Soon to be 100% KVM across my entire install base.
We've all been telling VMware this would happen for ages. They didn't care. They still don't. Make of that what you will.
7035 posts • joined 31 May 2010
We've all been telling VMware this would happen for ages. They didn't care. They still don't. Make of that what you will.
Let me try to be perfectly clear about this:
You're fucked. IT is fucked. Steel workers are fucked. Programers are fucked. Robot makers and butlers, cahiers and pop stars. You're all fucked. We're all fucked.
We have reached a point where we not only automate one industry's worth of jobs out of existence, but we are automating them all out of existence. At the same time, we're giving more and more power, rights and protection to capital owners while massively cutting into the rights of free speech, assembly, protest, and to organize concerning labour issues.
Despite multiple trials demonstrating that basic income programs are not only viable but shockingly efficient we are globally descending into a hyperconservative mindset that is not only xenophobic and bigoted it is greedy, grasping and violently objects to the idea of "giving handouts". So the one thing that could allow our civilizations to cope with the loss of jobs and the flood of ultra-cheap basic goods is something that is completely off the table in most nations.
So: we're fucked. There aren't going to be jobs for any but the elite, unless you happen to be willing to work for less than robots. Now, in some cases, people will indeed work for less than robots, but they will eek out a shitty, horrible existence.
Having been indoctrinated for generations never to raise our voices to those in power, the owners of capital will live high on the fruits of robotic labour, and the rest of us will slowly descend into the squalor of subsistence or barely-above-subsistence living.
This will take 50 years to play out, but the seeds of it are visible everywhere. There are no "go work this job, you'll be safe, secure and make fuckloads" jobs. For anyone. Anywhere.
You want a solution? Agitate for social change. Get the peasants revolting. Work towards a more equitable society. Convince your nation to implement social services reforms including basic income.
Unless and until we all do that, we're collectively fucked, and our children are multitudinously omnifucked.
That's the truth of the matter. If you don't like it, well, sorry. I don't lie to people if I can avoid it.
Where did I say "fallacy"?
I say study what the luddites did and didn't do, as they have been through this already. The luddites - not the so-called fallacy - are the lesson.
These vendors can adapt or they can die. There are no other choices.
You either enable IT to become as easy to work with as Amazon, or IT won't be there for long. And in order to enable IT to be as easy as Amazon you need to be able to meet IT's needs quickly, efficiently and in real time. You also need to provide them with hardware, software and services that enable IT to deliver a self-service approach to their internal customers.
That's the way the world is now. Cope.
In case you hadn't noticed, virtually all sectors are facing this issue across all of society. This is the 4th industrial revolution. At present, nobody has any solutions to the problem.
Ask the luddites. They faced this same issue. Maybe you can learn from history.
They don't need me to be a sysadmin. And in case you hadn't been paying attention, I saw the asteroid headed for sysadmins a great bloody long time ago and systems administration is no longer my day job. I'm a writer. Systems administration is a side gig I maintain only to have legitimacy in what I write. It is less than 25% of the company income at this point, and dropping fast.
So no, mate, I'm not complaining about myself. I'm complaining about you. I told the world this shit was heading down the pipe ages ago and then I got the hell out of Dodge.
Have you noticed that great big hunk of death-dealing rock hurtling towards you in the sky? Because if not, you should look up, mate. Sooner, rather than later.
Where do I sign?
As for those who buy the line that "if you've done nothing" and you "don't care if the government is listening in to your Amazon Echo," he recalled the era of J Edgar Hoover and his wide-ranging surveillance of groups he deemed unsuitable. "I wonder what political and social movements we might never have heard of if J Edgar Hoover had access to all the technology available today," he noted.
Fucking BINGO. The idea that "if you've done nothing wrong you'll be left alone" is at best naieve. More honestly it is a purposeful ignorance of reality by those whose overwhelming self interest and sociocultural myopia ensures they actively prevent themselves from caring about the plight of those not exactly like them.
It is simply not okay to believe "if you've done nothing wrong you'll be left alone". It is morally wrong, as it implies a carefully curated apathy and ignorance that harms society as a whole.
We need everyone on the line fighting this fight; each of us standing up for eachother is one ten millionth as powerful as a single one of those who seek to tear down the presumption of innocence and remove our civil liberties. It takes all of us to stand up to those in power. There is no room for apathy or willful ignorance anymore.
That's nothing more than faith speaking, and it means no more than when people bleat about their god(s).
Microsoft is a large cloud vendor, and they don't even recognize a customer's right to control their own operating system. In what universe can anyone be fool enough to believe they think customers own their own data? Or that Google believes this? Amazon?
Your data belongs to them, to use, abuse, sell and give to the snoops as they see fit. If you pay them enough money, they might let you use that data in between periods where someone else is using it.
Public cloud vendors can not be trusted. Especially American ones and most certainly ones named Microsoft.
But hey, you go put your customers' data in the cloud. I'll weep when you're sued into a hole in the ground when that data is inevitably used against your customers.
I wonder what president Trump will do with all that delicious data. How nice of you to make his oppression so easily automated.
Sadly accurate. That will do as a stand in.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'.”
The concept of "if you keep your nose clean, you'll be left alone" is nothing more than a lie told to (and only believed by) the incredibly naive. The rest of us have to live in (and try to shape our society to compensate for) a world in which even the smallest power corrupts absolutely.
The author states: "Taking a step back, it's fair to say that the majority of law-abiding citizens would want prosecutors to be able to access evidence that could help convict someone of a serious crime, regardless of how strongly they feel about their own personal privacy."
I disagree. I don't think the majority of citizens - "law abiding" or not - want the police to have any more power than they already do. A vocal minority of people trust the police. Most don't. And the police, spooks, governments and so forth haven't been doing anything to regain the trust they have lost. They can't be trusted with the power they already have. There is no reason whatsoever they should be allowed access to the treasure trove of information on our phones.
Why, you might ask? Because of the silliness of the concept of "law abiding" (shall we play No True Scotsman?). Nobody is law abiding. NOBODY. Every single one of us commits multiple infractions of the law every day. The laws are designed like this. Not only can no one person know all the laws to which they are supposed to be beholden, but many of those laws are contradictory or criminalize ordinary everyday activities.
Phones and computers contain us. Our lives in all aspects. If there were some means by which it could be assured that law enforcement agencies - from the NSA down to the local bylaw cops - were only allowed to search phones when they had a damned good reason to believe that level of privacy invasion was warranted, they had a judge signing off on it and there was layer upon layer of oversight...maybe - just maybe - we could all meet in the middle and talk about this like adults.
Unfortunately, no such means of restraining the police exists. They are too powerful, politically, for anyone to rein them in. We've see that over and over and over again, in all western nations. Cope in the US roll on out of a cruiser in response to a call and in one fluid motion murder a 12 year old boy in cold blood. No calls for him to surrender. Nothing. Why? He was playing with a toy gun in a park. They get away with it. And then the city sends the family of the murdered child a bill for $500 for the ambulance.
If police have the capability to pwn a phone they will use it to go fishing. They will use it without oversight. They will use it without warrants. They will use it to investigate every tiny crime and misdemeanor in an attempt to fine evidence - any evidence - of further things they can nail someone with.
And they will! Every single one of us, as stated above, is guilty of something. And our phones probably know what. How can we, as a society, justify handing over that level of power to an unaccountable, unrestrained and massively corrupt group of law enforcement agencies who have every interest in ruling their communities and absolutely zero interest in serving their communities?
In addition to the above, there is a quote from Generic Corrupt Cop #42: "If Apple can refuse lawful court orders to reasonably assist law enforcement, public safety will suffer. Crimes will go unsolved and criminals will go free"
So his argument - and that of authoritarians everywhere - is that it is perfectly fine to remove the presumption of innocence in order to catch the guilty. This is wrong.
It is, in fact, better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit.
Giving the cops unrestrained access to our personal lives gives them the power to go fishing to invent things to crucify us with. They can - and they will - use that power injudiciously, to further prejudice and as a means of punishment against dissidents and dissenters.
Unless and until we can solve the problems inherent in the schism between the people and those who are supposed to serve them we should absolutely and emphatically not be granting our self-styled masters yet more power over us.
Fix the system first. Then we can talk about letting that system see everything we've ever done, or ever will do.
But VMware doesn't believe that they have a problem, so to suggest fixing anything is blasphemy. Their software, in their own minds, is unimpeachable. Much like Microsoft's ardent belief that System Center is something other than a cybersexually transmitted disease.
VMware gauges themselves against System Center. Microsoft gauges System Center against VMware. Both of them are trapped in the fucking past, with software that was miserable to install, manage and maintain 10 years ago, let alone when you compare it to modern "cloud" user experiences.
Microsoft can be partially excused due to largesse. They really do have a massively captive user base. VMware does not. There are valid, viable alternatives to VMware today, and by the time VMware figures that out, they'll already be in the grave.
Some companies just can't harness enough humility to reach the escape velocity of their own hubris.
There is no time to think about this. THE DIRECTOR'S EMAILS ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY FORWARDED TO HIS HOME ADDRESS! What are you doing about that?!
"ANY device including the latest iPhones is vulnerable, if it permits the automatic installation of vendor signed updates"
Nail on the head. Vendor update mechanisms are a security vulnerability and all of our devices need to be designed with the idea that the vendor can and will eventually be compromised.
No device should ever install an update against the explicit will of the device owner. Not Apple, Not Microsoft, not Google. If you choose to enable automatic updates, that's your bellyache. But if a device is configured for security - including setting it to manual updating - then that device should not be able to be updated forcibly by any party! Any attempt to do so should brick the device, period!
Furthermore, no device should set about updating while locked. Ever. This prevents devices which are set to auto-update from being pwned by vendors if its been physically removed from the owner. Devices should ONLY set about updates when the user can be informed what is going in, and have the opportunity to cancel the updates before they proceed.
The idea that vendors are somehow trustworthy is bogus. Vendors are beholden to the governments of the nations in which they operate and thus must be considered to be as malicious an actor as the most corrupt members of the law enforcement agencies or courts to which that vendor is subject.
We, as customers need to understand and accept this. Vendors need to understand and accept this as well, as design their products to protect us (the customer) from them (the vendor and those who can command the vendor).
If you don't like that, find another reality, but this is the cold hard truth of the one we live in today.
Except that isn't the case. Apple isn't an island and this idea that corporations exist independently of the societies in which they operate is absurd.
If Apple (the corporation) or Apple (the individuals who make up the corporation) can be compelled by any legal system - or by a man in mask with a $5 wrench - to create a tool/custom firmware/what-have-you that can "hack" a phone, that phone is not secure. Anything else is handwaving away responsibility and hiding behind legal tricks instead of producing a secure device.
I'm sorry, but Apple is beholden to the laws of the United States of America and - to a lesser extent - those other nations in which it operates. If a legal means exists to force them to hack the phone then the only difference from there being a big red button that says "hack me" is the number of malicious actors that can exploit that flaw. (Namely governments and those who know which people to hit with a wrench.)
If such a flaw exists, we deserve to know this. It should be made very clear and very public. Knowing exactly which classes of malicious actors can impinge our civil liberties and violate our privacy is part of being informed about the devices we purchase. Given that everything these days is "licensed" and not "purchased", I'd go so far as to say it is part of informed consent for participating in a contract with a service provider.
This judge looks set to provide us, the consumer, with critical information. I sincerely hope Apple are unable to hide behind legal trickery and handwave away responsibility for adequately securing their devices.
Apple has said it shouldn't be done. I see nowhere they said it couldn't be done. Apple have said that there are no conventional/official means available to hack the phone. That does not mean that the method suggested by the FBI - create a compromised firmware and upload it to the device, which can apparently be done without needing to enter the PIN - cannot be used. It is simply that this is unconventional and not an official method of recovering the data.
Apple would indeed have to be able to demonstrate why the FBI is wrong here. That's what courts are for; to allow experts to present evidence and to make decisions based on that evidence. Let's ponder some scenarios.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and it is later proven they did know of a way, they go to jail.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and someone comes up with a way, but it requires Apple's assistance, they don't go to jail, but they are compelled to help law enforcement do their jobs.
If Apple had stated under oath that there is no way they know about to hack the phone and nobody can show how the phone might be hacked, then there is no reason they go to jail. They told the truth and there is no evidence to show they are lying.
Why is that any different than you getting on the stand and saying "no, your honour, I was not at the pub that night between 11pm and 3am"?
If you claim this and you're proven to be lying (say by video evidence) you go to jail.
If you claim this and nobody can prove that you were there nothing happens.
Apple is not required to prove their innocence. They are asked to cooperate in an investigation. A means by which they can do so has been suggested. If there is some reason they cannot comply with that means they have to demonstrate why that is.
What is wrong that? How is that morally or legally wrong?
Then we have a problem, as the phone is vulnerable to attack by the bad guys. The devices need to have a means to be made immune to this attack vector. It's as simple as that.
If the phone can have a compromised firmware uploaded without the phone owner's permission it is flawed. At which point, we should all know this so that we can bin the units and seek adequately protected units from someone else.
If the phone is not susceptible to any attacks that Apple's own experts are aware of, then they get to take the stand and claim under oath "they know of no means to meet the judge's order" and we all get to cheer in the streets.
Either they can do what the judge wants and thus the phone is flawed, or they can't and the phone lives up to the hype.
If the phones are designed properly then Apple should not be able to pwn one of their phones to comply with this sort of request. Quite frankly, that is the only adequate protection we will ever have. Hiding behind a technicality of the law will never be good enough.
The law still places some emphasis on an individual's word. You get relevant experts on the phone to come in and say under oath that they know of no means to attack the phone. If the judge can find noone who knows how to pwn it then the device is presumed invulnerable for the purposes of that case and off they go.
If the experts refuse to answer whether or not you can pwn the phone, of the experts are caught lying under oath, they are in Deep Shit. They'll get thrown in the clink until they are no longer in contempt of court.
This isn't about proving a negative. It relies on the assumption that people under oath tell the truth, especially when there are more than one of them. Without that assumption our entire legal system falls apart.
"A special OS firmware build that disables the "slow-down after x tries" is effectively a backdoor into the device because it makes it possible for someone to get in (with a 'brute force' key). So now the government has this special build Apple gave it that will make it possible to get into any iPhone 5c - with or without warrant."
Yes. If it works, if Apple can deliver then we know the iPhone 5c is vulnerable and never lived up to the claims that it would protect your privacy in the first place.
Truth is more important than a comforting lie. Even when that truth is the bitter realization that the trust you placed in a company's advertising was misplaced.
If the company can compromise the phone, then the phone is flawed, period.
We need to know which devices are secure, not hide behind some technicality of law to protect us. The bad guys don't honour the law.
As a professional writer I can assure you that using lots of words is a hell of a lot easier than using only a few. "Lots of words" is largely a stream of consciousness thing. There's no editing for brevity, which takes rather a lot of bandwidth. I can cheerfully knock out a 5000 word paper on a given topic easier than I can write a 500 word summary blog. Human minds are funny.
As for "quoting my importance in general", where exactly did I do that? I don't particularly view myself as important. Indeed, a critical part of studying businesses the way I do is realizing the irrelevance of the individual, especially the pundits. So if you somehow took something above as indicating my 'importance', I'd love to know what it is.
Perhaps more to the point on all of this, I don't care about NetApp in the form of the company, the products or most of the individuals who work there. I only have couple handfuls of friends there, and they are decent enough at their jobs that if NetApp imploded tomorrow they'd be employed again by the end of the day.
What I do care about is NetApp in the form of the effect it has on the industry as a whole. NetApp is a large company with many customers and a history that once upon a time made it an important disruptor in the storage space. Who are they now? How did they get there? What will they become?
The evolution of companies and, more specifically, the reasons that companies evolve in that fashion is of immense interest to me. Again, very much like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter: it is something I find incredibly interesting from a purely scientific perspective.
My primary interest is not merely in the facts of a puzzle. Facts are a means to an end; a tool to explore the real curiosity: in all things I enjoy studying how and why people (and animals) delude themselves. Why to we reject objective truths? Why do we discount the lessons of history? Why do we cling to hope, to faith, to an employer and - above all else - why do we champion vendors from whom we have purchased goods, even when there is no reason to champion that vendor other than to justify our own purchases?
Why do we wrap our identities up in products, brands...even chosen interpretations of scientific evidence? Why does science proceed one funeral at a time? Why do cults of personality form and vendor reality distortion fields exist?
NetApp is a truly fascinating topic for someone who studies the above. Not because NetApp itself matters, but because of the socking depth of the dichotomy between objective reality, what history has to teach us and what the True Believers believe. Cisco and Apple are probably the only two other companies in Tech that have reality distortion fields anywhere near as strong. I find it utterly fascinating.
What's even more fascinating is how much is the result of fear. I love talking to NetApp employees in private conference, because when you've earned their trust and they are convinced you'll never tell a soul their name or what they said, the truth simply pours out.
The fear and terror of speaking out of turn that exists day after day until it simply fades into the background, a dull part of one's consciousness, but a very active and real constraint on not only speech, but thought itself. There is clear evidence from multiple individuals that the pressure to conform one's very thoughts to "the message" is so intense that it creates a demonstrable strain; physical tension builds up not unlike that seen in PTSD clients.
When the barriers are removed, however, and a "safe space" is provided...the sorted details that are made available! Pouring out the naughty bits is more than a little confessional. The individuals in question are visibly less stressed than before. When they're done, they put their psychological armour back on and ride once more into the breech.
None of this is shocking or abnormal. This is - to a greater or lesser degree - simply how Big Business is done in the grand of US of A. I am positive that not everyone feels as constrained as those who pour their souls into a handful of beers. Indeed, it's those who are most ethically or morally compromised by the constraints of their position are most likely to experience this stress, and probably should be looking for a more fulfilling career.
But why do they stay? Why do they parrot the party line? How, exactly, do they succeed in convincing themselves of the lie when, if given time to reflect, what they believe is obviously quite different from what they espouse for their job?
Personally, I can't understand how the above sorts of things don't absolutely fascinate everyone. There are simply so many data points to collect, and there's so much analysis to do! NetApp is a company with so many different groups - both internally and externally - intersecting with so many different agendas...it's just brain candy to puzzle types like myself.
Maybe you'd care to contribute data of your own? Starting with why you choose faith in "the message" and in business/economic choices that have proven time and again to be unlikely to succeed? Or is it that you have faith in individuals? Perhaps that new individuals doing the exact same thing as the previous individuals will somehow net a different outcome? I'm sure your input would be fascinating.
As to the other anonymous coward who felt that posting my upvote/downvote data was somehow "bragging": I'd love to know why you feel that way. I posted raw data. I am unsure why raw data is "bragging".
What about it seems worthy of bragging to you? Previous commenters have indicated that they feel the upvote to downvote ratio is wholly inadequate. You seem to indicate that you feel differently. What is the numeric threshold for your belief that those numbers constitute "bragging"? Is it the volume of votes (which should only be indicative of number of posts over the years) or the ratio? If the ratio, what ratio of upvotes to downvotes do you consider brag-worthy?
I think we've stumbled upon another fascinating topic!
No, I used humour on the internet. I realize that for some, humour is a foreign concept, but do try to keep up.
I have no beef with NetApp. In truth, I it would be hard to care less what happens to them one way or another. Their fate is to me no more or less interesting than the fluid dynamics of the Great Red Spot on Jupiter, or examining the structural evolution of microbial mats as they grow in my fishtank.
NetApp is an ephemeral concept. It is disconnected from me and my life. The study of NetApp and those who work there is scientifically interesting, but not remotely relevant to me in any way. NetApp is nothing more than points of data to be analysed.
While I find it amusing enough to joke about - much in the same way I like to make jokes about the more interesting fluid dynamic discoveries of the Great Red Spot - NetApp is really just one more company to analyze. One more set of people to observe. One more exercise in social interaction, group dynamics and economic theory.
As for being downvoted, go right ahead! Currently I am at "upvoted 21936 times and downvoted 4159 times". Feel free to add more data points to that analysis in whichever fashion moves you. The more data, the better.
Always, the more data, the better.
Dimitris is a teddy bear. I hope he'll let me buy him a few beers at the next conference.
Netapp is perfect! Nothing about their products or strategies needs to change! They are well positioned to return to growth and continue from there to dominance in the tech sector! I know because anyone who questions CDOT will get downvoted into oblivion and then NetApp employees will make fun of them on the Internets! This means it clearly is true!
And don't, under any circumstances ever ask NetApp to back up their claims. Don't under any circumstances suggest that they might use marketing to stretch the truth, carefully omit information or simply choose not to address uncomfortable topics. Otherwise, when the write mean things about you it might be one whole blog.
That'll totally reverse Netapp's fortunes. You just watch.
WAFL. WAFL everywhere. WAFL is the answer to everything.
Except where Solidfire is the answer, of course. (Shhhhhhhhh, don't point that out!)
"Why aren't VVOLs everywhere"?
Because the very few arrays that support VVOLs are stupidly expensive and deliver an ass-tier value/$. When VVOLs start showing up in storage systems people actually want to buy, you'll see increased usage. Imagine that.
Of course, by the time the crusty old dinosaurs remove their over-inflated heads from their asses and figure that one out, hyperconvergence will be an unstoppable juggernaut and VVOLs will be nothing more than a quaint means of making legacy storage less horrible for those unfortunate enough to be stuck having to cling to the past. (And don't get me started on "it only works with the stupid expensive licensing tier" bit.)
Companies don't make money resizing LUNs. They make money doing stuff with their workloads. VVOLs was a nice step, but too little, too late, too expensive.
Yes, yes, I realize that there is a whole category of large enterprises that give negative fucks about the price of anything. What should be noted, however, is that they are shoving their piles of burning cash at Amazon, not at keeping on premises stuff going. If you're going to pay too much for IT, why not get someone to take care of most of it for you while you're at it?
That leaves VVOLs and legacy storage vendors where, exactly? All clamoring for the same, shrinking piece of pie? That increasingly mythical large enterprise that just doesn't care how much anything costs, they'll splash the cash because you take them out for hookers and beer?
Have fun with that, legacy storage vendors. Write me a post card from the other side of the grave.
I read the article. I also read the bit where apparently we're supposed to 'train up the proles' because 'there's a perpetual skills shortage in tech'. Both ideas are bullshit.
First, there is no skill shortage in tech. There's just a lack of companies willing to actually pay a living wage. They whine and cry and carry on about how expensive nerds are and could they please, please, please import some cheap labour.
Secondly, if you train up the proles to fill this non-existent skills shortage what you're going to do is create massive downwards wage pressure on a sector that already isn't paying well enough. It sucks that everyone else has shit or no jobs, but flooding them all into tech is just going to destroy the economic benefits of tech, it isn't going to help the downtrodden at all.
This creates another problem: training people to do tech is expensive and time consuming. It has a cost. If you drive the wages for tech workers into the ground then who is going to want to spend their own money on this?
That means that people choosing tech as a career because it is what they love (and hence are willing to pay for the education themselves) basically evaporate. In relatively short order you can only get bodies into the now-prole-class-wages tech sector by spending muchos government wonga on training up people from other failed sectors, and that stops delivering a return on investment fairly quickly.
Look, I am not remotely against spending money training the proles up so that they can (hopefully) get better jobs. I just don't believe tech is the sector to target. Wage pressures in tech are already downwards and both political and economic forces are aligned to increase that downward pressure. Worse, tech doesn't tend to benefit the actual economy all that much, unless you happen to be the US of A.
No, if you want to train up the proles and jumpstart the economy Look for post-tech sectors. Specifically I am thinking here nanotechnology, genetics, applied biology and robotics. These fields need massive amounts of technicians and there are never enough available.
What's more, the UK, Canada or any non-US location has a very real shot at creating centers of excellence. If we start now, we could end up with a trained workforce large enough and with an early enough head start on what promise to be the next economic sectors driving the global economy that the Americans don't get to sit on the top of the mountain.
Tech is dead. We are well down the path towards industrializing code development, automating systems administration and otherwise reducing the need for bodies, even as we are churning more of them out of educational facilities than are needed. Don't doom the proles to spend the rest of their careers in another mediocre, failed/failing sector. Give them a real chance by pointing them in the direction of the next big thing.
There's just a shortage of companies willing to pay a living wage.
"Honestly, I prefer...system Center Orchestrator or UCS Director"
That's just messed up.
Edit: assuming that it's a single global namespace, then I want. If it is another Teamdrive with an overly complicated management and assignation structure for shared storage, no thanks. (We already have Teamdrive for that.) But "Datacore for file storage" with a CIFS sharing mechanism no more complicated than a Synology - which is sort of what I read this as - THAT I most definitely want.
Rubrik has 2D Chris Wahl. 2D Chris Whal is the hero storage needs right now, but not the one it deserves.
Ops wouldn't be needed if devs knew how to write proper code.
"Operations staff, who have spent their careers learning how IT systems work...can shorten the length of time it takes for developers to understand the infrastructure by orders of magnitude."
"Operations staff have a lot to contribute to DevOps, in the short- and long-term. They just need to see it."
You have done an excellent job in this piece of explaining why operations teams are required in the short term for DevOps. Specifically: knowledge transfer. You have also discussed at great legnth how it benefits the business to convince the operations teams to participate in this knowledge transfer willingly.
You did not even remotely touch on the role of operations in the long term. What sort of positions they might fill once the knowledge transfer is completed nor what value the business will see in continuing their employment past that point.
This entire article has been about the importance of convincing ops not to fear for their jobs when DevOps begins implementation, but I must say that I finished it feeling only more convinced that once the knowledge trasnfer is complete, operations will be kicked to the curb.
Can you please help me understand how DevOps is anything other than a protracted method for handing everything over to developers?
Furthermore, given that developers are functionally allergic to testing, QA, UAT or any form of resiliancy, redundancy or stability, why should I, as a business owner, want to undertake a DevOps transition that seems to be aimed at eliminating the positions of the people who actually keep things running?
Bonus question: how many DevOps transitions are actually "successful"? How many are just some manager throwing a copy of The Pheonix Project into the dev pen and then waiting until they can start firing ops teams?
What is the benefit to me, as an operations guy for taking the risk of working to make DevOps succeed?
What is the benefit to me, as a business owner for taking the risk of trying DevOps at all?
"truism that women usually have to work twice as hard to be seen as even half as good is still alive and well"
Would that this weren't the case. I honestly don't believe that the majority of men (at least in tech) think women are less competent. That said, there is a significant minority that harbour this believe - spoken or not - and those individuals seem to be pretty cognate with the cohort attracted to power.
For my money, the five best techies I've ever met consist of three women, one man and one individual whose gender identity is still ambiguous after several years.
Let's hope we can collectively overcome this bit of gender tribalism. We've better things to spend cycles on.
Thanks for that.
Apologies, but who isn't Canadian and is polite? I has a confused.
Significance != value
We just found a million, billion suns. A million, billion. One quadrillion. 1 x 10^15.
1,000,000,000,000,000 suns that were just casually blocked behind the core of the Milky Way; a fraction of the observable sky.
We are insignificant. We are small. And we are all star stuff.
I guess since you don't speak English and you are writing for a living, you should soon be broke. I can't take this article seriously when I read that. Isn't "sometime" a real word? I am not a native English speaker so I could be wrong.
You're wrong. Also more than a little constrained of thought. English is spoken by over half a billion people with almost 340 million confirmed native speakers around the world. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of dialects. The language has evolved and is evolving in multiple different directions simultaneously in different parts of the world.
"Somewhen" is a perfectly legitimate adverb. One that was in popular usage predominantly in the 19th century, but which persisted in isolated pockets (especially Western Canada, where I am from) until modern times. It has recently seen something of a modern revival, thanks to the internet and the admixture of dialects and cultures it has enabled.
The usage of "somewhen" has evolved since the 19th century. In the 19th century "somewhen" would be used very much interchangeably with how most cultures use "sometime" today. In Western Canada (and a couple other places, such as New Zeland) where "somewhen" has persisted, its usage has actually become different from "sometime".
To wit: "sometime" is typically used when there is a general idea of when "sometime" might be. E.g. "Sometime before supper". The exact details of the time are a little fuzzy, but it is possible to give reasonably actionable timeframes if pressed.
"Somewhen" is used when the target time is more fuzzy. For example: "I'll get around to finishing painting that wall somewhen; I just don't know when I can get away long enough to do so."
So there you go, you have learned something. And I, for one, am glad to use words you don't know.
It's bleedingly obvious if you live and breathe networking all day, every day. But when I started asking around, I was shocked how few people knew most of this existed, despite this functionality now being offered by many ISPs, even out in the sticks.
At least it's something. The first small admission that European citizens might have rights. Canada hasn't even managed to negotiate that much for its citizens! Not that I expect a civil-liberties hating douchecanoe like Trudeau to ever even try. He's too busy signing away Canada's future with the TPP and cracking down on its citizens with Bill C-51.
Whomever wins, we lose.
It really depends on what you want it for. If you just want it as a CIFS/SMB target, then deduplication will probably work fine. I say probably because I have not actually tried it on these units and so I have no idea if pinning the CPU for hours on end actually fits within their thermal envelope. I'd kinda hope it does, but who knows?
I have a WD Sentinel running Storage Server 2012 R2 that I hacked to enable deduplication. I actually use it for backup my media server (ironically stored on an ioSafe ARM unit) in case Cryptolocker pays me a visit. I'm pleasantly surprised at how well it manages to reduce total storage size.
But if you want to - as I do - jettison the "BDR" role of the ioSafe x86 units and start using them for bigger and better things? Sadly, there Microsoft's rather awful post-process deduplication will not do well for you at all. I say this from bitter - bitter - experience.
*looks at his ioSafe*
If you find a blender that blends that, I'll take two.
Clearly you work in the "large enterprise enterprise where money is no object" world. In the real world, where the majority of the world's businesses are, we don't have access to unlimited bandwidth. In short, we can't or at least can't afford to replicate that data in real time. The data needs to get buffered somewhere before being spooled out to the DR site.
From the article:
In its designed-for role, I find the BDR 515 quite interesting. To my knowledge, this makes the ioSafe BDR515 the only unit available that solves a very real backup vulnerability gap experienced by small and medium businesses that backup their data offsite over the internet.
Many SMBs back up to a local "cloud gateway" that will then slowly send that data to its offsite destination over the course of days or weeks. Until that data is copied off of the cloud gateway device it is still vulnerable to whatever local disasters might affect the local data centre. The ioSafe BDR 515 would be immune to that, ensuring that as soon as the backups are completed the data is protected. This is something I've been waiting for a long time.
Because the server is essentially *inside* a heat sink. There are two enormous fans on the back that serve to cool the heatsink. Air from outside does not actually get blown over the components of the x86 gubbins inside, just the external side of the heatsink to which they're bolted.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017