You didn't read to the end of my post, did you?

Don't claim copyright on every video, this will make you guilty of perjury under the DMCA. Claim copyright on one video and then claim that every other video appears to be a derived work of that video. This is exactly the mechanism that the big studios use.

The perjury clause doesn't say what you think it says. If I own the rights on work A, to file a notice on work B, I claim that work B infringes work A. The perjury clause kicks in only if I do not own the rights to work A (or represent the person who does). If work B doesn't infringe, then that's a matter for the courts. This is quite annoying, but it does make sense. It's clear cut if works A and B are the same, but not in the case that B is a derived work of A. A court has to decide whether the use of A in B counts under fair use or not.

The counterbalance for this is that the DMCA does indemnify YouTube if they respond to a counternotice and reinstate the work. If you, the owner of work B, think it does not infringe then you send such a notice to YouTube. I then have no further recourse against YouTube and must take you to court directly.

The problem here is that it's very easy to automate sending takedown notices, but very hard to automate sending counter-notices. Mass-sending of automated takedown notices was something that the authors of the DMCA didn't foresee and the act probably needs amending to require the notice to explicitly state (under penalty of perjury) the person who has compared the works and their reason for believing that they are infringing.

"It boots" does not necessarily constitute success. You really need a test environment. There's no real getting around it.

Get access to SCCM or get your outsourcer to fix the fucking problems they created.

That example was due to incompetence, not due to automation. Whilst recover from that would be a pain in the ass, if you are unable to recover at all, you have a major DR oversight.

Yup. Same reason changes on the weekend are bad, as are changes on (in my opinion) Thursdays and Fridays.

Automating shit that can be automated so that you can actually do thing that benefit the business instead of simply maintaining the status-quo is not a bad thing. Doing automate-able drudge work when it could be automated is just stupid. Muppets who can click next through a Windows installer or run apt-get, etc. are a dime a dozen. IT staff who can get rid of that shit so they can actually help people get their own jobs done better are way more valuable.

The job of IT is to enable the business to continue to function and improve. Never forget that. People don't spend up big on computer stuff just because. They do it in order to save money by improving process. Improving process is where you should be focused, anything to do with general maintenance of the status quo is dead time.

Alternatively, perhaps somewhere up the chain they have no idea what can be done (this IT shit isn't their area of expertise), and are not being told by their IT department how to actually fix the problem properly. Rather, they are just applying band-aid after band-aid for breakage that happens.

It is my experience that if you outline the risks, the costs and the possible mitigation strategies to eliminate the risk, most sensible businesses are all ears. At the very least, if they don't agree on the spot, they are at least aware of what is possible and when the inevitable happens, be more keen to fix the problem next time.

Downtime cost adds up pretty fucking quickly. For example, my company: We have 650 PC users. pay rate probably ranges from 25 bucks an hour to 100 bucks an hour or more. Lets say the average is probably somewhere around 45 per hr.

1 hour of downtime, by 650 users, by 45 bucks per hour = $29,250 in lost productivity. Plus the embarrassment of not being able to deal with clients, etc. Plus potentially other flow on effects (e.g., in our case, possibly: maintenance scheduling for our mining equipment - trucks, drills, etc. didn't run. Plant therefore didn't get serviced properly, $500k engine dies).

If you fuck something up and are down for a day? Well... you can do the math.

This is why you move the fuck on and adapt. If your job is relying on stuff that can be done by a shell script, you need to up-skill and find another job. Because if you don't do it, someone like myself will.

And we'll be getting paid more due to being able to work at scale (same shit for 10 machines or 10,000 machines), doing less work and being much happier, doing it.

Yeah, don't get me wrong (i've been posting about setting up a test lab using vSphere, vFilters and vlans) - you can't replace the need to have someone on call or watching in case it all fucks up. But you can generally reduce the outage window and risk significantly by actually testing (both the roll out and roll back) first. And if you've got it to the point where you can reliably test, you can work on your automation scripts, test the shit out of them, and having been tested with a copy of live using a copy of live data, be reasonably confident that they will work.

If they don't? Snapshot the breakage, roll back to pre-fuckup, and examine at your leisure. Then re-schedule once you know wtf happened.

Yup. Company I work currently has only a 4 hour window per day where we don't have active users actually on the clock. And if we win a job in say, south america (we're a mining company), that goes out the window entirely. VMotion, virtual networking, virtual filers/writable snapshots, are all beautiful things.

Work smarter, not harder. This is the difference between an IT muppet and someone who actually goes places in this industry.

OS choice is irrelevant. I've seen plenty of critical linux fuck ups in my day, and OS choice doesn't account for human error. And, being human, you WILL make human errors. You need a test environment and a backout plan. If you don't at least have a back-out plan and an estimate of how much the fuckup will cost BEFORE proceeding (and balancing that against the cost/risk of leaving it the fuck alone), you should not be carrying out the work.

Sure, that sounds like management speak, but seriously... cover your fucking ass. Because one day it will fuck up (whatever, the OS, this isn't just a Linux or Windows problem) and whilst the fuck up may not necessarily be your fault, the extended downtime because you have not tested and have no backout plan will be.

This is why you build a test environment. VLANS, virtualization, SAN snapshots. There's no real excuse. Articulate the risks that a lack of a test environment entail to the business, and ask them if they want you doing shit without being able to test to see if it breaks things. Do some actual calculations on cost of system failure, and explain to them ways in which it can be mitigated. Putting your head in the sand and just breaking shit in live... well, that's one way to do it, but I fucking guarantee you: it WILL bit you in the ass, hard one day, whether it is automated or not. if you have a test environment, you can automate the shit out of your process, TEST it, and TEST a backout plan before going live.