The publishers didn't attempt to negotiate. They were passing laws / regulations. Negotiations happen between parties on a relatively equal footing.
That being said. This is negotiating. The Spanish publishers said you can't link to our content without paying. Google said no. The publishers passed a law to enforce their position. So now they showed their big stick. Google decides not to link at all which will drive Spanish internet news traffic outside of Spain. That's Google's big stick. This is what negotiating looks like when threats are involved.
No it isn't. It is the equivalent of "I didn't intend to kill that man. I was driving along the road and without looking he crossed in front of my car". Which then comes down to lots of factors. The lawsuit is that Apple was using this means to raise prices on iPods. The anti-trust claim would be that Apple was using this means to establish a monopoly in digital music sales.
AFAIK the big problem with the anti-trust argument is that Apple can call the music companies as witnesses who would agree they wanted Real... off the iPod. You would expect the opposite if Apple were in the driver's seat.
That's not "yes litterally, they shipped a windows version of itunes with a virus". That seems to be a manufacturer shipped a few units with a virus that they quickly reacted to. And they didn't market a Mac off that. I'd say tying that incident to the description is a bit tortured.
"it's not pure chance that every major corporate network runs it." is not "Exchange/Outlook still takes the lion's share of the market," Those are very different statements. You were defending the statement, " there really is only one product in the Enterprise email/calendar/collaboration space worth a damn " which is why you had to make the case it was the unique solution.
The fact is Exchange/Outlook is a pretty good solution. But it is far from the only solution or only viable solution. The big features that Exchange offers like shared calendaring just about every piece of groupware offers. Outlook is a good mail client and certainly office integration is the best of any of them. That probably is why it is so heavily used.
Your "sucks balls", "worth a damn"... is well beyond the actual situation.
What Apple did was trying to use its market dominance in hardware to get another market dominance in selling digital music. This is not only shady business, this is plain illegal.
I agree that is plain illegal if that's what they were trying to do. But you are asserting they were trying to do that. There are far less extreme interpretations of their actions.
Apple was in the hardware business. The music component was a minor issue, it simplified the experience. I don't know that Apple would have cared much if people bought iPods with other services. The same way that Apple doesn't care much if I run MS-Word and not Pages on my OSX machine.
I don't think they will. As SSD replaces HDD for day to day tasks HDD is replacing tape for longer term archive. HDD are going to move to slower and bigger while SSD is going to have to balance faster with bigger. The result will be many years of HDD having higher capacity.
The hiring manager told me that 90% of the job would be manually removing the crud from systems because anti-spyware and virus infections were frequent events.
I think you need to break apart 3 issues:
a) The manager not handling a problem well and using labor where they shouldn't. b) What the best solution is for anti-virus c) Why big companies can be reluctant to engage smaller companies
I'm defending (c) not (a).
The hiring manager also told me that the companies I worked for before -- Cisco, eBay, Fujitsu, Google, Intuit, Sony, and many smaller companies in between -- weren't real companies.
Sony? They are like $60b a year in revenue and global across a ton of industries. The guy seems like an idiot.
Who are you paying for the off-site storage, and how much does it cost? Tapes are cheap, and faster.
Tapes aren't faster than HDD backup. A Buick full of hard drives crushes a Buick full of tapes in terms of storage. Even better is a buick full of flash though then we aren't talking cheaper.
n. You want the simplest restore solution possible.
The simplest restore solution possible is running out of multiple data centers which are redundant to one another. Images are regularly taken down and restored on a continuous basis. Restoration is nothing other than what the IT operations group / systems does everyday to reallocate compute and storage.
With "redundancy" you have a working copy of today's files, but no ability to recover previous states. That's bad.
I agree that's why you have the semi-stable stuff go to network backup. When they go after the 4 month old file that was semi-stable.
____
I think to advance this conversation we need to separate out an actual scenario. X amount of data, Y amount of retention, Z copies... I'm hard pressed to see any situation that tapes make better than something else. So paint me a stable picture for which you believe tape helps.
If the email limit is 2GB, and the company has 30,000 employees, it's 60TB of storage. If the email limit is jacked up to 15GB, then it becomes 450TB of storage.
And assuming they use every bit of it that 450T of storage with replication and DR should run about $150k or about 2 fully loaded employees worth in your 30k company. If 1% of the employees save 1% of their time because of that increased storage you've just earned a 150% return for the cost storage. Any added bonus to anyone else is gravy. I'm not seeing the problem.
.Especially if a bean counter sends out emails to remind everyone that each "reply all" email cost the company in $800 in lost productivity.
That's a different issue. That's the issue of why email is a bad collaboration tool not the issue of why email storage is bad.
Past police raids on hosting services have resulted in indiscriminate confiscation of viirtually everything, often by removing the equipment it runs on.
That's fine for a cloud company. They are fine if they lose an entire datacenter. The images just move. Similarly for private cloud. Hosting / colo is just someone else providing real estate, power and network for single instances boxes. You need layers on top of that for replication outside of one physical colo.
However, that all falls on its face when the boss* wants to use dropbox
Citrix makes there own dropbox like service called Sharefile. It integrates with Office at a deeper level, allows policy controls and integrates with the Citrix stuff. So the boss likes it even better. He's not saying he wants Dropbox, he is saying he wants an easy to use fileshare system with replication. You don't have to pick the low security one.
Absolutely. So the traditional solution is to tell the employee no. Rather than delivering the functionality they want while having the monitoring and controls. There are excellent solutions for enterprise that do all this work. Employees have to see the benefits though.
A system that makes e-discovery easy also makes finding documents from other branches on related topics easy. If the employees see those gains then they see what you are doing for them.
How does this example not prove the point? It is a policy still in effect based on an old version of Outlook that shouldn't apply anymore. The reason the original policy was in place was because you were exposing to end users an IT related issue: what should be in archive rather than what should be active; the sort of thing ECM is designed to do for them.
Exactly that's what they are rebelling against. And good for them.
Our worksite bandwidth isn't constrained by the circuit, it's the firewalling. We are one of the top ten targets in the universe. Given that, I'm not slowed down by external access, but by internal firewalls. We have to protect against internal threats also.
1) That should impact latency not bandwidth. If it is slowing the network down in general you just have to increase the firewall horsepower 2) Traffic can be segregated into what requires low latency and what traffic is OK with high latency. That's called Quality of Service (QoS). Your gear likely already supports this it is just a configuration thing. 3) The whole idea of SDN is to have your network automatically allocate resources and reconfigure the network so that this sort of nonsense isn't happening. That sounds like what you need.
A production server requires three instances - production, test, and development. Days to implement, weeks to approve. We have to actually know what it will be expected to do before we can request it.
Yes provisioning slows you down. Which is why you need an internal cloud. This is part of the DevOps cultural change, you can get provisioning down to 0.
_____
Do you want to talk offline about this sort of thing?
A multi-billion dollar megacorporation can handle this at the network level, via. the systems group... I can understand them not being interested in a product from a small company. That small company is uncontrollable with only several million dollars in revenue that means one guy's interests control the company who is just now finding financial success. Does he decide to roll it into a life at a ski resort or does he decide to keep innovating? That's not dysfunction.
That being said there are plenty of large company anti-spyware,... products including from vendors like Symantec, CA... And there are network security and monitoring tools which trap those sorts of things, by yes IBM.
The issue isn't that. Ask yourself why aren't you using a $30k workstation class computer running software you couldn't possibly afford at work? The workplace software has partially stagnated to the point it doesn't take advantage of faster hardware.
The faster stuff at home is the result of a cycle of failure due to post 2001 budget cuts and year after year IT departments trying to just keep the lights on.
Well said. We've been through this cycle before. The mainframe guys had the same pessimistic can't do attitude as the younger IT guys often have today. I thought it was youth but it seems to be the environment you came up in. They can't do IPv6 because it is backwards incompatible. We ripped out DECNet and IPX to put TCP/IP in months.
As an aside I talked to the IBM guys. They offer Z-Series emulation as a service on SoftLayer via. Rational. So it isn't free but you can run Z-Series workloads pretty cheap for development and test.
I prefer to measure "security" as "how many people can successfully attack X"... So moving anything to "the cloud" will result in it being less secure. In almost every instance.
I doubt it. How tough with someone with a gun to get into your data center. There are data centers setup for that. I have a datacenter in Maine built on a military base that can handle a cruise missile.
You want to ignore physical talk network. You don't think Verizon, CenturyLink, Navisite know networking better than your inhouse team?
What happens when one of their other clients is arrested for something illegal and the "cloud" computers get confiscated?
Nothing. If it is hybrid or private cloud the boxes are isolated between customers. If it is a public cloud the instances move constantly and they can replicate them for the law enforcement official. There is no point in taking physical units because the data moves between them. Moreover your instances can also be replicated so they just move to another copy in the local site, or if the site is complete taken to a backup site.
Slashdot Mirror
The publishers didn't attempt to negotiate. They were passing laws / regulations. Negotiations happen between parties on a relatively equal footing.
That being said. This is negotiating. The Spanish publishers said you can't link to our content without paying. Google said no. The publishers passed a law to enforce their position. So now they showed their big stick. Google decides not to link at all which will drive Spanish internet news traffic outside of Spain. That's Google's big stick. This is what negotiating looks like when threats are involved.
No it isn't. It is the equivalent of "I didn't intend to kill that man. I was driving along the road and without looking he crossed in front of my car". Which then comes down to lots of factors. The lawsuit is that Apple was using this means to raise prices on iPods. The anti-trust claim would be that Apple was using this means to establish a monopoly in digital music sales.
AFAIK the big problem with the anti-trust argument is that Apple can call the music companies as witnesses who would agree they wanted Real... off the iPod. You would expect the opposite if Apple were in the driver's seat.
That's not "yes litterally, they shipped a windows version of itunes with a virus". That seems to be a manufacturer shipped a few units with a virus that they quickly reacted to. And they didn't market a Mac off that. I'd say tying that incident to the description is a bit tortured.
"it's not pure chance that every major corporate network runs it." is not "Exchange/Outlook still takes the lion's share of the market,"
Those are very different statements. You were defending the statement, " there really is only one product in the Enterprise email/calendar/collaboration space worth a damn " which is why you had to make the case it was the unique solution.
The fact is Exchange/Outlook is a pretty good solution. But it is far from the only solution or only viable solution. The big features that Exchange offers like shared calendaring just about every piece of groupware offers. Outlook is a good mail client and certainly office integration is the best of any of them. That probably is why it is so heavily used.
Your "sucks balls", "worth a damn"... is well beyond the actual situation.
I just looked. Apple never shipped a version with a windows virus though a windows virus maker shipped an infected version of iTunes.
You probably are getting a bad response because of inaccuracies like that. Stick to being fully truthful and you'll get a better reaction.
I agree that is plain illegal if that's what they were trying to do. But you are asserting they were trying to do that. There are far less extreme interpretations of their actions.
Cygwin is a Linux emulator it doesn't add POSIX to Windows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... (which was a Microsoft product) did add POSIX.
That being said I agree with your main point.
Apple was in the hardware business. The music component was a minor issue, it simplified the experience. I don't know that Apple would have cared much if people bought iPods with other services. The same way that Apple doesn't care much if I run MS-Word and not Pages on my OSX machine.
I don't think they will. As SSD replaces HDD for day to day tasks HDD is replacing tape for longer term archive. HDD are going to move to slower and bigger while SSD is going to have to balance faster with bigger. The result will be many years of HDD having higher capacity.
I think you need to break apart 3 issues:
a) The manager not handling a problem well and using labor where they shouldn't.
b) What the best solution is for anti-virus
c) Why big companies can be reluctant to engage smaller companies
I'm defending (c) not (a).
Sony? They are like $60b a year in revenue and global across a ton of industries. The guy seems like an idiot.
Tapes aren't faster than HDD backup. A Buick full of hard drives crushes a Buick full of tapes in terms of storage. Even better is a buick full of flash though then we aren't talking cheaper.
The simplest restore solution possible is running out of multiple data centers which are redundant to one another. Images are regularly taken down and restored on a continuous basis. Restoration is nothing other than what the IT operations group / systems does everyday to reallocate compute and storage.
I agree that's why you have the semi-stable stuff go to network backup. When they go after the 4 month old file that was semi-stable.
____
I think to advance this conversation we need to separate out an actual scenario. X amount of data, Y amount of retention, Z copies... I'm hard pressed to see any situation that tapes make better than something else. So paint me a stable picture for which
you believe tape helps.
And assuming they use every bit of it that 450T of storage with replication and DR should run about $150k or about 2 fully loaded employees worth in your 30k company. If 1% of the employees save 1% of their time because of that increased storage you've just earned a 150% return for the cost storage. Any added bonus to anyone else is gravy. I'm not seeing the problem.
That's a different issue. That's the issue of why email is a bad collaboration tool not the issue of why email storage is bad.
That's fine for a cloud company. They are fine if they lose an entire datacenter. The images just move. Similarly for private cloud. Hosting / colo is just someone else providing real estate, power and network for single instances boxes. You need layers on top of that for replication outside of one physical colo.
forgot to mention this
Citrix makes there own dropbox like service called Sharefile. It integrates with Office at a deeper level, allows policy controls and integrates with the Citrix stuff. So the boss likes it even better. He's not saying he wants Dropbox, he is saying he wants an easy to use fileshare system with replication. You don't have to pick the low security one.
Absolutely. So the traditional solution is to tell the employee no. Rather than delivering the functionality they want while having the monitoring and controls. There are excellent solutions for enterprise that do all this work. Employees have to see the benefits though.
A system that makes e-discovery easy also makes finding documents from other branches on related topics easy. If the employees see those gains then they see what you are doing for them.
How does this example not prove the point? It is a policy still in effect based on an old version of Outlook that shouldn't apply anymore. The reason the original policy was in place was because you were exposing to end users an IT related issue: what should be in archive rather than what should be active; the sort of thing ECM is designed to do for them.
Exactly that's what they are rebelling against. And good for them.
1) That should impact latency not bandwidth. If it is slowing the network down in general you just have to increase the firewall horsepower
2) Traffic can be segregated into what requires low latency and what traffic is OK with high latency. That's called Quality of Service (QoS). Your gear likely already supports this it is just a configuration thing.
3) The whole idea of SDN is to have your network automatically allocate resources and reconfigure the network so that this sort of nonsense isn't happening. That sounds like what you need.
Yes provisioning slows you down. Which is why you need an internal cloud. This is part of the DevOps cultural change, you can get provisioning down to 0.
_____
Do you want to talk offline about this sort of thing?
A multi-billion dollar megacorporation can handle this at the network level, via. the systems group... I can understand them not being interested in a product from a small company. That small company is uncontrollable with only several million dollars in revenue that means one guy's interests control the company who is just now finding financial success. Does he decide to roll it into a life at a ski resort or does he decide to keep innovating? That's not dysfunction.
That being said there are plenty of large company anti-spyware, ... products including from vendors like Symantec, CA... And there are network security and monitoring tools which trap those sorts of things, by yes IBM.
The issue isn't that. Ask yourself why aren't you using a $30k workstation class computer running software you couldn't possibly afford at work? The workplace software has partially stagnated to the point it doesn't take advantage of faster hardware.
The faster stuff at home is the result of a cycle of failure due to post 2001 budget cuts and year after year IT departments trying to just keep the lights on.
Well said. We've been through this cycle before. The mainframe guys had the same pessimistic can't do attitude as the younger IT guys often have today. I thought it was youth but it seems to be the environment you came up in. They can't do IPv6 because it is backwards incompatible. We ripped out DECNet and IPX to put TCP/IP in months.
It exists: http://www.hercules-390.eu/
As an aside I talked to the IBM guys. They offer Z-Series emulation as a service on SoftLayer via. Rational. So it isn't free but you can run Z-Series workloads pretty cheap for development and test.
I doubt it. How tough with someone with a gun to get into your data center. There are data centers setup for that. I have a datacenter in Maine built on a military base that can handle a cruise missile.
You want to ignore physical talk network. You don't think Verizon, CenturyLink, Navisite know networking better than your inhouse team?
etc...
Nothing. If it is hybrid or private cloud the boxes are isolated between customers. If it is a public cloud the instances move constantly and they can replicate them for the law enforcement official. There is no point in taking physical units because the data moves between them. Moreover your instances can also be replicated so they just move to another copy in the local site, or if the site is complete taken to a backup site.
Actually they will. AWS and Azure don't offer a security service. But there are cloud providers that do and will act against unusual traffic.
So host with a telco cloud that does that sorts of checks. Or go even up market for a security company cloud like Firehost.
You buy cloud your agent can walk you through the options.