@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.

@thecreativeone91 said:

He also says that the law isn't clear about it being trespassing.

He did, it is not completely clear. But the consensus seems to be that it is much more likely to be trespassing that to not be. But you said it wasn't and that it was completely legal. What makes it not trespassing and completely legal when the law leans the other way, apparently?

@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.

@Mike-Ralston said:

@scottalanmiller I don't know who set the standards, probably FCC, ISO, EGA, etc., but they are indeed standards, and have been since they were conceived...

This is completely untrue. The names predate those things. Some, like 4K might have a ratifying body, HD, simply, cannot. There is no way to standardize a name of that sort. It predates the FCC. It cannot be standardized as it is an English term that means something.

@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.

@Dashrender said:

That's the problem we have in general these days. So much new information available yet unless you have a personal desire to learn it you probably don't. Doesn't matter how helpful/useful/live saving it might be, you don't know about or care about it, you definitely won't learn about it.

This conversation has been going on since the beginning of time. At some point smart cave men were saying the same things about the dumb cave men who had no interest in learning how to make fire and only wanted to heat things up on the fires built by others. It is human nature that a small percentage of the population does everything and makes it possible for the rest to survive when, on their own, they would not.

@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:

Really? If the button is in an off state by default (I think it's actually on by default these days) I would never expect a soccer mom to touch it, let alone understand what it does. Who's responsibility is it to teach and ensure understanding of that feature?

The law says that it is the driver's responsibility to know how to operate the vehicle. If she doesn't know how it works, legally she is responsible for making the effort to find out. Who else's would it be? She chooses to buy a car she doesn't understand, no one forces her.

@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.

@MattSpeller said:

@IRJ said:

If its not a easy to access app with a pretty icon, people have no clue how to access it.

While I know how this all started, and it's a good laugh, I have to say that ultimately they shouldn't need to know more than to click a button*. How many of you can say you fully grok what the traction control button in your car does? I see a bright future for IT but it's not a more complicated one for users, quite the opposite.

*this is a ways off.

Knowing how traction control works is the difference between living and dying in many cases. If people don't understand how traction control works and behaves they certain should not be allowed to drive. They are a risk to themselves and, more importantly, others. That's a really fundamental component to basic, safe driving. Without it, they are just reckless.

@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.

@Hubtech said:

that was me SAM

That's what I figured.

@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.

@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.

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

There was a gigantic thread about this before. If it's a real consultant, and they recommend Cisco, why would you question it?

You question it because it's a pattern that is extremely likely to be bad advice and extremely unlikely to be good advice but is highly predictable to be the sign of being scammed. The chances that the advice is good is too low to not question it. It's because it is a predictable scam response.

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.

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.

@pchiodo said in Who is the Real IT Manager?:

I brought my own copy of DOS 5.0 (Yes this dates me) ...

Dates you as young. I was using computers years before DOS 1.

@Dashrender said in How much notice to give an employer?:

@Jason said in How much notice to give an employer?:

@travisdh1 said in How much notice to give an employer?:

@Jason said in How much notice to give an employer?:

@Brains said in How much notice to give an employer?:

@IRJ said in How much notice to give an employer?:

2 weeks is what you give every time. No more, no less.

Every new employer will appreciate this and understand the two weeks notice.

As far as the employer you are leaving may beg for 3 weeks or a month. In my opinion you have no right to abide by this. By giving your two weeks you are already showing them a grace period. Employers have no problem laying people off without any grace period so never feel obligated to give any more time. Many times employers will walk IT out the door the same day anyway.

My employer requires 1 month of notice otherwise you are not paid out your Earned Time (Vacation days)

We don't get paid for earned time regardless when you leave. You use it or loose it.

If you're in the US, that is highly illegal. Nothing different that stealing your wallet.

It's actually not. They only pay for earned time that is over 120hrs.

Read more here on point 3: https://www.workplacefairness.org/final-pay#3

I didn't see anything in there about 120 hours, only a listing of states where paying accrued vacation is state law. I'm guessing you're not in one of those states?

No, that's a list of paid PERSONAL time, not vacation. Different things.

The wife is playing today. Which of course involves just sitting at the kitchen table as her parents' house is full of Pokemon.

@fuznutz04 said in Permissions in Linux - Asterisk:

@JaredBusch said in Permissions in Linux - Asterisk:

@fuznutz04 said in Permissions in Linux - Asterisk:

Is one method preferred/better than the other? (script to change permissions vs changing file location of file)

To me, it would come down to WTF you are using these custom things for. Without that detail, I have no idea what would be better.

We're querying a file in this location to get some information from the PBX such as current calls, queue information, etc for an internal piece of software. It doesn't have to be in that directory, so I'll go down t he path of just moving the files and referencing them. Hopefully FreePBX wont overwrite the apache conf file when upgraded/reloaded.

Why not push it directly to where you need it?