* Posts by Trevor_Pott

7037 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Microsoft sued by staff traumatized by child sex abuse vids stashed on OneDrive accounts

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

What <i>the hell</i> are Microsoft doing going through our files?

Neither OneDrive nor Dropbox (and presumably not Google Drive) can be trusted. Use Sync.com for a sync-n-share solution that is designed from the start such that the vendor can't crack open the storage and poke around inside. Not only that, they're Canadian, so it's at least a wee bit harder for the government to useless try to demand they do so.

Now consider this: Onedrive is built both into the OS and into Office. It is a miserable to change and nearly impossible to remove default. The fact that Microsoft can and do go rifling around in our Onedrive accounts means that everything Microsoft tells us about their "commitment" to privacy and security are absolute bullshit.

Microsoft's continual demands of "trust us" aren't just wearing thin...they should, at this point, be considered criminally misleading.

22
4
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @palpy: Yup. Quite bullshitty.

Nobody has a problem with them going after child pornographers and murders. The problem is that just as soon as they can automate the trawling they'll be going after someone with a dime bag of weed or who fixed their neighbor's deck for $100 and a case of beer, but didn't have the proper permits or report to the taxman.

If we allow LEAs and spooks an inch, they'll take the whole fucking galaxy. This has been proven time after time after time after time.

I, for one, do not consent to live in a fucking panopticon. Especially since I do not accept the morality of the batshit crazy protestant fundementals that run the place I live in. A place I never had a choice about, but was born into their puritanical laws and hateful bigotry.

I don't think it's okay to create a society in which every single infraction is catalogued (and eventually automatically prosecuted). Change requires the ability to dissent. Dissent isn't possible in the panopticon. Do remember: it's only a few of us that get the opportunity to choose which laws we live under.

Put the screws to people long enough and eventually they'll be more than willing to choose death rather than submission. At that point, you've got a problem on your hands.

54
0

New Windows 10 privacy controls: Just a little snooping – or the max

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I can kill Win 7's telemetry features using a hosts file. Windows 10 has all its shit hardcoded in so that I need to control the local network's firewall to prevent it from sending my data to the MS/the spooks/Trump's muslim-list concentration camp "solution". (Windows firewall or third-party firewalls installed on the Windows 10 system can't block MS's spyware.)

Big fucking difference.

That, and MS keeps turning all shit back on. So they can't be trusted, and they keep proving it over and over. What's more, the government they must answer to can't be trusted either. Doubly so now that Trump is in charge.

$deity help you if you're a political dissident in the US with the wrong skin colour and you use Windows 10...

5
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: This:

WRONG. Totally relevant. Everyone knows.

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The US lost either way. By electing Trump, however, the fuckers ensured the whole world loses too.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: bah

But governments are also part of the problem space! They are also threat actors against which we, the people, need defending!

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Terry Myerson is the Endpoint Antichrist

Microsoft's pick to run Windows and related concerns is one of the most tone deaf and customer hostile executives in our industry. He could be replaced by a grade school collage of a middle finger and a shrug emoji and the entire world would never notice the difference. Now that's "fuck you" money.

Must be nice.

22
1

Asteroid nearly gave Earth a new feature, two days after its discovery

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Biggest fish fry in history

Pfffffft. Not even close.

8
0

Fedora 25: You've got that Wayland feelin', oh, that Wayland feelin'

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Who's the guy in the picture?

"Seems you either can't read or have comprehension problems. Try harder."

I do have problems comprehending why you think you're so important people should be developing graphics subsystems with features you want, instead of features that everyone else wants.

Get out there and convince people that what you want is important to more than just yourself and go fund development of the features you want. It isn't that hard, really. The rest of us managed to get an entire distribution without systemd funded, because we didn't like what TPTB were doing. Surely, if you're so correct, and your view so common or important you can rally your vast social circle to accomplish the same.

Oh, that's right...you're a friendless bigot without any social skills! Too bad. Suck it up princess, 'cause ain't noone got time for you.

Beer, because after this thread, everyone could use one.

2
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Another major change no one is asking for

"They can implement or not implement whatever they like. But if they want their system to be a serious replacement to something that DOES have certain functionality then yes, they need to implement it. Not doing so is just arrogant and lazy."

Wrong. Their system will be the serious replacement to X because the number of people who want the remote windowing is too small to matter. The functionality you are moaning about isn't important. That may be lazy, but it isn't arrogant. They are correct and you are not.

"Oh FFS spare us that write-it-yourself argument you zealots always fall back on when you're backed into a corner. You think many sys admins are experts in linux graphics subsystems programming in C? You fucking clown."

You can get together with all those numerous people whom you claim want this functionality and fund development. There are umpteen crowdfunding sites. Get over yourself, you self-important goblin.

"Oh well clearly you have your finger on the pulse of the linux desktop community. So give us a quick rundown then of all the people around the world who've been demanding a replacement for X and some stats about what percentage of all linux users they are. Take your time."

I couldn't list all the people who want it, because there isn't space enough. Suffice it to say that the last time the numbers were run (I know about this having been done in 2012), over 70% of respondents (and it was 1000+ respondents) wanted X burned down and replaced outright. And so it was.

"You seriously need to get a clue mate. I mean that."

Okay. Got one. Several in fact. Why haven't you gone out and gotten some of your own?

2
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Who's the guy in the picture?

You're the one bellyaching that people won't volunteer to build a graphics subsystem to your personal specifications, mate. "Bigot believes others should do as they demand, and has a tantrum when they don't: news at 11." When you cry alone in the dark, can anyone stand you enough to notice, let alone care?

3
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Another major change no one is asking for

Why should devs writing this for free implement something that only a small fraction of the userbase have been shown to want, especially if those devs don't want or need it? You're free to add the capability if you want. I don't want it. Nobody I know in the real world wants it. (But we *do* want RDP compatibility.)

As for your narrow view of the community, who cares? I know lots of people who complain about X all the time. Hell, I'm one of them. X is fucking broken, and has needed to be burned to the ground for ages. I'm glad it's finally happening. So very, very many things that have plagued people so many of us for so long can finally start being ironed out.

Now, as to your desire to have remote window drawing instead of using RDP and doing full remote sessions, that's stupid, and you're stupid for wanting it that way. That said, nothing prevents you from building a Wayland compositor that will support this. If there are so many people who want this, you can take the reference compositor (Weston) and build that functionality into it.

The majority of us will use remote session capabilities like normal people and thank our respective deities (or lack thereof) that we don't have to use remote windowing over WAN links like it was the bloody stone ages anymore.

Cheers.

4
6
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

(I lied. It's baked into *Weston*, which is the reference compositor for Weyland. Please don't eat me...)

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Another major change no one is asking for

@Boltar: Wayland isn't systemd, and its devs aren't fucking Pottering. It isn't about shoving some monolithic horror on the community against our will. It isn't trying to take over. Wayland is an honest attempt to do things better, and most of the community is behind it.

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIctzAQOe44 . It explains everything you'll need to know.

TL;DW on it: for all that there are things you like about X, it had become nearly impossible for the devs to maintain it, there weren't enough devs actually offering to maintain it, and a lot of people (myself included) wanted more modern features from our graphics subsystem which simply couldn't be done without tearing X down to the ground and rebuilding.

So they did. *shrug*

For the record: X is far closer to systemd than Weyland. X essentially became it's own OS. (The dumbest OS you've ever seen, as the video says.) Weyland does one thing, and - we hope - does it well.

5
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Who's the guy in the picture?

Hey boltar: you're a piece of shit human being and I hope you drop dead. And yes, that's a judgement, you bigoted fuckbag.

8
5
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: So Proud

They've not got their act together. They still use systemd. Sadly, more and more is getting married to it. Now let's talk about Weyland and systemd...

6
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

You shouldn't need remote rendering. FreeRDP server is being baked into Wayland so that you can get proper RDP. Not VNC that needs a firehose of a connection, but RDP. Or, at least, such was the case last time I checked...

2
1

TV anchor says live on-air 'Alexa, order me a dollhouse' – guess what happens next

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: You realize that you've got to enable voice ordering?

I could theoretically create "just an interface" where by moving my dick up, down and side to side I work out letters using tap code. It's an interface. It's just a completely pointless and utterly moronic interface.

Just because an interface exists doesn't make it a good idea.

27
0

D-Link sucks so much at Internet of Suckage security – US watchdog

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Cheap - Reliable - Secure ... pick any two.

Bullshit on all counts. But keep peddling there, sonny.

Switches, routers and cameras of the sort D-Link makes aren't all that expensive to keep in support, if you know what you're doing. Unfortunately, internal politics, egos and technical pride make these sorts of things nearly impossible.

We're long past the days where you can claim, for example, that Linux is inadequate for running a switch or a router. There are even distributions that run on the very gear D-Link sells. Working with these sorts of communities, and in cooperation with other vendors, can result in systems that keep themselves up to date, have decent QA, formal beta programs, release rings and so forth.

Of course, that then requires agreeing on standards, putting aside egos and thinking of the customer. So don't expect it to happen without regulatory intervention.

Oh, look, that's exactly what's about to happen...

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Why pick on them alone?

DougS: Short version? Netgear are cleaning up their own house. Linksys are too. Asus are too big to fight with as a first go-round. The rest are too hard to get at.

D-Link have a significant US presence, are small enough to be a great test case, and can't show that they've made any significant movement towards righting the ship whatsoever. They're easy pickings, and the FTC needs to establish precedent before going after everyone else.

This isn't about D-Link. They're irrelevant to the larger agenda. This is all about setting the stage for minimum security standards as a regulatory requirement. The FTC wants to make the power grab and claim enforcement before Congress gets around to it. This is mostly because "what do we do about the internet of shit" has started to become an election issue.

The FTC has to move now, or they lose their chance. D-Link is just the wrong company, doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

5
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: D-Link needs to pay its astroturfers better

Hi, djzoey. My day job is working with vendors. Normally, I write marketing content for them. You know, whitepapers, blogs, technical marketing content, or channel-facing stuff like sell sheets or training. Some of this leads into consulting with the customers, often spanning the whole of the organization.

On the side, I write for technology magazines (including The Register), and have a tech consulting business where I am the systems administrator for a number of clients. (Keeps me honest if I actually have to work at the coalface from time to time!) I even write software.

Among the software I have written is code for embedded systems. These include (but are not limited to) switches and routers. I have even been responsible for packaging my code along with a standardized switching or routing operating system (both Linux and VxWorks) and creating firmware images, along with QA, bug fixing and more.

I thusly submit my experience as someone who has greater than "zero knowledge and experience on what goes one behind the scenes of Mfr'g and how routers really work". I won't speak for any of the other commenters directly, but I suspect many have equal or greater experience.

As a D-Link customer, I have become appalled by how D-Link handles updates. As someone who operates in the broader IT industry at multiple levels, I'm not just appalled at how D-Link handles updates, I'm furious at what I believe to be criminal negligence on D-Link's part that has affected not just the millions of D-Link customers, but potentially billions of individuals via second-order effects related to the compromise of D-Link products as a result of the aforementioned negligence.

As a consultant, I am horrified by the business decisions made and I believe they will ultimately be hugely detrimental to D-Link. As a channel partner, I'm terrified by what D-Link's decisions mean in terms of shifting a truly abominable support burden to the channel partner. As an IT marketing writer, I'm saddened by pretty much everything you have written in this thread.

The real question that needs to be asked is - despite your assertions - will D-Link learn from this? And if so, what will they learn?

Register readers will, I'm sure, be nearly unanimous in what we hope that D-Link will learn. Regulatory entities and security professionals are pretty up front about what they want D-Link to learn. But D-Link themselves? I personally have my doubts that A) they're corporately capable of learning lessons and B) they give enough fucks to do so.

The time where the security of unattended computers (from switches and routers to more modern "internet of things" devices) can be blatantly neglected is coming to a sharp end. The problems are now affect so many people that the ongoing criminal neglect of IT vendors has attracted regulatory attention. This is becoming a politically important issue requiring regulatory intervention to resolve.

Now, I don't know if you've noticed, but when politicians have to regulate something they don't understand, they tend to be pretty damned heavy handed about it. The wrist slap D-Link is going to get from the FTC is irrelevant. You and I both know they don't have the ability to hit D-Link for enough to matter in the medium term. D-Link doesn't care about the FTC's intervention, and from a purely business sense, nor should it.

But the FTC intervention heralds something for more damning for D-Link: the cautious gaze or wary elected officials, in the USA and everywhere else. If D-Link (and the other vendors) don't get their houses in order the FTC slapdown will be but the first of a series of increasingly more uncomfortable regulatory interventions ultimately resulting in crushing new regulations that will drive commodity vendors whose business model is built on peddling shit without support out of business.

Thus, being perfectly clear about this: D-Link has three choices: shut down the company and return all the money to shareholders, get pummeled into oblivion by increasingly punitive fines and eventually obliterated by regulation, or start properly supporting the things you sell.

You choose. Choose wisely.

Now, if you want to call me a "troll" for saying the above, that's fine. But I think we'll leave it to the reader to decide if I have the experience necessary to make the analysis I just emitted believable.

8
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@djzoey

I use D-link products. A lot. I live in the SMB space, and for a long time D-link was all they could afford. And I must say: you're full of shit.

Are D-link reliable (within limits), and relatively long-lasting? Yes. The problem is that D-link is worse about updates than an Android phone manufacturer.

If all you want is a modest devices that performs the advertised duties as of the date of manufacture, you're good. Thing is, that isn't good enough, and hasn't been since the 90s.

At a *bare minimum*, security flaws need to be patched, and they just aren't. Beyond that, D-link should continue updating the firmware of a given device until they are ready to retire the model. This is where D-link's customer-hostile policies really shine through.

Take, for example, the DGS-1216T. It comes in two hardware versions: A and D. Version A has a terrible firmware that is not only bug-ridden, it can't even do basic VLANs properly! Version D, however, had the ability to upgrade to a new firmware that enabled basic functionality (like VLANs). Massive - massive - feature gap, but both hardware revisions are called the same model!

So here you might be a small business, with a bunch of DGS-1216T units deployed, and learn that at some point in the future you need to start using VLANs. You log into one of your DGS-1216T units, find out that it's possible to use, and set about making the rest of your IT purchases based on the assumption that all is well.

Then, at deployment time, you go to log into your switches to enable VLANs across the fabric and, low and behold, not all the DGS-1216T units have the same functionality, nor is there firmware to bring them to feature parity. Well, shit.

And that - that right there - is what life with D-link is like.

Product neglect. Rampant product neglect. Marketing rules to the point that D-link won't even create new model names for what are, functionally and realistically, new products with distinct feature differences.

If I had the money, I'd sue the buggers myself.

30 years in business should be enough to learn how not to be complete assholes. Unfortunately, it just made D-link.

14
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Sympathy for the Devil

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

12
0

MacBook killer? New Lenovo offering sexed up with XPoint booster

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Yet another myopic article on laptops

Of the available browsers, Chrome uses the least memory.

No, IE isn't a browser. Nor is edge. Browsers have the ability to load defenses. IE and Edge are nothing but ways to get internet STD.

Don't browse the internet without condoms, kids.

1
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Yet another myopic article on laptops

Can't speak to needing lots of disk, but Chrome gobbles RAM, so there is always a need for memory. Lots and lots of memory. The more the better.

Fscking Chrome...

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Lenovo keyboards.....

@PTW: you can swap the ctrl and fn keys in the bios at least. Not the best option, but then, I'm much more upset with the shitty plastic chassis on Lenovo notebooks that disintegrates at the slightest provocation...

3
0

Lenovo shows off 'Microsoft-friendly' VR cosplay at CES

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

So they need to get used to people buying every 5 years instead of every year. Tough. Innovate. Drive the smaller competitors out. Open new markets. Just don't make shoddy shit that falls apart. That's where you get the goddamned banhamer.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I have a solution for Lenovo's falling PC sales: stop making cheap plastic tat that disintegrates when you look at it. Maybe - just maybe - even get back to making devices with upgradable bits!

I.E. Build what people want and they'll buy it. Otherwise, they'll keep using their older stuff which is generally better than the new stuff. Especially if it's 6 or more years old...

6
0

The Life and Times of Lester Haines

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Thanks for the memories

Fantastic idea. Upvoted, and raised to the brass for consideration.

15
0

ClusterHQ? More like Clusterfscked: Cluster bombs, says it came to market too early

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Condolences for the employees. Hope they find a good next gig.

10
0

Twas the week before Xmas ... not a creature was stirring – except Microsoft admitting its Windows 10 upgrade pop-up went 'too far'

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

A half-hearted non-apology from someone with no power to affect how Microsoft behaves in the future.

I won't even begin to trust Microsoft until Endpoint Antichrist has been fired with extreme prejudice and someone who isn't customer hostile is elevated to his position. Even then, Microsoft has a long - long - road to travel before trust can be rebuilt.

And in IT - especially as regards public cloud computing - trust is everything.

82
6

Strong non-backdoored encryption is vital – but the Feds should totally be able to crack it, say House committees

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: 'MURICA! FUCK YEAH!

@gerdesj I think you'll find my El Reg writing restricted to carefully researched technical articles from here on out. If you want more controversial stuff, creative epithets, discussions about emerging technologies or vendors, etc. then you'll have to hunt my writings on other outlets. No more "Chrome, stop being a RAM-gobbling bug dumpster!", reviews or delving into things I learned working with some new company 'round these parts. There will be a lot more "I encountered this problem and solved it in this manner".

If you actually want to read me screaming at Microsoft or cheering about things that tickle my inner nerd, you'll have to search out the other places I write, or follow me on Twitter. I really don't recommend following me on Twitter though. I'm largely incoherent and I manage to offend, apparently, everyone. You have been warned.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: 'MURICA! FUCK YEAH!

"Doing uppers"? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

If by "uppers" you mean "stimulants", then I admit to being comfortably addicted to caffeine, and drinking about 2 ups of coffee each day, with 4 cups on a very bad day. I used to (when I was in grade school) take Ritalin, because I have horrible, horrible ADHD.

I can take pharmaceutical doses of many stimulants (usually some form of amphetamine) without a "high", thanks to said ADHD - they affect us ADHD folks very differently than they do normies - but I haven't had a prescription for those in like two decades. (And have maybe had an out-of-prescription pill an average of once every two years, usually on extreme ADD days.)

I use a combination of coffee, meditation and tricks I learned from participating in the early 90's trials on what we today call neurofeedback therapy. (Playing videogames with your brainwaves.)

So I'm not sure where I "take uppers". Unless you're saying everyone who drinks coffee "takes uppers". In which case, guilty as charged. Coffee is life.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

'MURICA! FUCK YEAH!

What else?

14
2

Los Angeles to extradite bloke from Nigeria after scores of city workers fall for phish scam

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Err,

Just because Timmy is shitting in the schoolyard doesn't mean it's okay for you to do the same.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Err,

Italian Referendum.

Brexit.

Australia running fucking concentration camps for asylum/refugee seekers.

Marnie Le Pen.

Going to go with "nope, western civilization is pretty much fucked".

9
3

Wassenaar weapons pact talks collapse leaving software exploit exports in limbo

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Known for making deals"

Really? I thought he was known for multiple bankruptcies, not paying his contractors, bigotry and sexual assault.

He makes deals?

11
0

Cops, Feds spaff $100m on Stingray cellphone snooping gear – and there's sod all oversight

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: I just have one question:

The ones using the stingrays are the bad guys. Just take a look at their employers...

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Are you saying criminals and terrorists aren't tax-paying citizens? Because I have some news for you...

1
0

SK Hynix and Seagate exploring flash hookup

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Even if you put both SK Hynix and Micron together, you probably don't have enough Fab capacity to really start replacing Seagate's disk business. Planetary fab capacity needs to go up. Maybe Seagate is partnering when and where it can to ensure it has enough NAND to not get butchered by WD, Samsung, etc.

2
0

Microsoft announces 16 years of support for Windows, SQL Servers

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: At last

With Endpoint Antichrist in charge? Fuck no, that'll never happen. He needs our tears to animate his zombie hate corpse.

0
0

Shrinkage!? But it's sooo big! More data won't leave storage biz proud

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Cloud versus on-prem in depth.

Continued from previous post:

Issue #5: Speed isn't everything. In fact, speed isn't anything to a lot of people. Banging on about getting a few extra percentage points out of a database that uses tiered DAS and application-level replication versus the HA or replication you get from having your storage solution do the work is the exact sort of tone-deaf malarky that the NVMe of fabrics people are guilty of.

Yes, there are some people for whom database speed is all that matters. They want to run huge databases, distributed at a global scale and every microsecond matters. These are niche cases and they do not represent the majority of businesses nor the majority of workloads. If you want to go build something to grind out microseconds for them, have a ball. I'm sure the mainframe people will find you amusing.

Most companies who use a database, however, don't need that. They're handling functionally irrelevant transactions loads that can absolutely be handled on MySQL running off a consumer flash drive. What matters to them is ease of use. Oh, and cost.

What you - and the NVMe over fabrics people - don't seem to get is that the need for speed is niche. For most of us, speed is a threshold item. Workloads need to go so fast, and everything after that is irrelevant.

Issue #6 (because you started veering off into evangelism in 5): most orgs don't want to move to the cloud. Most orgs don't want to think about their apps. They don't just want what they have now to keep running and not bother them. "App modernization" is a thing pushed by nerds, usually because they have a "app modernization" service to sell. Businesses generally don't care until something forces them to, like the developer of the application going out of business.

Issue #7 (because you started veering off into evangelism in 5): Most organizations don't want to migrate to the cloud. Especially for their traditional apps. This is because it is way more expensive to run those applications in the cloud than on their own infrastructure.

Issue #9 (because you started veering off into evangelism in 5): Most organizations don't want to be "cloud and mobile first". They are cloud where it makes sense financially and where it makes sense from a regulatory perspective, and mobile only if they absolutely have to. (How'd that "mobile first" bit work out for your buddies at Microsoft, eh?)

Organizations can get continuous customer engagement, real-time analytics and the like from on-premises IT just fine. I'd be happy to teach you what happens when a developer and a sysadmin love their paycheques very much, and work together to produce something wonderful.

Issue #10 (because you started veering off into evangelism in 5): Most orgs don't need agility. They need to be better at what they do. The low hanging fruit in IT is still in grinding out human error from internal processes. Even small businesses can save millions every year simply by eliminating shipping errors with a small in-house middware app that integrated with logistics software. No cloud required. No databases that get millions, or even tens of thousands of IOPS. Bonus: eliminating shipping errors helps with customer satisfaction and gives them an edge over competition.

I'd love to give you a deep dive into how IT is practiced in the real world to show you why the myths you've convinced yourself are facts are nothing but taking the use cases of an extreme niche and incorrectly attempting to paint them as important - or even relevant - outside that niche.

Ease of use, cost and regulatory compliance are what matter. You might get some of this, some of the time from the public cloud. You get next to none of it by trying to run your on-premises IT like it was a public cloud. You do get it by fitting the best solution to problem and not trying to pretend you're someone you're not.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Cloud versus on-prem in depth.

I believe your "deep involvement" with public clouds has "clouded" your judgement. They don't have better architecture. Just different architecture. No one architecture fits all.

The idea that we should adopt hyperscale hardware and software solutions for on-premises IT is just flat-out bonkers. Hyperscale solutions are designed for hyperscale applications. They aren't inherently better, they sure as hell aren't easier to manage and they aren't cheaper unless you are buying and managing at hyperscale. That's before we talk about RPOs and RTOs. Something you conveniently didn't discuss at all, with the exception of a handwave that amounted to "rewrite everything you have because that lets you be more like Azure".

If enterprise tech hasn't changed a lot in 20 years, maybe you should start thinking that there's a reason for that. Like the fundamental designs are fit for purpose, and that changes will be incremental rather than foundational.

Regarding this bit: "if so many ppl left the cloud, it doesn't explain the surge in AWS and Azure revenue, i attended re:invent can tell you many Enterprise guys were there, some have a Cloud ONLY strategy ("CEO said we wont own any HW")"

I call bullshit. Why don't you go talk to Netflix or Dropbox about the cost of the public cloud? These are some headline names that have left for damned good reasons, and they are by no means the only ones.

Consumption of services which themselves consume the public cloud is increasing. Point solutions like HR applications, payroll applications, etc. These are applications that are like utilities to companies: every company needs them, but they aren't what make the company go. They aren't remotely attached to the core business, they're just a thing that the company has to have. Like phones. So they consume it as a service in order to not think about it. That is what's driving a lot of the public cloud growth.

But, like phones (or any other utility), there's a ceiling to that usage. Just like desktops and eventually tablets plateaued once everyone who had one wanted one, so too will SaaS consumption of these "software utilities".

Archival storage is another thing that's growing in the public cloud space. One look at someone like Backblaze will explain why. Public cloud storage can be very cheap. As long as you don't care about speed.

While I am certain that there are a few companies - usually American Fortune 2000 enterprises, or silicon valley startups - that are willing to go with a "cloud first" or even a "cloud only" model, these are niche. There aren't many of these companies. A fraction of a fraction of a many millions of companies in the world are willing to make that sort of commitment, and for good reason.

Now let's address the rest of your points...

Issue #1: You focus on Azure, but Microsoft isn't the be-all and end-all of clouds. I am aware that Microsoft's primary. storage is their own messed-up franken-glorp. I am also aware that they, like the others, will provide SANs as required to larger customers.

IBM is slightly different in that they aren't so circumspect with their provisioning of traditional storage. They're pretty up front about offering Storage-as-a-Service. For example, they offer Netapp. Indeed: if you need it bad enough, IBM will provide it as a service as part of their public cloud, no matter what it is, or who sells it.

Issue #2: while most data in public clouds today is in object storage and using "native" database services, most public cloud services today are the low hanging fruit. Stuff that was easy and cheap to move, or which was built new for the cloud. That doesn't make the public cloud ready to tackle the overwhelming majority of extant workloads.

Issue #3 (1, because you can't count): I never said JBOD wasn't cheaper. I said it was stupid, unreliable, problematic and way - way - more difficult to manage. It absolutely is cheaper to buy, which is the only thing that matters to hyperscale providers. Of course, when you're not a hyperscale provider, ease of use matters a heck of a lot more. So do RPOs, RTOs and other such things.

Issue #3 (2, because you can't count): File doesn't have to be slow. Until you get above 10M files (NTFS) or 100M files (ReFS, EXT, BTFRS). Then you have to get really creative with the OS an server design to prevent the whole thing from turning to glue. Object can be modest if accessed directly as object storage. It's a miserable pig if you have to use a shim (for example, filesystem access shim on top of object storage, block shim on top of object storage, etc.) There are some startups that have made solutions that almost don't suck on top of object storage, but as a general rule, object is slow when trying to use it as the storage backing for anything other than native object put/gets. Which is a huge problem for all those applications that don't speak object.

Issue #4: And here's you're back to "tear up everything you know and rewrite it because my religion says you should". Microsoft just announced 16 year support for SQL servers, bub. As much as you may get aroused by the idea of new database technologies, they're not helping companies with the software they have today.

Also, no matter how hard you scream, there absolutely are storage solutions that provide snapshotting for storage volumes that are tiered across multiple tiers of storage. I use them every day in production. I don't even need a fancy database to do it! My storage tiers the volume for me, and I run my old, boring databases on top of it. I get fantastic performance without tearing up everything I have and wasting - yes wasting - money recoding applications because some dude on the internet got religion.

I'm not missing background at all on this, mate. You are. You seem to assume that because a vendor supports something that you champion - in this case DAS storage tiering - that it is naturally better than all the other things they support. Here's a giggle for you: all the major databases from all the major vendors support multiple storage approaches, and multiple ways of doing things. Because they have customers. Not acolytes.

Continued in next post.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Storage collapsing into services

Also should say that I'm sorry for coming off so strong here. That was wrong of me, and I apologize.

The whole "public cloud is the solution to all ills" thing is one of those nerd evangelism bits that really gets under my skin. The True Believers are absolutely fire-and-brimstone about it...and they are demonstrably wrong. (Just as, you know, anyone pushing any IT solution as the be-all and end-all is demonstrably wrong.)

I believe the reason this grates on me so is the unrelenting - indeed, desperate - nature of the True Believers. Never-ending sales calls at all hours of the day and night. Unrelenting social media attacks against anyone not willing to invest 10x their annual revenue in recoding all their applications.

It's not a good reason to be a dick on the internet, but with some self-examination, it's likely that which set me off.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Cloud versus on-prem in depth.

It's important not to be fooled by what large players are doing. Even in the cloud space. Not everyone is using JBODs, or relying on object storage. There is an awful lot of hyperconvergence and a lot of traditional SANs amongst cloud/service providers.

This is because there are a lot of different use cases to be met.

If you are rewriting everything from scratch as "cloud native", using microservices, using application-level redundancy that doesn't need shared storage, or rely on storage to provide the backups/DR/resiliency for you, then you can absolutely get away with what amounts to a bunch of individual nodes with some disks in them and some software that takes periodic snaps for DR.

But this is only possible because these applications are meeting their RPOs by disbursing data horizontally across multiple nodes at the application level. This flat out doesn't work for legacy applications: the kind most businesses are reliant upon, and unlikely to recode for decades yet to come.

Legacy applications are "pets", not "cattle", and trying to get them to a "cattle" state takes an awful lot of management software layered on top. Configuration management, desired state configs, some means to separate the application from it's data and make that data highly resilient.

Traditional SANs and more modern hyperconvergence have been solving the "make the data highly resilient" problem for ages. If your application goes down, or the node hosting that application goes down, the data is there, accurate to the last bit, ready to be reconnected to. RPO of 0, RTO of however long it takes to restart the application.

But when you look at cloud solutions really closely, a lot of this goes away. If the resiliency isn't in the application then you start to have to make compromises on the RPO of the data side. An HCI cluster or even a traditional SAN spread across multiple racks in multiple power zones with redundant switching can be done relatively cheaply and easily. This gets a lot more difficult with JBOD "clusters", and you flat out can't provide this sort of resiliency in a "everything is local, no shared storage at all" setup.

Now, all storage has limits. If you have enough network connectivity then you can do real-time replication of your data layer across metro areas. Keep the latency below 10msec, and you're probably good for 99.5% of real-world applications. HCI and SAN solutions have this taped. Not a problem. This can provide real-time RPO of 0 across multiple datacenters, and it honestly isn't that expensive, if you're playing the game at datcenter scale.

Beyond that metro area, however, and HCI/SAN suffer from the same problem as JBODs or the "all local" server solutions favoured by some cloud providers: all they can do it send periodic snapshots places.

This means that your RPO goes above 0. Any time you experience an unexpected failure you loose data.

For some workloads that doesn't matter. If you have a web server, for example, managed by a desired state configuration tool like Puppet, then the worst case scenario is that you fail over to some older version of that workload, Puppet detects that the config isn't the latest, and then sets about re-applying the most modern config. So far, so groovy.

But this gets a lot more miserable for databases, files and anything else you want to store. Here is where rewriting and recoding and redesigning everything becomes the thing that cloud providers want you to do.

If you can recode your application to use object storage instead of file storage then you can store images and the like in the object storage. Storage that – wait for it – replicates the objects over the network to provide resiliency. Just like a SAN or HCI does. It's just cheaper to the cloud provider to set up that storage. It's also usually dog slow.

Databases go on fast storage, but you're encouraged to set up complicated database replication schemas to ensure that data is replicated between sites. Replication that occurs over the network. It's just not using the SAN or HCI storage to do it. This is usually pushing the cost back on to the customer, who pays for network traffic, and now has to pay for multiple database instances and multiple storage instances. Great for the cloud providers!

So if you're running a great big globally distributed application that needs to be coded efficiently to run around the world, tearing up your old applications in order to make them cloud native makes sense. This is because no storage mechanism is going to provide an RPO of 0 across oceans. The speed of light is a problem.

But for the overwhelming majority of workloads run by the overwhelming majority of companies, this simply isn't a real-world requirement.

Most companies are happy if more of their workloads have an RPO of 0 for daily use and an RPO of 15 minutes for disasters. They are usually okay with RTOs of "hours" in recovering from disasters, because "disasters" in this case are affecting their customers as well. Some workloads (such as your website) you want up 100% of the time, but that is cheap and easy to do using a SaaS solution, and doesn't require the whole rest of your infrastructure to be a globally distributed solution that's always available.

Many companies who need more resiliency than "within the same datacenter" are just fine with "RPO of 0 at a metro level" clustering and "RPO of 5 minutes snapped to a different geo". Slightly higher needs, but again, if the city ends up flooded out or somesuch, customers will generally understand a brief outage, or a 5 minute data loss.

So this leaves us with the minority of workloads and the minority of companies who absolutely need completely bullet-proof workloads that have world-wide geo-resiliency. These companies with these workloads need to, should, will and are recoding their applications to take advantage of what public cloud has to offer.

Again: what's important to note here is that the extremes don't apply universally. Perhaps more critically...there is zero incentive for most companies to move the majority of their workloads to the public cloud. Not as IaaS, not by rewriting them as SaaS.

SANs, NASes and hyperconvergence will be around for decades yet. And they'll sell in good volume. Because they're simple. Because they do the job. And because, ultimately, "cloud native" isn't the solution to all ills.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Storage collapsing into services

"Oh, right another one of those IT guys that thinks Cloud would just go away,"

Actually, I think public cloud offerings will be around for quite some time as one amongst many options for use. The public cloud will not completely displace internal IT, except in niche circumstances.

" and we can keep messing with FC SANs.."

Fuck fiber channel. Companies don't make money resizing LUNs.

"IT shops are migrating to cloud,"

IT shops are adopting public cloud services (mostly SaaS) tactically. Point solutions for specific problems, which almost never includes IaaS. And the movement from the public cloud was almost as big as the movement to the public cloud in 2016. Companies are realizing just how many workloads are terrible fits for the cloud and bringing those back in house. A balance is being discovered where some workloads are best in the public cloud and some never will be.

You know, like every other "this will change everything forever" revolution in IT.

"and Cloud doesnt have SAN."

Yes it does. Public clouds absolutely run on SANs of some variety. Shared storage is at the core of all of them. Hell, in many you can even select your SAN vendor and get the management of that SAN exposed to you! If you're moaning about what a pain in the ass it is to manage LUNs (fuck LUNs!) try hyperconverged solutions. It's the same "there is no SAN" as you get in a public cloud.

" For guys like you they invented "migration services" to Seamlessly move your Oracle or VMware"

You mean the migration tools that require hours or days of downtime and then still get things wrong? Or require you to completely change how your internal networking is set up before migration, leading to a massive change program that provides ultimately no value to the business just to use a public cloud solution that costs the business half a dozen times more than running in house?

Awesome. Let's do that.

"those tools you are so fond of like Exchange, MS Sql"

What? Where am I fond of those? Fuck them both sideways.

"In Azure don't run on any SAN or HCI, and guess what they have the same or better HA,"

In Azure they run on JBODs attached to shitty Microsoft clusters which is why they both cost so goddamned much and why they have uptime that's two nines worse than what I'm providing in my shitty SMB shops that are held together with duct tape and the wishes of orphaned children.

"Global DR"

DR that never seems to work unless you're paying fuckloads of extra money for it? Pass.

"and consist snapshots don't require any coordination w storage"

Funny, all my hperconvergence solutions take snapshots just fine without coordinating anything with storage. Even the cheap HCI (Scale) can provide me lots of different solutions to solve this. Snap locally, snap remotely, DRaaS...all of it with a maximum of filling out two text boxes and three button pushes.

So what, exactly, are you blithering about here?

"Some just have hard time accepting the IT world would never be the same. The writing and financial report are already on the wall."

Clearly you're speaking about yourself. Your inability to read financial reports is making you oblivious to that part where the boom times for cloud are over, and things for cloud evangelists will never be the same.

"Yes, like Mainframes legacy won't just go away, it will stay for ever, but not sure you can grow a company based on it."

You can grow a company based on mainframes. Millions of companies are growing based on on-premises IT. What's actually questionable is how big a company can grow using public cloud IT, considering virtually all of the large players using cloud decamped off of public cloud solutions after a time.

Public cloud seems like a great plan for some workloads during some stages of a company's lifecycle.

But it sure as shit isn't the be-all and end-all of IT, nor will it ever be.

Just like you, Yaron, i run a public cloud (or more accurately "service provider cloud", as public cloud has come to mean only the Big Four) offering. I also consult with customers about how to optimize their on-premises solutions. Where we differ is that my livelihood isn't tied up in convincing the world that public/service provider clouds are the greatest thing since sliced bread. My livelihood is tied up in making sure that my customers' IT meets their needs. Whether that's in my cloud, someone else's cloud, in their own cloud, or not in any cloud at all.

Cheers.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Storage collapsing into services

Oh, look, one of those people who ignore the part where the world isn't going to rewrite 40 years worth of applications in order to fit some pee-in-jars nerd's efficiency fetish, but they still want high availability.

Yeah, sorry (not sorry), shared storage is here to stay. And no, JBOD doesn't count.

Take your containers, and your cloud native, and your rewriting the whole goddamned world and crawl back into the tiny niche where money has no meaning from when you spawned.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Beyond misleading

There are a LOT of analysts pushing it. I really haven't seen many vendors succeeding with it yet, but they've got at lot of the expensive analysts convinced it's the next big thing.

I just look at how long it's been since the analysts in question actually worked at the coalface, snort and go back to getting work done.

4
0

Latest loon for Trump's cabinet: Young-blood-loving, kidney-market advocate Jim O'Neill

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Maffski

Reality: a reasonable higher minimum wage doesn't result in fewer living wage jobs. And non-living wage jobs are a huge problem because they trap the impoverished in a nasty cycle with no escape. And here we could get into debates about the structuring of employment insurance for the underemployed, and realities of beign able to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" when you're working 3-4 non-living-wage jobs just to stay alive.

The weasel words given during the interview are just bullshit bafflegab designed to hide the fact that, overall, the man doesn't want to raise the minimum wage. He believes (as i deeply suspect so do you) in the stick: berate, belittle, chasten and punish people enough and they'll magically solve all their problems.

Reality doesn't work like that.

As for "global warming is solved": you're wrong. And you demonstrate that you not only don't understand science, but engineer and economics as well. Solar is nowhere near ready to take over for thermal. At a grid level, maybe, if you build enough of it, but it actually brings it's own problems when used at that scale.

At an individual level (for individual or commercial transport, for example), solar simply can't replace energy-dense fuels. Especially if we keep insisting on living such energy-intensive lives and structuring the very physical layout of our nations to be require ever increasingly energy expenditure per person.

Capitalism doesn't solve everything. In fact, it doesn't, ultimately, solve a lot of things. For the very same reason that pure communism didn't work: it completely ignores the reality of human nature.

In reality, the pure form of any economic, political or social system never works. Compromise and constant adjustment to new evidence is required. And this is the problem with people. They don't like change. Or learning. They prefer to have learned their "facts" about the world whilst young, and then never be required to ever reexamine those ever again.

Worse: people prefer to learn their "facts" from authority figures who, by and large, tell them what they want to hear. They align who they believe based upon how the information those people disburse makes them feel. So we not only end up with a bunch of people clinging to decades old "facts" with the death grip of eternity, but those "facts" were very likely demonstrably wrong even when they were internalized.

Look, it's a very, very rare person who wants climate change to be real. It's a very rare person who wants to pay more for a bagel because minimum wage was pegged at a living wage. Despite this, those individuals who are capable of objective analysis of evidence understand the science of climate change, no matter how upset it makes them.

Individuals capable of objective analysis understand the long term benefits of higher minimum wage, and the criticality of lowering income disparity within a nation, even though we too emotionally desire a better car than our neighbor, a more attractive mate and a larger domicile.

Using terms like "climate change denier" is correct, because there is no debate to be had about climate change. No more than there is debate to be had about "humans need to breathe oxygen of a given partial pressure in order to survive". Trying to create a debate is denying the truth.

And climate change is objective, scientifically verifiable truth, no matter how many people feel otherwise.

That's the key. That's the job of the journalist. To tell the truth even when it feels uncomfortable. Even when their entire nation would raise a cry against it, because it disrupts the illusion they've build for themselves.

The job of the journalist is to seek that truth, expose it, repeat it, and do so unapologetically. And at the end of the day, the truth flows from evidence. Not from some guy on Twitter guy with a Pepe avatar screeching "stop crying pussy libtard".

All opinions may be equal under the law, but they are not all equally informed or equally valid. And as regards the truth, your feelings count for absolutely fucking nothing.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@anonymous coward

The word "denier' is accurate.

Sorry (not sorry) that you don't like reality. Reality, however, doesn't give a rat fuck what you do or do not like.

2
3

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018