Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bennett on e-commerce (Score 1) 210

by jbolden (#48230201) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

But more to the point, all that profit came from positive inertia of business decisions made before Ballmer became the Lord High Mukkimuck of the Evil Empire.

Not really. Prior to Ballmer Microsoft had a profitable OS, Office division with some other misc products like Mice that made money. The explosion into the servers came under Ballmer: SQLServer, Lync, Dynamics... as key players, that's Ballmer not Gates.

Nothing Ballmer initiated contributed a significant percentage to MS profits.

Their revenue went from $25b to $60b under Ballmer. That growth mainly came from expansions upmarket of office and server. $35b / yr is a lot of money. I'd settle for just what Ballmer created.

Comment: Re:IBM no longer a tech company? (Score 1) 210

by jbolden (#48230121) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

Hard to know. Amazon is hitting $1b / quarter. They are spending about $4.59 billion / yr in infrastructure costs. They have some OpEx. They are obviously pricing their service way too low if they have to maintain that level of CapEx. But it is unclear that when the market calms down they will.

Amazon is simply too opaque about everything. As long as they can easily raise money based on sales growth we'll never know how profitable any of that is.

Comment: Re:The US tech industry (Score 1) 210

by jbolden (#48229887) Attached to: Ballmer Says Amazon Isn't a "Real Business"

What you are describing is the old macbook line. They used to have a macbook and a macbook air. The macbook was designed to be much cheaper than the macbook pro, while the air was slower but much lighter and thinner. At this point they can do an air type design for $1k not $4k. So there is no reason to offer the macbook. If you want performance buy the pro. If you want value for your money, and don't care about design, buy an HP.

Comment: 20 generations (Score 1) 224

by jbolden (#48229613) Attached to: High Speed Evolution

I'm not sure that's so shocking. Assume there were a predator that killed 90% of the shortest 1/3rd of all humans at age 15. Let that run for 20 generations. I don't see how the average male height going to 6' 4" would be at all out of character. Heck it might happen faster than 20 generations, possibly more like 5.

Comment: Re:Clarification regarding backports (Score 1) 122

by jbolden (#48229571) Attached to: OwnCloud Dev Requests Removal From Ubuntu Repos Over Security Holes

We're always recommending to our users to use one of the supported installation methods such as where we even provide our own repositories for most distributions.

I understand why, but that goes against the whole philosophy of distributions. From your perspective it obviously makes things easy. From the user's perspective you are one of a 100 packages that wants to install and be configured in specialized ways. And then of course this introduces complexity in both directions. For distribution packages which want features of OwnCloud they are going to pull down the Ubuntu package possibly crewing up the custom distribution. For OwnCloud packages that want dependency they aren't going to pull in the right things from the Ubuntu distribution or link to them properly. A total mess.

Really there is no good solution then there existing a package maintainer for the major distributions. has to decide if making's product work well/safely on Ubuntu is good or bad for the business. I can easily see either being the case. Ubuntu has to decide if's product is worth them supporting and right now they've decided no. If both decide no, and no individual steps up then... well there is a problem and owncloud will be iffy on Ubuntu.

Comment: Re:What a wonderful article (Score 1) 293

by jbolden (#48219795) Attached to: How Sony, Intel, and Unix Made Apple's Mac a PC Competitor

That bar graph of a spike starting in 2007 would more likely be related to the release of the iPhone.

Except for the fact that the spike starts in 2004. Its an exponential graph.

Without the development of the iPhone it is hard to see an particular strong reason for Mac marketshare to start growing

OSX Version 10.3: "Panther". At that point OSX is far ahead feature wise of Microsoft's offerings, the complexity that existed 10.0-10.2 is over, the huge markup is over and the ease of use is high. Longhorn which will later be scaled back and released as Vista is years away. There is just no comparing the two systems in terms of what you get.

Second, hardware quality starts to fall through the floor on the PC side. The drop off in sales after 2000 had PC manufacturers cutting R&D, cutting parts quality and going into a spiral of chasing each other to the bottom in terms of build quality. The public had broadly realized this, while liking the lower prices. Apple's quality differences became well known.

The selection of software on a Mac is okish today, but in 2007 it was downright terrible

Nonsense. The selection was quite good. The Apple commercial market had recovered and the open source desktop market offered a nice collection of applications that as well. And for that matter Microsoft Office for Mac was quite good.

Comment: Government (Score 1) 290

by jbolden (#48214261) Attached to: Will Fiber-To-the-Home Create a New Digital Divide?

When it comes to telco it isn't nearly twice as expensive to hit every house as it is to hit every other house. It is much cheaper to have government organizing the digging up of streets and private property than to negotiate with the private and public landholders. Government can cut the cost per user enormously if they engage. I think the article is BS but your refutation is as well.

Comment: Re:Why South Korea and Japan can do it and USA can (Score 0) 290

by jbolden (#48213871) Attached to: Will Fiber-To-the-Home Create a New Digital Divide?

I don't buy it. Fiber's cheap

What makes you think fiber is cheap?

and our cities are plenty dense enough to support fiber to the home

That's fine. And if you wanted internet within cities then that wouldn't be a problem. But most people want to get to websites and internet services outside their cities. Which means they need to be using national bandwidth. If 100k people are consuming 1gbs of bandwith that's 100tbs going into the city often over hundreds of miles. So say 5 fiber links out 20-40tbs of capacity for often hundreds of miles. Then that gets intermixed with what the city itself is consuming.

We don't remotely have the technology to support that much bandwidth. So sure. You want to file share with the guy down the block the local cable company could put in fiber. But you want to gigabit+ bandwidth to everyhome that's unthinkably expensive.

But we don't, because lobbyists.

Yeah that must be it. The evil telcos don't want you to buy more of their product. The same banana importers are lobbying to block grocery stores from selling bananas by the bunch.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 551

by jbolden (#48204145) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork

RHEL 6 (and its CentOS variants) are upstart, not systemd.

RHEL 7 is systemd though. Which means Cent is going to switch. And that means Facebook is going to switch.

Just admit you were wrong about them using it.

I know for a fact they are using it. They are using it for a backend I'm working with. Though it isn't terribly consequential to anything so it isn't a great piece of evidence, the system its on would run fine on Xenix.

"on hardware certified by RedHat Labs "
Also, Facebook's been rolling its own hardware for quite a while now, dude.

I included the quote. You missed the part where I said they were rolling their own hardware and the key point of who certifies it.

The point is that if you knew engineers working at those companies out here, you could have found out what they were actually running on by asking rather than making claims you can't back up.

Your claim from the start has been that systemd is unsuitable for server. Though your claim below is much weaker and something I would mostly agree with. So in terms of not backing it up you are disambiguating. You picked Facebook from my list:

a) They run CentOS. Cent OS is switching
b) They get their hardware certified by RedHat who is the single largest proponent of systemd.

I would say that's not opposite. But most importantly if you read the context I gave Facebook as someone advocating PaaS not someone advocating systemd. The PaaS vendors are the ones who care (and should care) about OS level components like systemd. I don't think clients like should be concerned with the infrastructure at all. That's the whole point of DevOps it helps to further break the accidental bleed over between platform specifics and higher level software, which is what the whole enterprise Java movement was attempting to do for client / server.

Hi. I'm Jeff. My LinkedIn is the Homepage link next to my name. My apologies for not having it there previously.

Fair enough. DevOps architect is legit experience.

Well, we've already established that you've been lax about doing your research before making claims.

I think that's unfair and untrue. We just disagree about what constitutes a reliable source. I'm mainly interested in vendors because they have breadth you are mainly interested in engineers because they see things up close. The way you are phrasing it is unnecessarily harsh.

From my experience, given that for many of my jobs I've been the guy hired to clean up after a "systems integrator" with a cost sheet full of buzzwords and marketing woo came in and sold some magic beans to bigwigs who didn't listen to their engineers, your line of work tends to over-engineer a "solution", under-calculate cost of operations, and end up leaving a company with severe vendor lock-in disease and an engineering staff with a new solution that's outside of the team's core expertise, which leads to staff churn, high retraining costs for those that do stay, and dissatisfaction all around.

That's not about systemd but just to defend our guys:

a) I'd love to do accurate cost assessments where IT companies use a sane rate of interest and depreciate their IT infrastructure over 10-20 years. We aren't the ones who force companies to do ROI accounting as if their depreciation / cost of borrowing / interest rate were 400%. That's not the engineers either (they are mainly on our side about that one). Blame your finance guys not us. But ultimately if the customer is mainly focused on the 1 year or 3 year cost, then we build a solution to keep the 1 or 3 year cost low and often by letting it explode in the out years.

b) In terms of staff churn often the point of an integrated solution is to prompt staff churn i.e. displacement of the people. We get involved quite often because peopel are unhappy with what they are getting from their in house engineering staff. When the in house engineering staff is buying it they are generally picking a technology they are enthusiastic to use / learn or they already have the right skill set. If you aren't the ones buying it you aren't the customer.

c) Of course there is often vendor lock-in! We have long term ongoing relationships with the vendors where we work account after account after account. In a vague sense we are on the same team as the vendors. The vendor lock-in is often how we get the good price. But we (as a profession generally not individually) are happy to construct solutions with less lock-in if the customer (who remember is many times not the IT group) wants it. As an aside, in-house software creates employee lock-in which is for most companies worse.

You're claiming that all the companies you've namedropped thus far are your clients?

No I'm claiming I have DevOps clients. I named those companies as being large users of DevOps and PaaS. Netflix incidentally is a client. Though I'll be honest here, I don't give a crap about their software I only care about some of their handoffs to various local cable companies. I don't care what their software does as long as it uses X amount of bandwidth at the right times.

You can run a server on it, but it's not ideal. It removes many of the knobs and switches that experienced sysadmins and engineers used to get extra performance out of their systems. It adds appreciable layers of overhead just to do the same thing the parts it replaces has been doing for years. The developers themselves have shown an inability to think about it in a multi-system context. It presents a large attack surface because of the dependency chain its seeking out and building up. Maybe it'll be ready for primetime by 2018. I know I'll be hacking on it and submitting patches since the major vendors decided that selling new integration packages was more important than keeping their users and customers happy.

I agree with this except for the developers being unable to think in a multi-system context and this not being something driven by customers. I think I deal with more customers than you do. Getting away from knobs and switches that experienced sysadmins use and towards generic solutions and commoditization is exactly what the customers do want. You may not like that they want that, but that's the reality. Almost all customers love hardware abstraction, the more the better. And they are willing to use an extra 2-5% of boxes to achieve it.

You still think vendors matter. This ain't Windows.

This ain't the Linux of the 1990s when it was hobbyist OS for guys like me who couldn't afford an SGI or Sun at home and wanted a Unix. Linux today is a professional server OS. Systemd came out of RedHat. If vendors didn't matter Debian wouldn't be following in Redhat's wake on systemd and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Damn right vendors matter.

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 551

by jbolden (#48202463) Attached to: Debian's Systemd Adoption Inspires Threat of Fork

Facebook most definitely does not use a single distro in production that uses systemd.

Facebook had been on a CentOS variant running on hardware certified by RedHat Labs for years. RHEL is systemd. Whether they have switched yet or not I don't know, but by 2018 or earlier they will be on systemd. If it isn't in production, it isn't in production yet.

You don't work out here. I do. It's not that big of an industry when it comes to systems administration and DevOps out here.

I don't work out there. Absolutely not. But PaaS is much bigger than the Valley. The ideas and technologies developed for DevOps are being deployed much more broadly

Don't make claims that anyone with a LinkedIn worth a damn can debunk with a few messages.

Maybe time to use your real name if you are going to play that game.

I've been very clear about the gripes I have about it.

No you haven't. You've said that you have to change stuff you do for an existing infrastructure. That's about it. Lots of hyperbole and nonsense claims about desktop.

You don't administer systems. You don't design the internals of system architecture

I don't administer systems. I most certainly do design the internals of system architectures. What do you think happens when you sell a solution that you put together random parts without thinking about how they work? I've done the specialist job when you knew every little detail of a system, and I went through large scale changes before as an engineer. I remember when I was an engineer people like you gripping about the change over from DECnet to IP and how the sky would fall. I was intimately involved in the migration of working systems from Metacode to Postscript and AFP. The systems are far better today for progress.

I can't even tell from your LinkedIn (we're third degree contacts) that you've touched a Linux system in your life.

I have, Unix since 1988, Linux since 1995. I've also touched a wide range of the big box Unixes, zSeries, iSeries and VMS. Which gives some perspective on having seen styles of solutions for process management over the years. I'm certainly not a Linux specialist. I rely on Linux specialists.

You've been management for over a decade.

Yep. What do you think management does?

You seriously don't think the same infrastructure that some shops you namedrop are -the- solution for every use case, especially out here, do you? Especially when they don't even use what you're advocating for?

I don't use PaaS? Really? You tell me what am I using for the clients we are deploying too?

I don't know about every client out there. I do know that the claim that you were making that systemd was for desktop and didn't have support for server is BS. I talk to far too many vendors who sell server solutions to believe that. I talk to far too many people system admin cloud or colos admins who see hundreds of clients to not know if systemd were causing problems to any significant fraction. I work with one of the research groups that publishes studies on this collecting the data.

So sure you are an admin in the valley. So what? You aren't the only place doing DevOps, though you guys do invent many of the best ideas.. Its gone mainstream. And believe it or not, people on opposite coast do talk to one another.

This is a good time to punt work.