@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:

@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:

@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:

Unfortunately, this LOB is Windows only, hence the need for RDS.

Why would it require RDS for a Windows LOB software solution? Is it from the 1990s and doesn't have a web interface or some other way to access it without RDS?

Unfortunately, the only options are "Fat client" or "Thin client aka RDS"

I, personally, use that as a reason to heavily question why the business is depending on an application that has such a limitation. What possible reason would their be for important software to require a fat client on a Windows desktop (or any desktop.) There can be reasons, but they are rare. Sounds, most likely, that it is bad software that is not fully maintained for the last decade or so? That's the stuff I worry about. If they don't have a post-1990s interface and haven't freed themselves of desktop entanglements, do they have any support left?

It's this simple...

Why did you make a video that showed a blank screen?

Answer: I was....

• Confused and thought you'd see something.
• Didn't understand how videos worked.
• Thought you wouldn't notice.
• Didn't realize that six seconds of dead air wouldn't be useful

I can't be the one trolling, you are the one not answering the super duper simple question.

@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:

Unfortunately, this LOB is Windows only, hence the need for RDS.

Why would it require RDS for a Windows LOB software solution? Is it from the 1990s and doesn't have a web interface or some other way to access it without RDS?

Actually radio research is a great example. That's what I want, research into things that are cost effective and actually useful to humanity. Not pouring money pointlessly into a corrupt science welfare program propped up as a cold war era propaganda machine.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

@JaredBusch said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

Correct you do have QoS. It is on the VLAN, that contains the voice devices.

So the following is an incorrect assumption.

@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

You might want to LEAD with.... since we discovered that QoS was not set up properly and has never been a problem we can assume that QoS and ensuring call quality cannot be the reason.

Let them come up with a reason if you head that off at the pass.

No, it's correct. They didn't do their jobs properly. They neither did the sensible, cost effective thing for the business, which would have been to not have a VLAN at all. Nor did they properly do QoS for your VoIP traffic.

So no matter what, they didn't set up QoS correctly for you.

@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:

Might as well be bitching about the money spent on radio wave research 100 years ago as worthless. Research which fundamentally transformed humanity.

That wasn't government research, and it was pretty clear what they were working on. This is the opposite of that.

@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?:

@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?:

You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.

Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?

What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?

Which part are you questioning specifically?

Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.

The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."

You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"

How?

What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.

Question.

So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?

Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.

Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.

I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.

So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."

So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.

The obvious thing, if you really wanted to push the point, is to ask for a non-Cisco consultant or VAR to give you an alternative and ask why the Cisco solution is bad. Then compare notes. Maybe question the original vendor again. But I'm not suggesting that anyone need go that far, if the logic behind why Cisco was selected is reasonable, that is easily enough.

This isn't about finding every bad case or bad advice or bad motivation, it's about improving the process so that we find it more often than if we didn't.

@coliver said in What Are You Watching Now:

@kelly said in What Are You Watching Now:

@tim_g said in What Are You Watching Now:

Books are always better with everything.

Books contain so many more details and a ton more "time". If you duplicated a book to a movie you'd have like a 12+ hour movie and spend a billion dollars. YOu just can't. So it's all pick and choose.

I think Peter Jackson did a decent job with LotR, at least remaining true to the spirit of the story while not including 100% of the details.

Tolkien was terrible with prose. He couldn't write himself out of a box if he tried. His world building though was phenomenal, and that's really the only reason you read the LoTR or the Silmarillion. The Hobbit was slightly better but still only for the world elements.

Actually, I don't like his world building, either. I find his worlds to be two dimensional and nonsensical. It doesn't feel like a "living" world. Things are big and overdramatic in a world that is empty and pointless.

This isn't about Cisco, remember even I think that Cisco is great a lot of the time. That it is a red flag in no way implies that it is not sometimes (or even often) the right choice. Only that it is the wrong choice often enough and in that pattern to that we should pay more attention and question what made it come up.

A little late as they no longer recognize him as PM.

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."

So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.

And what's wrong with that? If you have a vendor passionate about Cisco and Cisco will meet the needs, maybe it's the right choice for you. You questioned, you got a decent answer. Move on.

Things that I see wrong...

1. You think that things on forums are not public postings like billboards. They are, period.
2. You think that things that are said in situ in conversations that have been quoted are original content, they are not.
3. You think that the US is covered by foreign laws, it is not.
4. You think that account deletion is directly related to content deletion, there is no such association.

You are putting several misconceptions about the world together into one big mess of confusion. All of these are completely wrong. And you require all of them for your basis of argument here.

@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

You're stopping short - again, don't just say - 'question any quote for an advertised thing' - instead say, 'question all quotes'

No, question quotes for an advertised thing more. It's about recognizing the danger case and raising alert.

If you raise the base alert from green to orange, orange becomes "no alert". It's just how humans work.

@dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@tim_g said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Is there a decent espresso/cappucino maker for under $100 anyone can recommend based on personal use?

Can't think of one. That's pretty cheap. I'm sure you can find something, but it'll be pretty lean. We have an older one that works okay. Probably a $250 model, but it's held up for... decades.

Our cuisinart coffee maker burned up this morning. We've had it for about 4 years.. drag is burned up!

We have one that has held on since 2003.

@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?:

@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:

You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.

Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?

What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?

Which part are you questioning specifically?

Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.

The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."

You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"

How?

What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.

Question.

So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?

Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.

Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.

I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.

Just completed an Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS install.

@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?:

But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.

I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?

How do you not imply the inverse if what you're saying here is true.

Simply by not implying it. That's a standard logic rule. One true does not imply the inverse. That's basic logical progression.

@wirestyle22 said in Gaming - What's everyone playing / hosting / looking to play:

@Kelly said in Gaming - What's everyone playing / hosting / looking to play:

@QuixoticJeremy said in Gaming - What's everyone playing / hosting / looking to play:

@Grey Let me know how Civ6 is. I was debating on it for ages.

It is decent. Probably the best vanilla release Sid Meier has had since Civ II. There are some annoyances, and it takes some getting used to compared to other Civ games, but I enjoy playing it. I also really enjoyed BE, so maybe my standards are really low.

I have heard a lot of negative things about it, but Civ purists are some of the hardest people to please

I've honestly never found a Sid Meier game that I could stand. I've tried many over the years, they are all garbage.

@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?:

If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.

That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?

That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.

The part that I think we both have a problem with is that general people, that includes the crappy IT person and the NORMAL SMB business owner (as you said, most SMBs fail, and well just one look at SW shows how many not great IT people there are out there). These are the normals - the expected situation. I would NEVER expect them to question a recommendation because it matches ads on TV, again, because they are normals and don't adhere to good business practices. When you run into that 5% who aren't normal and who do realize that if it's advertised you should be wary, it's pretty easy for you to switch gears to deal with those people.

But, if you're dealing with normals... they would never question it.

Right, I don't expect them to do their jobs well either. But here is the problem....

You confuse that people wont' do a good job with whether or not we give them good advice. What difference does it make if the average person is going to do a bad job? That logic says we should cease giving all advice, we should in fact not care about doing a good job or improving... because "many" other people won't. So the whole thing should be thrown out? The entire concept of business, IT, consulting, doing a good job?

I don't understand why anything you said relates to why it's not good advice or needed advice?

'Vaccine' created for huge cyber-attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40427907