Time to gut the network - thoughts?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If it's a real consultant, and they recommend Cisco, why would you question it?
What you are questioning is if they are a true consultant.
The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need, or they wouldn't have a consultant. How do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it?
YOu are feeling that it requires good IT knowledge to question, but it does not. Good business knowledge is all that is needed. THis isn't an IT thing, it's a pure business one.
No not at all. It's definitely also an IT thing. How do you question it when you have no idea what you're looking for? You still haven't answered that. What do you specifically look for?
People also look at it this way, do you buy from Jim's Electric Vehicles Inc, or do you buy from Tesla?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well given what I know now, we should dump them as a vendor because, supposedly, they don't know squat about networking.
Well, either they know squat OR they are willing to hurt you to make a quick buck. You choose which is worse. But yes, keeping them seems completely unreasonable.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Which, in turn, is like the No One Ever Got Fired for Buying.... article. It's not that Cisco is always wrong, but if your "consultant" recommends Cisco you should be more wary of him than if he suggested Juniper or Ubiquiti. It doens't mean that Cisco is bad or that the consultant isn't knowledgeable. It simply is because nearly all bad advice looks the same. Good advice can look like almost anything.
There was a gigantic thread about this before. If it's a real consultant, and they recommend Cisco, why would you question it? You're using a consultant because you don't know what you need.
Exactly - so how are you suppose to be protected?
GOod business practices.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well then I have to assume that the continued chorus line of "we recommend you put the VOIP phones on their own VLAN for QoS" is showing that they are uneducated in modern networking, no?
This falls into the same general category of "The average of any market is poor. The average business will fail. The average system deployment is expensive, slow and insecure. The average advice is just a sales pitch, not good advice. And on, and on."
Nothing should ever be considered "good" because it is popular. If anything, the popularity of an idea, product or concept should put it under more scrutiny, not less.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate - how is a normal business person suppose to know that if their consultant suggest Cisco that they should really be scrutinizing that recommendation even more? They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
This is SO easy. Go ask your mother if she has heard of Cisco or of Ubiquiti Networks.
If she's heard of Cisco, you know that you should watch out for people suggesting it. It's basically that easy. I'm not kidding. Once you advertise to the public for IT needs, you are going after this exactly problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well then I have to assume that the continued chorus line of "we recommend you put the VOIP phones on their own VLAN for QoS" is showing that they are uneducated in modern networking, no?
This falls into the same general category of "The average of any market is poor. The average business will fail. The average system deployment is expensive, slow and insecure. The average advice is just a sales pitch, not good advice. And on, and on."
Nothing should ever be considered "good" because it is popular. If anything, the popularity of an idea, product or concept should put it under more scrutiny, not less.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate - how is a normal business person suppose to know that if their consultant suggest Cisco that they should really be scrutinizing that recommendation even more? They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
This is SO easy. Go ask your mother if she has heard of Cisco or of Ubiquiti Networks.
If she's heard of Cisco, you know that you should watch out for people suggesting it. It's basically that easy. I'm not kidding. Once you advertise to the public for IT needs, you are going after this exactly problem.
So you shouldn't buy Chevy vehicles because people have heard of it?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
Here is the easy thing there... a good business person will definitely know Cisco, IBM, VMware, etc. A bad business person needs to be replaced.
Find the root problem, fix it. Good business.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well then I have to assume that the continued chorus line of "we recommend you put the VOIP phones on their own VLAN for QoS" is showing that they are uneducated in modern networking, no?
This falls into the same general category of "The average of any market is poor. The average business will fail. The average system deployment is expensive, slow and insecure. The average advice is just a sales pitch, not good advice. And on, and on."
Nothing should ever be considered "good" because it is popular. If anything, the popularity of an idea, product or concept should put it under more scrutiny, not less.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate - how is a normal business person suppose to know that if their consultant suggest Cisco that they should really be scrutinizing that recommendation even more? They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
This is SO easy. Go ask your mother if she has heard of Cisco or of Ubiquiti Networks.
If she's heard of Cisco, you know that you should watch out for people suggesting it. It's basically that easy. I'm not kidding. Once you advertise to the public for IT needs, you are going after this exactly problem.
So you shouldn't buy Chevy vehicles because people have heard of it?
See that's exactly the wrong interpretation of "question" that I warned about.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But let's assume a typical business, they need a phone system, they open the phone book and call and get a few quotes. Let's assume the vendors at least go as far as to interview the customer to find the best fit. Now assume both prices come in at roughly the same cost - now what? All you can do as a typical business is TRUST that whomever you pick knows what they are doing and does the right thing.
Right, typical businesses will do things poorly. So assume that typical businesses will always be bad. So don't be typical if you are trying to do well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It only seems weird to "question" it because people get confused about what questioning means. They think that it is denying, which is totally different.
See where I warned about misusing the term "question" above ^^^^
Just because you question something doesn't even slightly imply that you don't then do it once you've checked to see if it is legit.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need, or they wouldn't have a consultant. How do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it?
Because even to non-technical people it's an obvious case. If you feel comfortable with the recommendation because it is an "expensive, well known, well advertised brand aimed at a non-technical person" you know to question it. Why would they market to those people if not to support this scenario? They would not, obviously. That advertising has only one function.
So you're saying that if a completely non technical person was presented with any non advertised (aka known) solution/company name, that the customer would question that it's the right thing, but just because it's using a name they heard on TV but literally know nothing about, so they'll just assume it must be good/right? Yeah sadly I'm sure you're right. But if that's the case, then you're pretty much screwed.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It only seems weird to "question" it because people get confused about what questioning means. They think that it is denying, which is totally different.
See where I warned about misusing the term "question" above ^^^^
Just because you question something doesn't even slightly imply that you don't then do it once you've checked to see if it is legit.
Cisco is legit, just like Chevy.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It only seems weird to "question" it because people get confused about what questioning means. They think that it is denying, which is totally different.
See where I warned about misusing the term "question" above ^^^^
Just because you question something doesn't even slightly imply that you don't then do it once you've checked to see if it is legit.
Cisco is legit, just like Chevy.
Yes, which is why I also pointed out that it was NOT the vendor being questions. I feel like you hare having an emotional response to what I said and not reading what was actually said. You are definitely not responding to me here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well then I have to assume that the continued chorus line of "we recommend you put the VOIP phones on their own VLAN for QoS" is showing that they are uneducated in modern networking, no?
This falls into the same general category of "The average of any market is poor. The average business will fail. The average system deployment is expensive, slow and insecure. The average advice is just a sales pitch, not good advice. And on, and on."
Nothing should ever be considered "good" because it is popular. If anything, the popularity of an idea, product or concept should put it under more scrutiny, not less.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate - how is a normal business person suppose to know that if their consultant suggest Cisco that they should really be scrutinizing that recommendation even more? They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
This is SO easy. Go ask your mother if she has heard of Cisco or of Ubiquiti Networks.
If she's heard of Cisco, you know that you should watch out for people suggesting it. It's basically that easy. I'm not kidding. Once you advertise to the public for IT needs, you are going after this exactly problem.
LOL - so this life lesson you're talking about I think is something almost no one actually either A) understands, B) chooses to ignore or C) hasn't been taught or taken the time to understand.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If it's a real consultant, and they recommend Cisco, why would you question it?
What you are questioning is if they are a true consultant.
See here where I pointed out above that it was the consulting that you were questioning, not the product ^^^^
The quality of Cisco gear is irrelevant. We are questioning why it is being recommended.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well then I have to assume that the continued chorus line of "we recommend you put the VOIP phones on their own VLAN for QoS" is showing that they are uneducated in modern networking, no?
This falls into the same general category of "The average of any market is poor. The average business will fail. The average system deployment is expensive, slow and insecure. The average advice is just a sales pitch, not good advice. And on, and on."
Nothing should ever be considered "good" because it is popular. If anything, the popularity of an idea, product or concept should put it under more scrutiny, not less.
Now I'm just playing devil's advocate - how is a normal business person suppose to know that if their consultant suggest Cisco that they should really be scrutinizing that recommendation even more? They're probably lucky if they know the name Cisco (OK not really, but you get my point - he's a Shoe store owner, he doesn't know squat about computers).
This is SO easy. Go ask your mother if she has heard of Cisco or of Ubiquiti Networks.
If she's heard of Cisco, you know that you should watch out for people suggesting it. It's basically that easy. I'm not kidding. Once you advertise to the public for IT needs, you are going after this exactly problem.
LOL - so this life lesson you're talking about I think is something almost no one actually either A) understands, B) chooses to ignore or C) hasn't been taught or taken the time to understand.
Well this PARTICULAR life lesson is about IT. Chevy advertises to your mom because your mom buys cars. That's fine. Cisco advertises to your mom because it wants your mom to question the IT guy at work anytime something fails and ask if it's because they didn't buy Cisco. See the difference? Cisco wants the non-IT people (is your mom actually in IT?) to push their products based on things other than the business needs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It only seems weird to "question" it because people get confused about what questioning means. They think that it is denying, which is totally different.
See where I warned about misusing the term "question" above ^^^^
Just because you question something doesn't even slightly imply that you don't then do it once you've checked to see if it is legit.
Cisco is legit, just like Chevy.
Yes, which is why I also pointed out that it was NOT the vendor being questions. I feel like you hare having an emotional response to what I said and not reading what was actually said. You are definitely not responding to me here.
It's not that Cisco is always wrong, but if your "consultant" recommends Cisco you should be more wary of him than if he suggested Juniper or Ubiquiti
The chances that the advice is good is too low to not question it. It's because it is a predictable scam response.
Both of those statements mean you are directly questioning the vendor or consultant. I'm not having an emotional response. You still haven't explained how someone who doesn't know how this stuff is supposed to work, is supposed to know when someone is telling the truth or not.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need, or they wouldn't have a consultant. How do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it?
Because even to non-technical people it's an obvious case. If you feel comfortable with the recommendation because it is an "expensive, well known, well advertised brand aimed at a non-technical person" you know to question it. Why would they market to those people if not to support this scenario? They would not, obviously. That advertising has only one function.
So you're saying that if a completely non technical person was presented with any non advertised (aka known) solution/company name, that the customer would question that it's the right thing, but just because it's using a name they heard on TV but literally know nothing about, so they'll just assume it must be good/right? Yeah sadly I'm sure you're right. But if that's the case, then you're pretty much screwed.
I didn't quite say that, at least not in this thread, but this is also true and also a problem. Don't specifically not question the case where you are most likely to be getting screwed and don't specifically question the case where someone is most likely doing a good job.
So what you are mentioning is the "what to avoid" and I was giving the "what to do", but they complement each other. If someone presents you with a recommendation that is so obviously a copy of what general marketing or bad practice suggests you would get when getting screwed, question the motives or qualifications of the person giving it to you more than in other cases.
There is no situation where you just assume someone is an expect. But there are huge cases where you question if they are... like when they try to sell you a SAN without asking your needs, or only sell very high cost brand name gear. You have to wonder, are they making money somewhere either through the sales channel or possibly simply through the lack of skills channel (skills cost money to acquire and maintain) or possibly because they think you are politically motivated and they feel that it is the only way to placate you and you need to deal with things in that way.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It only seems weird to "question" it because people get confused about what questioning means. They think that it is denying, which is totally different.
See where I warned about misusing the term "question" above ^^^^
Just because you question something doesn't even slightly imply that you don't then do it once you've checked to see if it is legit.
Cisco is legit, just like Chevy.
Yes, which is why I also pointed out that it was NOT the vendor being questions. I feel like you hare having an emotional response to what I said and not reading what was actually said. You are definitely not responding to me here.
It's not that Cisco is always wrong, but if your "consultant" recommends Cisco you should be more wary of him than if he suggested Juniper or Ubiquiti
The chances that the advice is good is too low to not question it. It's because it is a predictable scam response.
Both of those statements mean you are directly questioning the vendor or consultant. I'm not having an emotional response. You still haven't explained how someone who doesn't know how this stuff is supposed to work, is supposed to know when someone is telling the truth or not.
Nope, I never questioned the vendor, never once. Because you are not dealing with a vendor, there is nothing to question. We are discussing paid for advice and questioning the capabilities or motives of the person providing that advice. And it takes zero technical skills to question the bigger of the two (motives) and very little to question the former (technical.)
THere is no challenge here, only a need for a company to care about doing a good job.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If someone presents you with a recommendation that is so obviously a copy of what general marketing or bad practice suggests you would get when getting screwed,
This is what I'm talking about. These people don't know what bad practice is or what general marketing is. You still haven't supplied how these people are supposed to find what bad practices are.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@travisdh1 said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@travisdh1 That said, I don't know what the price difference actually is myself. For servers and backbone it might be worth the upgrade all around.
Refurbs aren't bad, but new NICs are around $250-300 and if you use SFP then it's even more.
We just use SFP+ switches in the server rack and SFP card, with SFP+ Cooper 10GB cables. Then you can just use fiber uplinks from the rack switches (we use 40GB QSFP+ uplinks) No point in doing Fiber to the server.
