Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #163666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-05-13 17:28 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Beware the microsoft cloud? "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2016-05-13 17:28 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mentificium@gmail.com - 2016-05-14 09:22 -0700
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) - 2016-05-21 12:31 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-21 13:16 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-22 13:15 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 09:58 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-23 11:49 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-23 11:56 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 20:57 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 16:19 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 04:02 +1000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-05-24 10:59 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 14:30 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-05-23 14:04 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 23:23 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 04:40 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:48 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 07:47 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 17:43 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 14:13 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:38 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 17:55 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 20:25 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 15:02 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-05-24 20:51 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-24 19:24 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 14:38 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-23 23:28 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:03 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:28 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:52 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:33 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:17 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 17:23 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 07:47 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:16 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-24 21:31 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:37 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 07:24 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-26 13:57 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 07:36 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-05-25 06:53 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 19:56 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-05-24 12:42 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 12:28 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 21:57 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-24 11:55 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-22 16:42 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-23 11:49 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 15:01 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-24 13:33 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> - 2016-05-24 14:16 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:04 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 16:28 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 10:31 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-05-24 17:12 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 16:04 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-05-23 17:15 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-05-23 16:25 -0300
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 11:04 +1000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-05-23 06:40 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-23 16:16 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-05-23 19:58 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) - 2016-05-29 20:35 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-05-23 12:53 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-24 18:08 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-05-25 16:22 +0200
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-05-25 17:51 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-06-01 13:16 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? mausg@mail.com - 2016-06-01 20:59 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-02 12:09 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-06-02 16:39 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-03 13:16 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 15:04 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-04 13:44 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 23:22 +0100
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-06-04 19:02 -0700
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 05:14 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-06-05 17:38 +0000
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 14:39 -0400
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 10:08 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 12:44 -0500
Re: Beware the microsoft cloud? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 14:31 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <olae1d-9m.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163895 |
In article <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Huge wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>> >>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>> >>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>> >>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >> >> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time >> have retired or died. > >14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle management. >Wouldn't it? 14 years should match the institutional, living memory of the middle management of any large corporation. The turnover is usually around 5 years, but longer at higher positions. (timing since first payroll in the company). Every large organisation also must turn around the seats every 18-24 months or so to not ossify. That process is rapider the larger the organisation is. So 14 years is 7-10 reorganisations. That does take away the organisational memory. I always interwiew the switchboard and the janitors. They have usually the longest track records of the company "hoi polloi" and keep very good memories about goings-on, even though they have little sway over decisions. So, pendulum swings every 10-14 years seem about right. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533AA255ACA1B@aca40c43.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163908 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Huge wrote: >>> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Huge wrote: >>>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>>> >>>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>>> >>>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >>> >>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time >>> have retired or died. >> >>14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle management. >>Wouldn't it? > > 14 years should match the institutional, living memory of the middle > management of any large corporation. > > The turnover is usually around 5 years, but longer at higher positions. > (timing since first payroll in the company). > > Every large organisation also must turn around the seats every 18-24 > months or so to not ossify. That process is rapider the larger the > organisation is. > > So 14 years is 7-10 reorganisations. > > That does take away the organisational memory. > > I always interwiew the switchboard and the janitors. They have usually > the longest track records of the company "hoi polloi" and keep > very good memories about goings-on, even though they have little sway > over decisions. > > So, pendulum swings every 10-14 years seem about right. You are assuming that people don't stay with the same company; I was assuming the opposite since that's how DEC worked. things sure have changed. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <idpg1d-bn4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163969 |
In article <PM000533AA255ACA1B@aca40c43.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>Huge wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>>>> >>>>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>>>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>>>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >>>> >>>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last >time >>>> have retired or died. >>> >>>14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle >management. >>>Wouldn't it? >> >> 14 years should match the institutional, living memory of the middle >> management of any large corporation. >> >> The turnover is usually around 5 years, but longer at higher positions. >> (timing since first payroll in the company). >> >> Every large organisation also must turn around the seats every 18-24 >> months or so to not ossify. That process is rapider the larger the >> organisation is. >> >> So 14 years is 7-10 reorganisations. >> >> That does take away the organisational memory. >> >> I always interwiew the switchboard and the janitors. They have usually >> the longest track records of the company "hoi polloi" and keep >> very good memories about goings-on, even though they have little sway >> over decisions. >> >> So, pendulum swings every 10-14 years seem about right. > >You are assuming that people don't stay with the same company; >I was assuming the opposite since that's how DEC worked. things >sure have changed. People in standard clerical positions, programmers included, that does not take a career into management, rarely stay with the same company more than 5 years. They have to move to advance their pay. The routine reorganisations every 1-2 years are bound to push some out too. If not outright fired, reassigned to oblivion and pushed to apply for external jobs. I very much doubt anyone would survive 10 years in todays fortune 500s without having a separate career path. that is 7-10 reorganisations. Mostly this is into management. DEC was an outlier. This company was not really managed; the engineers made up for that until it became DIGITAL; and the management couldn't duplicate the culture the engineers had. Workers nowadays have to embrace this constant change to survive; or they need to go to quieter pastures, like into consulting, smaller businesses or small government/utilities. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 16:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <234940408.485900020.470633.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163969 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, >> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> Huge wrote: >>>> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>>>> >>>>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>>>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>>>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >>>> >>>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last > time >>>> have retired or died. >>> >>> 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle > management. >>> Wouldn't it? >> >> 14 years should match the institutional, living memory of the middle >> management of any large corporation. >> >> The turnover is usually around 5 years, but longer at higher positions. >> (timing since first payroll in the company). >> >> Every large organisation also must turn around the seats every 18-24 >> months or so to not ossify. That process is rapider the larger the >> organisation is. >> >> So 14 years is 7-10 reorganisations. >> >> That does take away the organisational memory. >> >> I always interwiew the switchboard and the janitors. They have usually >> the longest track records of the company "hoi polloi" and keep >> very good memories about goings-on, even though they have little sway >> over decisions. >> >> So, pendulum swings every 10-14 years seem about right. > > You are assuming that people don't stay with the same company; > I was assuming the opposite since that's how DEC worked. things > sure have changed. > I forget what the average time with one employer is today, but it may be on the order of two years. It certainly is different from my experience too. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 10:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ni6fqf$g6j$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #163982 |
On 25/05/2016 21:15, Peter Flass wrote: > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> Morten Reistad wrote: >>> In article <PM000533952B52D95B@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, >>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> Huge wrote: >>>>> On 2016-05-23, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Huge wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>>>>>>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>>>>>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>>>>>>>> exit costs from their supplier. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Among about a zillion other things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>>>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>>>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>>>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>>>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>>>>> >>>>>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>>>>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>>>>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >>>>> >>>>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last >> time >>>>> have retired or died. >>>> >>>> 14 years doesn't make them retired nor dead; it makes them middle >> management. >>>> Wouldn't it? >>> >>> 14 years should match the institutional, living memory of the middle >>> management of any large corporation. >>> >>> The turnover is usually around 5 years, but longer at higher positions. >>> (timing since first payroll in the company). >>> >>> Every large organisation also must turn around the seats every 18-24 >>> months or so to not ossify. That process is rapider the larger the >>> organisation is. >>> >>> So 14 years is 7-10 reorganisations. >>> >>> That does take away the organisational memory. >>> >>> I always interwiew the switchboard and the janitors. They have usually >>> the longest track records of the company "hoi polloi" and keep >>> very good memories about goings-on, even though they have little sway >>> over decisions. >>> >>> So, pendulum swings every 10-14 years seem about right. >> >> You are assuming that people don't stay with the same company; >> I was assuming the opposite since that's how DEC worked. things >> sure have changed. Just search for HP and lay-offs or redundancy. The current business model seems to be to sack staff who don't fit the current technology model. Hp Layoffs seem to be:- 55,000 in 2015 41,000 in 2014 27,000 in 2012 yet they continue to recruit. IBM Consultancy follows a similar path. >> > > I forget what the average time with one employer is today, but it may be on > the order of two years. It certainly is different from my experience too. > The person allocated to do my job left before I finished my notice. He said they didn't pay him enough for his own job, never mind mine as well... Dave G4UGM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 17:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-7DA955.17121524052016@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #163853 |
In article <dqgka0FileU1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > > Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time > have retired or died. Or ignored. Sewage flows downhill. -- To terrify children with the image of hell, to consider women an inferior creation is that good for the world? Christopher Hitchens
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqjvajFl4m1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163938 |
On 2016-05-24, Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <dqgka0FileU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Largely, yes. That and the techies who remember the shambles from last time
>> have retired or died.
>
> Or ignored. Sewage flows downhill.
Troo.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 71st day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160523160430.aac2e7057d272570e76ad46c@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163847 |
On 23 May 2016 11:49:09 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Huge wrote: > > On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > >> Huge wrote: > >>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? > >>>>> > >>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will > >>>>> they start charging heftily for it? > >>>> > >>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future > >>>> exit costs from their supplier. > >>> > >>> Among about a zillion other things. > >> > >> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing > >> operations to doing one's own again. > > > > Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for > > 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about > > 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year > > cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I > > suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. > > So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles > can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? > So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? Of course, and it's probably related to the average length of time people get to spend at the level where these decisions are made before retiring, once there's nobody around who remembers the last time it was tried the field is clear for a repeat run. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dqgs5oF26soU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163855 |
On 2016-05-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On 23 May 2016 11:49:09 GMT
> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Huge wrote:
>> > On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Huge wrote:
>> >>> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>,
>> >>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes:
>> >>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will
>> >>>>> they start charging heftily for it?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future
>> >>>> exit costs from their supplier.
>> >>>
>> >>> Among about a zillion other things.
>> >>
>> >> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing
>> >> operations to doing one's own again.
>> >
>> > Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for
>> > 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about
>> > 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year
>> > cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I
>> > suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years.
>>
>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles
>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right?
>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"?
>
> Of course, and it's probably related to the average length of time
> people get to spend at the level where these decisions are made before
> retiring, once there's nobody around who remembers the last time it was
> tried the field is clear for a repeat run.
Precisely.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 70th day of Discord in the YOLD 3182
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ni24sg12fbd@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #163860 |
On 2016-05-23, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-05-23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >> On 23 May 2016 11:49:09 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> Huge wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-05-22, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >>>>> operations to doing one's own again. >>>> >>>> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >>>> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >>>> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >>>> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >>>> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. >>> >>> So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles >>> can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? >>> So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? >> >> Of course, and it's probably related to the average length of time >> people get to spend at the level where these decisions are made before >> retiring, once there's nobody around who remembers the last time it was >> tried the field is clear for a repeat run. > > Precisely. "The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history." -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:25 -0300 |
| Message-ID | <87k2ika85q.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> |
| In reply to | #163847 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: > Huge wrote: > >> Well, I worked with computers (it had various names over the years) for >> 41 years, and I saw the "centralised"/"distributed" cycle go past about >> 3 times in that time. So I would say these things go in about 14 year >> cycles. We're likely about 5 years into "Ooh, shiney, cloud, want", so I >> suppose we have to put up with it for about another 10 years. > > So that makes it 3 brown books' worth of management planning. The cycles > can't really be tied to hardware nor software innovations. right? > So it must be the mid-management side of a business which "forgets"? What's the cycle time for the appearance of "unintended consequences"? A corporation or other large organizational entity spends months or years and megabucks planning a major change, then more months/years and more megabucks implementing it, then more time and money in shakedown and training. At some point the uninteded consequences begin to appear but probably aren't prioritized over getting the new $WHATEVER system working as planned. Eventually, the unintended consequences manifest as a sudden and shocking fuvg-storm or at least as a quiet but steady ingress of fuvg graually rising to knee depth in some departments. The insalubrious unintended consequences get a new and higher priority. Time to start a new planning session. New cycle. -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 11:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dqf39pFlqgiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005336E1EC56868@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com... > Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>> >>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>> >>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>> exit costs from their supplier. >> >> Among about a zillion other things. > > How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing > operations to doing one's own again. Doubt that will ever happen with OSs, accounting packages except where the operation is so unusual that no one outside is interested, and with stuff like spreadsheets and office suites etc in spades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20160523064010.cbe68d8f2c48897cfa05718b@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
On 22 May 2016 13:15:06 GMT jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Huge wrote: > > On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, > >> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? > >>> > >>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will > >>> they start charging heftily for it? > >> > >> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future > >> exit costs from their supplier. > > > > Among about a zillion other things. > > How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing > operations to doing one's own again. Round here it never swung away and it never will, but for the crowd I reckon Huge has it nailed pretty well. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 16:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jufb1d-1n2.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
In article <PM0005336E1EC56868@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>> >>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>> >>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>> exit costs from their supplier. >> >> Among about a zillion other things. > >How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >operations to doing one's own again. So far the pendulum has taken off sideways, with heavy uptake of hosted "raw" cpus, where the customer adds OS, management and applications. That way they can build and operate their own clouds simply, cheaply but still have good security and be in control of the services and data. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 19:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ni08oo$m9q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005336E1EC56868@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com... > Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>> >>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>> >>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>> exit costs from their supplier. >> >> Among about a zillion other things. > > How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing > operations to doing one's own again. > "If you would like a willing servant, and one that you like... server yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pechter@t61.(none) (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-29 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nifjqs$kgg$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #163821 |
In article <PM0005336E1EC56868@aca446d8.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Huge wrote: >> On 2016-05-21, Andrew Gabriel <andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>> >>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>> >>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>> exit costs from their supplier. >> >> Among about a zillion other things. > >How long will it be before the pendumlum swings from outsourcing >operations to doing one's own again. > >/BAH When the machines have physical plugboards again... Just after the next nuclear holocaust or other world ending disaster. I don't ever think the systems operations and administration will move back in house again since the networking and hardware costs of power and air conditioning and staff make the "cloud" a probable win for all but small mom and pop businesses... Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-23 12:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Q9WdnafKCIHvqN7KnZ2dnUU7-UHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #163806 |
andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes: > In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, > "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >> >> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >> they start charging heftily for it? > > Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future > exit costs from their supplier. An area where this is often > overlooked is those using cloud based object stores, and when > they decide there's a better provider or solution, they only > then realise they can't actually afford to retrieve all their data > from their current provider in order to move it somewhere else > - a great lock-in strategy. > (Not saying this applies to MS necessarily - not looked at their > charges.) It does. They have a number of cloud services that seem to be of the roach motel type - easy to enter, but difficult to leave. I've warned developers about this, but many of them don't even think we need to do backups (and test the restores) anymore because "the cloud does all that for us." I think the cloud can be good in some cases, like when you're a fairly small company but you need geographic diversity for your servers/datacenter. It's not ideal for everything (not a surprise to anyone here), so you have to use some sense before (or instead of) just moving everything to the cloud. Ideally, things would be vendor-neutral so that you can easily move from cloud provider to cloud provider, or even from your local virtual environment to cloud and back again without too much pain. They're not like that yet though, and most of the cloud providers are busy trying to "add value" by offering services that only they provide and thus lock you in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 12:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00053395219D15EE@aca423de.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163859 |
Bud Frede wrote: > andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes: > >> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>> >>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>> they start charging heftily for it? >> >> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >> exit costs from their supplier. An area where this is often >> overlooked is those using cloud based object stores, and when >> they decide there's a better provider or solution, they only >> then realise they can't actually afford to retrieve all their data >> from their current provider in order to move it somewhere else >> - a great lock-in strategy. >> (Not saying this applies to MS necessarily - not looked at their >> charges.) > > It does. They have a number of cloud services that seem to be of the > roach motel type - easy to enter, but difficult to leave. I've warned > developers about this, but many of them don't even think we need to do > backups (and test the restores) anymore because "the cloud does all that > for us." > > I think the cloud can be good in some cases, like when you're a fairly > small company but you need geographic diversity for your > servers/datacenter. It's not ideal for everything (not a surprise to > anyone here), so you have to use some sense before (or instead of) just > moving everything to the cloud. How do you check that the cloud provider is geographically diverse? > > Ideally, things would be vendor-neutral so that you can easily move from > cloud provider to cloud provider, or even from your local virtual > environment to cloud and back again without too much pain. They're not > like that yet though, and most of the cloud providers are busy trying to > "add value" by offering services that only they provide and thus lock > you in. I've just thought of a dozen scenarios which can screw a customer. Not a pretty site. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5tae1d-9m.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #163890 |
In article <PM00053395219D15EE@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >Bud Frede wrote: >> andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes: >> >>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>> >>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>> >>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>> exit costs from their supplier. An area where this is often >>> overlooked is those using cloud based object stores, and when >>> they decide there's a better provider or solution, they only >>> then realise they can't actually afford to retrieve all their data >>> from their current provider in order to move it somewhere else >>> - a great lock-in strategy. >>> (Not saying this applies to MS necessarily - not looked at their >>> charges.) >> >> It does. They have a number of cloud services that seem to be of the >> roach motel type - easy to enter, but difficult to leave. I've warned >> developers about this, but many of them don't even think we need to do >> backups (and test the restores) anymore because "the cloud does all that >> for us." >> >> I think the cloud can be good in some cases, like when you're a fairly >> small company but you need geographic diversity for your >> servers/datacenter. It's not ideal for everything (not a surprise to >> anyone here), so you have to use some sense before (or instead of) just >> moving everything to the cloud. > >How do you check that the cloud provider is geographically diverse? You build the actual cloud yourself, using the same open source tools that the run-of-the-mill operations do, and use the cheap containers (linux machines, usually) offered by every hosting operation across the planet. Even my little "me, myself and I" company has storage on three continents. I pay less than $300/month for the privilige. >> Ideally, things would be vendor-neutral so that you can easily move from >> cloud provider to cloud provider, or even from your local virtual >> environment to cloud and back again without too much pain. They're not >> like that yet though, and most of the cloud providers are busy trying to >> "add value" by offering services that only they provide and thus lock >> you in. > >I've just thought of a dozen scenarios which can screw a customer. >Not a pretty site. When you start with a good open source platform you can add that value yourself. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000533AA165E8708@aca40c43.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #163909 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <PM00053395219D15EE@aca423de.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>Bud Frede wrote: >>> andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) writes: >>> >>>> In article <nh4v4v$id$1@dont-email.me>, >>>> "gareth G4SDW GQRP #3339" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>> Has microsoft a reputation for doing something for nothing? >>>>> >>>>> How soon after they've everyone locked in to the cloud will >>>>> they start charging heftily for it? >>>> >>>> Anyone using cloud needs to keep an eye on the current and future >>>> exit costs from their supplier. An area where this is often >>>> overlooked is those using cloud based object stores, and when >>>> they decide there's a better provider or solution, they only >>>> then realise they can't actually afford to retrieve all their data >>>> from their current provider in order to move it somewhere else >>>> - a great lock-in strategy. >>>> (Not saying this applies to MS necessarily - not looked at their >>>> charges.) >>> >>> It does. They have a number of cloud services that seem to be of the >>> roach motel type - easy to enter, but difficult to leave. I've warned >>> developers about this, but many of them don't even think we need to do >>> backups (and test the restores) anymore because "the cloud does all that >>> for us." >>> >>> I think the cloud can be good in some cases, like when you're a fairly >>> small company but you need geographic diversity for your >>> servers/datacenter. It's not ideal for everything (not a surprise to >>> anyone here), so you have to use some sense before (or instead of) just >>> moving everything to the cloud. >> >>How do you check that the cloud provider is geographically diverse? > > You build the actual cloud yourself, using the same open source tools > that the run-of-the-mill operations do, and use the cheap containers > (linux machines, usually) offered by every hosting operation across the > planet. So you do know where those hosting operations are? > > Even my little "me, myself and I" company has storage on three > continents. I pay less than $300/month for the privilige. > >>> Ideally, things would be vendor-neutral so that you can easily move from >>> cloud provider to cloud provider, or even from your local virtual >>> environment to cloud and back again without too much pain. They're not >>> like that yet though, and most of the cloud providers are busy trying to >>> "add value" by offering services that only they provide and thus lock >>> you in. >> >>I've just thought of a dozen scenarios which can screw a customer. >>Not a pretty site. > > When you start with a good open source platform you can add that > value yourself. that's software. There is still hardware and its physical location which requires humans to babysit. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web