I am defeated
-
@cakeis_not_alie What you are looking for is not found on ther Interent.
That's real world stuff for real people.Real people in a virtual world struggle. Most of the people presented to you are only as deep as your monitor.
-
@nadnerB said:
I find it hard to understand how IT Pro's, who are supposed to be good at grasping concepts, can't grasp the concept that someone elses world doesn't work the same as theirs. Perhaps, I observed the wrong crowd (not here but else where) or perhaps they are the majority now.
They rather feel like the majority to me. Though I can accept that this could be me being crazy.
-
@nadnerB "What you are looking for is not found on ther Interent.
That's real world stuff for real people.Real people in a virtual world struggle. Most of the people presented to you are only as deep as your monitor."
I don't know about that. SAM has his moments.
-
@cakeis_not_alie said:
@nadnerB "What you are looking for is not found on ther Interent.
That's real world stuff for real people.Real people in a virtual world struggle. Most of the people presented to you are only as deep as your monitor."
I don't know about that. SAM has his moments.
lol, I did say "most people"
-
@cakeis_not_alie by the way, you are wrong.
You are not defeated. You are deflated. Big difference.
-
@nadnerB I thought SAM was "people". As in a collection of individuals that make up his post count. DOOM!
-
Do voices in my head count as multiple people?
-
@scottalanmiller "Do voices in my head count as multiple people?"
Only if they come with individual alcohol preferences.
-
And they do!
-
@cakeis_not_alie
A shoestring budget to me is a complete lack of funds in a company (probably meaning that the company is near bankruptcy - perhaps not). Everything else you described about making your solutions work are, like Scott mentioned, you being a good IT admin. It sounds like you are acquiring the funds you REALLY need. I was under the impression that you were going to management for NEEDS and you weren't getting those needs covered, but instead you getting them covered, which is awesome, that shows your skill as a negotiator. It's true that perhaps you shouldn't have to try as hard as you do, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.As for the whitepaper talk - I don't know about the rest around here, but I rarely hear about whitepaper/rules talk, not on ML. And I've never been lucky enough to work on the equipment you're talking about that really can pay attention to those rules.
I haven't spent much recent time on SW so I'm unfamiliar with your postings, your name to me here is pretty new. I look forward to future IT solution based discussions - it's one thing that's sorely lacking here on ML.
-
@Dashrender said:
As for the whitepaper talk - I don't know about the rest around here, but I rarely hear about whitepaper/rules talk, not on ML. And I've never been lucky enough to work on the equipment you're talking about that really can pay attention to those rules.
I inquire about this type of thing whenever I am working with new products or services because seeing the responses will help me to decide how I want to handle it for my client.
-
@cakeis_not_alie I fire clients that refuse to see IT as an integral part of their company. I do not want to work for them.
It does technically mean, that I only want clients that will spend money. Of course it does and it should. I am not running a charity. I am running a consultancy.
That does not mean I only want clients to spend money without thought. I present at least three solutions to any situation.
- The option that I feel will best work for the client knowing their stated business goal. Cost is only a factor of the decision, this option is sometimes the cheapest, sometimes not..
- A second option that I feel should work but has some kind of catch generally lower in cost than option 1 because of the catch.
- The option to do nothing and a discussion of the cost of doing nothing.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
As for the whitepaper talk - I don't know about the rest around here, but I rarely hear about whitepaper/rules talk, not on ML. And I've never been lucky enough to work on the equipment you're talking about that really can pay attention to those rules.
I inquire about this type of thing whenever I am working with new products or services because seeing the responses will help me to decide how I want to handle it for my client.
Sure, but this isn't the same as having someone like, say John, through whitepapers in your face because you're doing something that isn't supported.
Cakeis was apparently feeling persecuted for posting that he was doing something that was against some whitepaper and someone kept throwing those in his face.
I rarely see this happening, but then again I'm also not hanging out in those groups where sticking to the letter of support is highly suggested for stability, support, etc.
-
@cakeis_not_alie said:
The long story short is that I created a Starwind configuration that was unsupported. I did so for rational reasons. At the time, this was literally the only way to get what I needed to do done and meet the various requirements on the table. (Which don't need going into, nor am I going to rehash a 1.5 year old build at this juncture.)
I knew at the time of the build that Starwind didn't support storage heavy setups. Sure enough, I paid for it. The damned thing ate some LUNs. I had about 6 months of fighting with the damned thing tooth and nail before I got it stable.
It isn't running a config that is supported by Microsoft or by Starwind. I know that. I also know there aren't any real good choices for this client. Now that it's stable, i expect to see 6 years of service from this thing, but here are rules being broken in order to do what "shouldn't" be done with what's to hand.
I'm wondering, would you do this same solution again knowing what you know now?
-
My guess is that yes, he would, only he would go straight to the working solution instead of the inbetween steps.
-
@Dashrender "I'm wondering, would you do this same solution again knowing what you know now?"
No. Given what I know now I would never touch Starwind with a 50-foot pole. I would instead have gone into a back alley and sucked an unlimited line of dicks to get money for a better solution then ever be in a position to be reliant on Anton for anything, ever.
Now, if Anton weren't involved with the company, I probably would use Starwind again, in the exact same circumstances. But today there are far better options. 1.5 years can change everything in this industry.
-
@cakeis_not_alie Related: today I learned that Spiceworks has an ignore feature: http://community.spiceworks.com/blogs/products/1785-community-preview-user-muting
This won't help the place become more friendly, but at least it will prevent me from righteously toothbrush shanking a few of them at the next Spiceworld. XD
Seriously though, it's amazing how big a difference such features can make. El Reg enabled it on the forums a while back, and they got a LOT better once you could clean off the worst of the trolls.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
My guess is that yes, he would, only he would go straight to the working solution instead of the inbetween steps.
LOL -usually the fact that you have to go through the bad again, and suffer the consequences of that bad are part of the question, not the ability to skip it. If you skipped it, it wouldn't really be doing the same thing again.
-
Need to come hang out in the PowerShell forum. Our troll quotient is almost zero except for a European complaining about date formats
I think we've managed to maintain the old school Spiceworks feel. But we're small, maybe that's the key. -
@Martin9700 Sounds nice. Except for the part where I am a sucky little GUI baby and not overly fond of PowerShell.
