Am I right on the pricing? The B2 product (business use) is $.005/GB with Glacier being $0.011 and S3 being $0.028?
If so, what does S3 or Glacier offer that B2 doesn't in terms of price/features? Why not just go with B2 based on price alone? If $0.005 is true, it's the cheapest cloud storage I've seen so far in the per gig pricing space.
@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
I don't tend to see UI issues in a solid desktop app. They are typically built on standard UI libraries from the OS, where all the rendering and sizing and refreshing are pretty locked in.
Canvas is to. If either has issues with that, it's not the language or approach that is the problem. That's an artifact of the developers not making something that looks good. That's a separate issue.
I think this conversation is beginning to turn in to "which programming language is better" at this point.
The "native vs. web" idea is lost. What does "web" even mean then? Almost all native apps are connected to the web too. So we're really talking about "web languages" rather than internet-enabled.
That means we're talking about JS versus C#, Visual C++, VB etc. Or even further, JIT versus compiled. Or further, higher level versus lower level.
What difference does it make at this point? I appreciate that lower level "native" apps tend to be better tested, require fewer dependencies, are more stable and faster. I also appreciate web-language containerized quazi-desktop cross-compiled apps can be easier to design and distribute and work across platforms. It also offers traditional "web devs" a means to crossover into desktop development.
You said Office has been "web" for two generations. Not sure what you mean here. Yes they have "web versions" that can run in a browser, but they still have their C++ native Windows apps, or Objective C for Mac version. It ain't written in JS in a container!
I've used Word and Excel in the browser, as well as the desktop apps, and FAR prefer the desktop apps still. The web version has crashed on me more times in a year than my desktop Office has ever crashed in my lifetime.
Web is convenient and pretty dang cool, but still has its drawbacks.
@Dashrender said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
@guyinpv said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
@IRJ said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
@guyinpv said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
I would like to go down the Microsoft tract into servers and software development I think.
Microsoft isn't bad, but they do test a certain way. Once you learn their testing thought process, the tests are fairly easy. The first time you take a MS test, it can through you for a loop.
Example of what you mean?
Well for me it was that you had to read one book ahead. Read book 1, take the test, and you're damned lucky if you don't fail it. While reading book 2, you see all the things they asked about in test 1, and realize you need to read books 2 and 3 before you even consider taking test 2.
This sounds like more of a problem with MS's training books than with the tests themselves.
What if you studied with non-MS training materials?
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I could send all company backups to a single store, then use a free backup tool/sync tool to send the data to the boss's home computer. Then he can use his personal backup account
In theory, but you'd likely have technical issues, you'd definitely have no recourse in case of failure, might be cut off anytime and are relying on not paying the bills, rather than getting something cheap, if that makes sense. You still "owe" the money, even if the vendor doesn't know about it.
And do you really want customers that are willing to steal from their vendors? You are one of their vendors, remember.
I would feel really good about myself figuring out this "free" solution 
I think the conversation can't conclude unless we discuss the differences between archival, backup, and cloud sync.
Depending on what's needed, "archival" storage is not a "per user" issue. We need to archive media and project files and business compliance docs. Not really a user issue, and no need for a local copy.
The solution needs to be safe and secure, and not go cancelling around account due to inactivity or any such shenanigans.
For workstation backups, I rather like Crashplan. Unlimited data, near real time backup, individual file restore, Linux support, etc. Around $9.99/m per user for Business.
So we hit that same $100/m mark for 10 users, but with an unlimited plan, it ain't bad.
For cloud sync, well I haven't found a favorite yet. I liked MediaFire and had 1TB for about $2.80 a month until they killed the desktop app entirely. Then I went to O365 personal for $9 and and get 1TB.
None of these services will give all that much in terms of TBs.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
For business backups, Spideroak starts at $90/mo. That's a lot of Glacier.
About 8TB. But SpiderOak would be "unlimited" for those 10 users.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
Oh, DropBox for Business with unlimited isn't $12.50, it's $60/mo then $12.50 for each additional user over 5.
5.4TB, but "unlimited" <<< always questionable.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I wanted to store about 1.8TB. Glacier was $0.011/gb so about $20 we'll say. Dropbox Business is $12.50/m and just says "as much space as needed", whatever that means.
Or BackBlaze Business at $50/year ($4.17/m-ish) with "unlimited" data.
BBB requires that you store the data locally, so that's not an option, it's not comparable to B2. Totally different use cases, which is why there are two price points from the same vendor. B2 is archival like Glacier, BBB is backup (enforced.)
1.8TB on Glacier: $12.91
On B2: $9.20
Dropbox: $60
Spideroak: $90Glacier seems pretty competitive even in the example
But B2 is the best.
Who says I would buy the "enterprise" or "business" plans anyway? :cartwheel:
The boogeyman will never know!
I could send all company backups to a single store, then use a free backup tool/sync tool to send the data to the boss's home computer. Then he can use his personal backup account 
@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
Desktop apps crash, but rarely due to stupid UI, UX issues that would have only needed 10 minutes of real QA and testing to discover. Or more robust debugging and compile tools.
What do you feel that they mostly crash from?
That is far beyond my knowledge. I imagine the roots dig deeper into dependencies and OS drivers and so on.
A website-app-in-a-box, well it might crash because Javascript is insufficient as a desktop language and was overwhelmed in some way? I've seen UI elements disappear behind other elements of the boundary of the app's border. I've seen font issues, graphics rendering issues, issues of "flashing" elements and other refresh issues. I've seen the apps freeze up when working too fast and it can't keep up.
I don't tend to see UI issues in a solid desktop app. They are typically built on standard UI libraries from the OS, where all the rendering and sizing and refreshing are pretty locked in.
Again, I use plenty of both types of apps, but here in 2016, I still prefer native, what can I say?
@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
End users should not be QA, no matter what tool or language.
Unless you want to deliver something for end users and need to know what they want, like, need, etc.
"Features" are different from "bugs".
I sure as shooting "want, like, and need" the product to actually WORK before I start acting as free beta tester for an app. Especially if I've paid for it.
If the app is free, well there is always an out.
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:
@guyinpv said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:
In my own case, I'm not doing regular work or maintenance, so there lies the difference between unattended access or not.
I must be missing something, I see zero difference. In both cases you "can" access and in both cases you are trusted to "not" access things you are not supposed to. That they log in whenever they feel like working and you do not feels like a red herring to me, I don't see any reason that that is important or relevant.
If I were a business owner and did not have any kind of agreement or arrangement with a contractor, I simply wouldn't want them leaving their crap on my systems. It doesn't even matter if I'm always calling them for the work, we don't have an agreement for them to store their tools in my shed, hang their hat on my hook, or install their personal support tools on my computers.
I've been to homes where I found "support" tools installed by local IT shops and the people didn't even recall any agreement to have such a thing installed in the first place.
Maybe they will change their support guy one day without telling me? They aren't smart enough to know the tools I have running, or how to remove them safely. They may even buy a new computer or reload one and have no idea that I need to get my stuff back on there.
All of this just makes me think I should have an agreement or contract or at least an understanding, written or not, that I can access things unattended if needs be. Especially when the environment has PCI constraints or HIPAA.
I suppose I'm being overly cautious. Doesn't hurt to dig in to these meta-issues sometimes.
@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@scottalanmiller said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
@guyinpv said in Web Application VS Windows Application:
I think it's just the principle of the thing.
Less fluff means smaller, faster, easier to distribute, fewer dependencies to test/update or that can potentially introduce security leaks or be hacked or become outdated.
I'm thinking that it is more like virtualization.... standard abstraction layers add "more stuff" but in standard ways that make development, stability and security easier.
In theory.
I don't think tools like Electron are this "standard" yet. Could be wrong. I've had plenty of "websites in a box" apps crash on me and do stupid things, screwy UIs and other bugs.
I'm sure they will improve. I'm looking forward to trying Electron myself. I just don't have a project yet!
It's not a panacea, you still need a good product. Native apps have these problems, too.
There is something about a native app though. I feel like companies spend requisite time doing actual QA and releasing a stable product. Or maybe it's perhaps that when programming in C++ or C or whatever, the profiling and debug tools are that much better?
Companies that release websites-in-a-box products follow a different mindset, the "hustler" way of "release soon, release often", depending on their failing products to be debugged by their own users who will report their issues diligently and submit bugs to github.
End users should not be QA, no matter what tool or language. But if all you're doing is programming a "website" then updates are a cinch you don't have to worry about your product sucking after release.
Desktop apps crash, but rarely due to stupid UI, UX issues that would have only needed 10 minutes of real QA and testing to discover. Or more robust debugging and compile tools.
@IRJ said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
@guyinpv said in Logical IT Certification Progression:
I would like to go down the Microsoft tract into servers and software development I think.
Microsoft isn't bad, but they do test a certain way. Once you learn their testing thought process, the tests are fairly easy. The first time you take a MS test, it can through you for a loop.
Example of what you mean?
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
At 1TB it's about at the $10/m mark which is more or less than almost every service out there for getting the same 1TB.
I wanted to store about 1.8TB. Glacier was $0.011/gb so about $20 we'll say. Dropbox Business is $12.50/m and just says "as much space as needed", whatever that means.
Or BackBlaze Business at $50/year ($4.17/m-ish) with "unlimited" data.
Don't know about Dropbox' limits. But Backblaze Business is a backup system, not a storage system. BackBlaze' storage system, B2, you also pay per GB for forever.
I would assume that an "archive" is essentially a "backup". Doesn't matter to me.
That is probably where Glacier or other becomes cost effective again.
1GB - 800GB - Glacier
801GB - 5TB~ - Some service that claims "unlimited" or "no limits", uh huh.
5TB+ - Back to linear pay-per-gb since other services limited your unlimited space after all.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
hat happen
You just pay per GB forever. It's a linear curve strait up.
At 1TB it's about at the $10/m mark which is more or less than almost every service out there for getting the same 1TB.
I wanted to store about 1.8TB. Glacier was $0.011/gb so about $20 we'll say. Dropbox Business is $12.50/m and just says "as much space as needed", whatever that means.
Or BackBlaze Business at $50/year ($4.17/m-ish) with "unlimited" data.
I get that Glacier is long-term archival, but it's not like any other cloud service is bound to drop all your data by accident or something.
SpiderOak would be half the price of Glacier at the 5TB mark.
On the flip side, if you just want to stick, say, 140GB in the cloud, which is much more than any free cloud service, and would cost at least $5 to $10 a month for most cloud services to bump up the package, Glacier would be $1.54.
So I figured, Glacier ok under 1TB, but above 1TB I might look to fuller-featured cloud services that can beat the price curve. Maybe after dozens of terabytes, Glacier becomes the only option again, I don't know.
I'm reminded of the situation we have at my work. Our accountant uses TeamViewer to remote in (unattended) to the computer running Quickbooks so they can do payroll and some other stuff.
I never liked this arrangement, since they can use that system to pretty much go anywhere in the network once in. They are the ones who needed to use "their" tool TV which I now have to run all the time.
I just went along with it since I don't have the time to create a walled-off Quickbooks station just for them.
The point being, we have a sort of "contract" and we know they are regularly going to log in.
In my own case, I'm not doing regular work or maintenance, so there lies the difference between unattended access or not.
I guess it's not worth discussing really, the business owner has the option to leave me unattended access or not. But in this case, I would be picking the tool and making sure its use is secure.
I would prefer a free option for reasons mentioned already, namely that I probably wouldn't use it but once a year. I also prefer not dealing with dynamic IP and router issues which is something TV avoids. Darn licensing.
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:
Getting remote access is always a weird subject. Are you their support or not? If so, you need access, always. If not, their support needs the skills to get you access when it is needed. You need to really determine the goal.
Yes I am their support as far as break/fix and upgrades. The only other support is their copier guy, and their medical software support people.
My issue is that, while I typically do all their support, I don't have any kind of retainer fee or contract or policies regarding maintaining any kind of remote control.
Is it typical to create a contract for this for liability reasons? Or just a handshake on "hey I can get in the server whenever I want, cool with you?"
If there is a contract for this, I'd like to see a sample or what that might look like. And for that reason, why not give myself access to every workstation in there while I'm at it?
@IRJ said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:
This is the most long and drawn out thread for something simple:
- I feel like you are doing this for free or really cheap. If that is the case...walk away immediately. You sound like a young, excitable guy. I was there once, but after you get used a few times. You won't be so willing to help for nothing or very little.
- Pick a remote control tool. I've used Deskroll in the past and it is really nice because the user can launch a one time .exe file and has the option to install the client at the end so you always have access. If they prefer not to, then that's ok too. You can just send them the .exe everytime you need access.
- I think you don't need idrac access. I think you are being way too paranoid. You are talking about a business with 6 computers. If they are paying you by the incident then make them sweat a little. Otherwise they see you fix the problem in 10 or 15 minutes and they don't appreciate your work. You can always remote in and gain SSH access if you need to do so. If everything is too easy and streamline they will never realize your value. Many small businesses think IT is a waste of money anyway.
I appreciate the sentiments, but nothing is ever that easy. For every situation, 52 techs will give 52 different options which are their favorite. Deskroll has not been mentioned once before, I've never even heard of it!
iDRAC is probably overkill. Just figure if it's there, might as well enable it and leave the option open eh? I can ignore it for now. I only worked on their previous server twice in a year, so these things are pretty stable anyway.
I'm not doing the job for free or anything, but I try to avoid telling them that along with their upgraded server that will do the exact same thing as the old one, they now have to make monthly payments to some service they never needed before. Or on the flip side, I don't want to personally make payments for a new tool I may use for them once a year.
You are right about this being drawn out. It's just a conversation, talking about tools and techniques. I never needed to start this thread at all. I could have just stuck TeamViewer on there and called it good. But it never hurts to ask questions and see what's new, what people are using, what tools I haven't heard of, and how other people do the same things.
I was pricing out Glacier recently. Surprised to learn it really doesn't pan out after about 1TB.
After that, you may as well just buy Dropbox or any other cloud service, you'll get way more features for the same dollar.
Glacier does really well under 1TB because you can store 10s or 100s of megs on the cheap, only paying for what you use.
I've always thought BackBlaze was a great offering. The only other offering I can think of is CrashPlan actually, which may have unlimited plan options. It even has software for Linux.
I did A+ I think it was 1998. Back when the test was in two parts, one for software and other for hardware.
Sadly, I actually didn't pass hardware the first time, I didn't study as much as software side.
Hardware test definitely covered esoteric things, pinouts, BIOS settings, endless acronyms, etc. I think I still have my small notebook with like 6 pages of acronym definitions from my study books. It was insider knowledge knowing which side of the device the red pin went. 80 pin IDE cables looked amazing with good cable management and nice folds.
I hate the idea of failing a test question due to not knowing useless fun facts versus actual real world issues and scenarios.
I just did Net+ only a couple years ago. I feel like the questions were a little more real world but what always gets me with tests are the ways they try to turn them into trick questions. I hate hate hate when they play silly games about "select one or more" and of course they want a precise number. Or trick you with a subtle "not" in the question and you read it too fast to notice, etc. I don't want to fail a test due to trick questions and trickery. Why can't tests just present something real and not try and trick people? They often have questions that could very well be the answer but probably not.
Example: Name the three primary components of a computer: 1) motherboard, 2) power supply, 3) cpu, 4) ram.
Um, well all of them are pretty primary, but for a stupid test question I guess they have a sliding scale or something? These kinds of questions are inconsequential, like "oh know, this guy almost thought that ram was slightly more important than power supply! Inconceivable!
There were some esoteric questions in Net+ like knowing ins and outs of encryption technologies used in specific wireless protocols and which cyphers they used. I feel like this is just fun facts and hardly the kind of stuff people should have memorized for most situations.
I spent multiple evenings trying to memorize all the 802.x specs. Such a waste, kind of.
I would like to go down the Microsoft tract into servers and software development I think.
@Dashrender said in Best way to maintain some remote control but not absolute?:
I get the feeling that we might not be on the same page.
When you use TeamViewer or ScreenConnect, etc, to take over the owners computer, you could use that computer to access the iDRAC or any other IP services on their LAN.
You wouldn't need to worry about changing any routes or IPs, etc. The same would mostly be said if you use something like a jumpbox. This server, normally based on a free linux server, is published through the firewall onto the internet where you can access it remotely. You connect to the jump server, then use tools like RDP from linux to connect to your Windows server, or a web browser to access iDRAC, etc.
Ya that makes sense, but same rules apply. I don't necessarily want hands-off remote control of his workstation either.
I was thinking more along the lines of a remote tool directly to Win Server on the VM. Or connect to XS and use a console view or something for VM(s).
At another location I have a server with XS and I have XO running on a VM. I've just found using XC to be nicer than XO.
I guess if I had my way, I would want this:
Like a master control panel of all clients, and all system under those clients which I can control or monitor.
My master control panel would, of course, notify me of danger on monitored devices.
I suppose MSPs have cool things like that.
On the pricing page it would seem you have to pay to store the data. Online backup is 20 cents per gig. The image backup is $30/year per workstation to store on your own data center, or 20 cents a gig/month for theirs.
