit by the Beastie Boys points to this as being done on purpose, to generate publicity and I tend to agree. It's just showing off the company's true colors I guess.
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.
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...