Virtualization Redemption?
-
I agree from what I know of your setup.
-
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
-
@scottalanmiller wtf with the two year necro...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
This is great in idea and utterly impractical in practice.
Not saying that we shoot for mediocrity in Leu of the best solution, but in the SMB we often have to deal with good enough because others who are in charge just don’t see it our way or they value something higher than money.
-
@dashrender said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
This is great in idea and utterly impractical in practice.
Not saying that we shoot for mediocrity in Leu of the best solution, but in the SMB we often have to deal with good enough because others who are in charge just don’t see it our way or they value something higher than money.
That's not what that means at all. You've misunderstood the context.
-
@scottalanmiller Scott you dont live in the real world bud. I've got two servers on site, and one colo'd, hyper-v replication to the colo'd server. on site altaro VM backups, on site Data backups, AND Code42 HIPAA off site data backups.... the customer is fine. Their data is fine. I dont even know what we're talking about, but your responses usually just get me keyed up. HEY NOW
-
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@scottalanmiller Scott you dont live in the real world bud. I've got two servers on site, and one colo'd, hyper-v replication to the colo'd server. on site altaro VM backups, on site Data backups, AND Code42 HIPAA off site data backups.... the customer is fine. Their data is fine. I dont even know what we're talking about, but your responses usually just get me keyed up. HEY NOW
How do you determine that they are fine? You don't provide any reason to believe this. You can drive a car without a seatbelt and say "see, I'm fine", but we know that getting lucky isn't the same as a good decision.
In the REAL WORLD, "fine" is determined with math, not simple statements that "nothing has failed therefore it's okay." This is IT, that's never an acceptable answer. Why are they paying for two on site servers but not to have them be protected in a practical way? There are two potential problems that I don't see addressed: why are they not as protected as they could be for free and/or why are they paying so much to get so little?
Answers like "they are fine" are exactly my point, which I made above.
-
