Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:What Internet? (Score 1) 365

by Brett Glass (#45624089) Attached to: FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic

Our ISP is in a distant rural area, and the peering point to which we connect is not one of the ones where Netflix peers. We need to cache; this is the situation that caches are for. But just as banks will only give you a loan if you don't need it, Netflix will only give you a server if you don't need it.

Comment: Re:What Internet? (Score 2) 365

by Brett Glass (#45605663) Attached to: FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic
My small ISP asked Netflix for a cache, but was refused. Apparently, unless you're a huge ISP like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T, Netflix won't let you set up a storage node.... And they won't let you cache on your own, either. In short, if you are small enough to need a cache, you can't have one.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 1) 332

by Brett Glass (#44837217) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
ISPs have no problems with their business models. It's Google who has a problem with their business models... if there's a penny left on the table that Google (which is the force behind the regulations) can't grab. Or if ISPs, who build the Internet, actually get to make something for their hard work.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 0) 332

by Brett Glass (#44837173) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
The user is not paying us for the bandwidth or duty cycle to run a server. The content provider is hoping that we won't notice and that it can effectively become an unauthorized, non-paying user of our network resources. Google has had P2P built into the Flash player for use by YouTube, incidentally.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 0) 332

by Brett Glass (#44836491) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using. Nor do you know whether the app you downloaded just to "access" a service actually turns your computer into a server, which the content provider hopes will be hosted on the ISP's network for free. ISPs are not making massive profits -- in part due to shenanigans such as these. But Google has multiple monopolies and is making billions.

Comment: The author is either a shill or a pawn of Google (Score -1, Troll) 332

by Brett Glass (#44836291) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View

Total BS. As the operator of an ISP (and a former columnist for InfoWorld who was dismissed because I didn't go along with Microsoft's monopoly propaganda... not much different from monopolist Google's fearmongering above), I can say with authority that no ISP wants to limit what sites users can visit. That's the scare tactics that the lobbyists are using to push so-called "network neutrality" regulations, which are not neutral at all; they're designed to tip the economic balance away from ISPs and toward content companies such as Google. The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth or attempt to demand priority delivery of their content -- in short, when they ask for something for nothing. They also prevent ISPs from blocking software that exploits the ISP's network for the benefit of a content provider. In short, they're all about regulating the Internet in ways that benefit powerful corporations. Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. If the FCC can regulate the Net to advantage Google, it can also regulate it in other harmful ways. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.

Comment: Re:Hyper-V or vSphere. (Score 2) 191

There is basically no lock-in to any virtualisation platform these days. They all use essentially open virtual hard disk formats and it's trivial to convert from one to the other. But you end up locked in anyway, as all your scripting & management is targeted at whatever platform you choose - be it KVM/vSphere/Hyper-V. So choose the one that makes managing it easiest for you. If you like bash, choose KVM. If you like PowerShell, choose Hyper-V or vSphere.

Comment: Re:News Flash! (Score 1) 315

They're not making money off open-source software. They're making money off closed source software, by using open-source to decimate the market. Their strategy is to scorch the earth of mobile providers (like they did with RSS sync tools) with an open source phone OS and continue to make money from their closed source search product.

Comment: Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (Score 1) 286

by TheRealSlimShady (#43300279) Attached to: PayPal To Replace VMware With OpenStack

Late reply, but I'm guessing that if you're considering a Hyper-V solution, you're probably in the Windows ecosystem and will likely have a Windows administrative workstation somewhere...

You can manage Hyper-V using the MMC tools from a remote workstation, you don't necessarily need VMM, although at a certain scale it becomes desirable - at which point you incur cost. Although you could use another wrapper over the top - like OpenStack for instance.

Comment: Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (Score 1) 286

by TheRealSlimShady (#43285763) Attached to: PayPal To Replace VMware With OpenStack

Your claim was: " In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows."

That has been demonstrated by me & the other poster to be 100% false. To get a host machine running Hyper-V, you don't have to buy Windows - you can download the 100% free Hyper-V server. Saying that because you need to have an admin workstation is moving the goalposts. It is correct to say that you will need to have a Windows management station (Windows 8 will do) but your claim was that to run a Hyper-V host you need to buy Windows, and your claim is wrong.

Comment: Re:It's no biggie. You have to understand the big (Score 3, Insightful) 286

by TheRealSlimShady (#43279143) Attached to: PayPal To Replace VMware With OpenStack

Read again. Hyper-V Server is 100% free - you do not have to buy Windows to get it, you download the ISO from the Microsoft site, and install it. It's fully functional (HA,live migration, live storage migration etc etc). If you wanted to run a whole bunch of Linux VM's on it then you could do that without paying microsoft a cent.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/hyper-v-server/default.aspx

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Working...