I'm Nate, currently living in Denver and working in IT for an SMB. Done a whole lot of helpdesk/customer service/bench tech stuff in the past, finally getting to flex the admin wings a bit and learning a lot. Looks like ML will be a great place to pick up some more!
Interests outside tech include bicycles, beer nerdery, and martial arts.
You can, but only in cases where the VAR opportunity doesn't exist. So, for example, if you sell Vultr, you can't be VAR-free in any case where recommending Vultr is possible.
But if there is already an assumption that there are to be no affiliate sales, i.e. it's a consulting gig.
If someone wants me to consult about webhosts and affiliates aren't allowed, does my having affiliate products (even when I know it won't be commission sales) still affect things?
See it isn't just the presence of the affiliate, it's the actual application of whether they are allowed for the job or not. If I affiliate for lemonade and consult on soft drinks but they say no affiliate products, I don't see how it's still affecting me, there is no more monetary potential.
Seems to me that all we're saying here is that what we're AFTER is unbiased, objective consulting, which cannot be so with any potential of monetary gain from a vendor. So then to remove bias, the ONLY thing needed is remove potential for monetary gain by saying up front they don't want to deal with commission sales and/or will acquire all products themselves or through another service.
All I'm trying to get to in this debate is where I can happily use an affiliate product where appropriate while maintaining full credibility as an objective, unbiased, consultant. It is absolutely not the case that my having affiliate products deep in the toolbox somewhere, ALWAYS affects decisions. All that is required is the understanding that purchases won't be made through me for a particular type of job. This removes monetary potential, and thus bias.
The second half of the debate revolves around how forthcoming I am about potentially offering these products and at what point in the hiring process they are mentioned.
Situation 1: Someone blasts out a quick question of "who is a good webhost". And me, not being paid for such advice, simply toss out a nice product from my affiliate bucket. I think of this like a person doing a google search and just buying the first thing in the ads that come up. That's all they seem to want. The ad may as well be my own. After all the product is used, vetted, and perfect good for what it is.
Situation 2: Company wants central backups and NAS evaluated and solutions recommended, they
will use their own VAR that they have an account with for tech purchases. My affiliate stuff wouldn't matter, it can't benefit me anyway.
Situation 3: Smallfry job they just want stuff "to work" and have no care in the world what I recommend or who I want to buy as long as it fits in budget and works. They may even just hand me a company credit card and the keys to the kingdom and say "make it happen by the time I return on Monday". I may just buy the affiliate stuff (if appropriate for solution) just because of the situation. Is there bias here? Probably, but acting as a VAR here is also what they asked for. A solution only.
It's like if I gave the Best But guy a credit card and said "put a big flat screen in my living room, don't spend more than $1500". Well of course they will get the best they can within budget as there are really no particular requirements except that it acts like a TV reasonably well. Why would they try to skimp on quality/size/whatever when the budget has been clearly defined?
What I DON'T want to happen, is see situation 2 client running for the hills due to the ways in which I may work with situation 1 and 3. There shouldn't be any reason why situation 2 can't fully trust me.
perhaps the discussion of HA should always be left at the door unless the OP specifically says something to the effect of - this was supposed to be an HA solution, why is it not -
Perhaps. Often someone says something that leads us to believe that there might have been a reason for HA. But this is a case where just nothing suggests it. Not even the lack of panic or concern once things were down. They really seemed to have no care that things were down - which is fine, their design suggests that.
In this case, with @wirestyle22 not having been there, he too would have to decide how the system should be viewed. But he needs the information to take back to management "Oh, you thought that this would be HA? THat's odd as it is designed exactly the opposite of that in every way and all of the policies and procedures go against that as well. How were you expecting HA without HA processes, staffing, technology, design or setup? What led you to believe something so contrary would achieve HA?"
Currently my home lab consists of a Raspberry Pi B+ and Raspbian. I currently have Home-Assistant and Pi Hole. Not doing much with the Home Assistant but the Pi Hole is definitely saving us some internal bandwidth as its sucking out the ads of the web pages.
So the Pi Hole is outside you're local network? You're still paying the bandwidth "bill" for those adds if it's local. At least you're not seeing the adds, which is a plus with most websites anymore.
You don't save the bandwidth? I must be forgetting how it works - I thought it blocked the request to the ad pages?
It does. It's not a pushed stream or something of that nature.
Huh, I need to look into this then. More like a proxy than the add blockers I'm used to then?
As far as I know most if not all ad blockers work by preventing the browser from making a request to an ad network - thereby saving all bandwidth.
Do you know something that works by downloading the content, then just preventing it from displaying? While there is the possible advantage of getting past some paywalls that way, I'm sure scripting could be setup so the content providers would know the ad wasn't actually displayed, so in the long run, it wouldn't help much.
All, most definitely. There is certainly no exception to that.
Exactly - getting people to use something new is challenging at best, impossible at worst.
My mom only calls, texting would blow her mind (and make my phone explode, so I'll never teach her).
I had the opposite. If she called I would be stuck for 45 minutes and my ear would have 1st degree burns.
She learned how to text and then I can casually deal with her over time. The only problem, she texted small books and autocorrect ruined everything.
I have that problem too. She calls, there's an hour gone.
Though the idea that texting gets rid of 'dealing with it right now' issue, at least for some. Personally email is the ultimate form of "it can wait." A phone call is an indication that something needs to be handled right now, a text is somewhere in the middle.
I guess one good thing, my kids will never post complaining about how their father called and wasted their time - oh wait... I don't have kids
While I appreciate Scott's take that trying to contact him via a single device connection (phone calls or SMS) aren't good for him since he doesn't carry his phone always - the idea that email is somehow instant access to him is something I can't grasp.
I'll be extreme here - if Scott's father was in an accident - does he want an email about that? or does he want a phone call about that? I suppose a message on any number of messaging platforms (other than SMS) would be nearly as good as a phone call, but then as I write that, if the device he is on can get messaging, it can probably get email - and I have to ask... are all of his devices constantly chiming whenever an email is delivered?
There are so many exploits like this kept secret by black hats and/or governments (assuming you don't consider the two one and the same.) Tons of it is kept private for personal use, tons is shared, tons is sold. The info is out there and anyone who has it and doesn't expose it isn't a good guy. Simply by receiving information that someone has been exploited and keeping that secret from them makes you (you typically being a government) one of the bad guys.
If anyone watches Mr. Robot it was ruined for me at the end of Season 2.... Logs into a makeshift Windows box with another users creds on her PC... never deletes it and copies out a ton of data from the profile. It kills me, the show was doing so well up until this point. Well, he did have that sick Optiplex 745 he was hacking on in Season 1 but we won't talk about that.
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.
At the very core of it is a Linux kernel of some flavor, but that just used to load their own vmkernel.
No Linux at all. Never was. Long ago there was Linux in the host VM (Dom0 equivalent) but never in the ESX product itself. That was just a VM on top of ESX that provided a GUI. But that was removed long ago and now there isn't even that.
Well, I still do not have production servers on it yet. (I was waiting for XS7 to come out.)
But I put a Splunk instance on it (as well as XO, and a few other things) and it hasn't had any issues yet. Of course it didn't with the EDGE drives until I really got things running on it, so we shall see. But nothing was writing to it like the Splunk machine is.
Points have slowed down considerably, but still moving at around 50K per year average, which is amazing considering I do zero to look for points, BAs or anything of that sort at all, never do any reviews and, in fact, have reviews deleted all the time still and had tens of thousands of points in reviews removed since hitting triple PC. Not bad as progress goes, really.
Today is the first time that I've looked in like a year at the points.
Not to mention the fact that there's a belief (no idea if it's true or not) if your hobby becomes your job, good chances are you'll eventually hate that hobby.
I can safely say that this has not been the case for me. I've been around computers and made it my hobby almost my entire life. I even finally got a job in it, and I do it all day every day... (I'd do it more if I could, lol).
I spend a large portion of my waking life in front of a computer. I talk to my wife all day via Facebook, I talk with you guys on here all day, except when I'm actually needed to be AFK... and I come home and tinker with computers too, while still chatting with folks and talking to the folks at the house... I still love my job, and what I do.
I don't have as much time to devote to it any more...but for good reasons (family!).
Chatting via Facebook is hardly IT related. Granted there are tons of non IT people I know that work on computers all day (as in PowerPoint/Excel/ERP, etc) and they totally want to disconnect from the computer completely at night.
But wanting to be online is simply social, not really computer related, just happens to be way more convenient online than going to the bar or where ever to socialize.
What you say is very true. But for me, the fact that I can chat with you guys and my wife all day as I'm working is a large part of my job satisfaction, and it makes me feel much less disconnected from my family and friends while I'm at work.
Not quite the level of freedom that @scottalanmiller has, but lightly leaning in that direction.
Yea, being very explicit here is what would protect the company.
IE No overtime will be approved, unless with explicit written consent from you manager. Any overtime not approved beforehand will be viewed as a breach of company policy, repeated breaches of company policy are subject to disciplinary action.
Edit: ... disciplinary action. Up to and including termination.
But there are really convenient options. It's not like those don't exist and aren't used all of the time. It's just that you need to license them. But you CAN do recovery very easily.
The real issue is using Windows systems without being able to or willing to afford the cost to do so. Windows has a cost, which we all accept, to a point. The issues arise when we (or companies) don't want to spend enough to do it "right." Then it feels like there is a limitation with the product, but really it is just a lack of willingness to pay for what it cost to run it. But Windows is always a choice, as are the features like this kind of recovery.
I fully understand this now.
I understand that I can do EXACTLY what I want, which IMO makes for a much safe/better/quicker backup and recovery. As long as I buy another license. Or, in the case of larger companies, am already properly licensed.
My take has always been that making it more difficult to backup and restore is not in the interest of anyone. Even though Microsoft could theoretically make more money,
a -- they probably aren't because most people just run the backups anyway without proper licensing (most probably unaware)
b -- they will push people to other systems when backups fail or they realize the "cost of Windows" as you say
Datto, StorageCraft, etc ... these companies have great products that take great backups, and easily let you know if they are working. We're not talking about running systems here. We are talking about EASILY checking to see if backups have worked. That's it. Yes, it's possible to do another way, but again, that adds complexity and downtime. Yes, there is a cost to those things, but considering how important backup and recovery is, I think it should be allowed.
Good quick write there. I totally agree... comes down to basic logic which is better safe than sorry. Not to say there aren't good open source solutions out there but often times it's not worth cutting cost corners if you're more exposed to risk.
I'd forgotten that Microsoft has killed Foundation (2013 will be the last version), so there is no longer a free version of Sharepoint. If you need it, you have to pay for it. I'd forgotten this even though I actually posted it on ML a year ago (I think my memory is going in my old age).
Add that to the fact that it appears that migrating from on-premise to online is not a simple task (compared with say Exchange), and I'm coming round to thinking it would be foolish to further invest in Sharepoint Foundation 2013 and we're better off moving to Sharepoint online asap. It will mean extra cost in the short-term, because we'll have to buy a load of O365 subscriptions, but less cost in the long-term (as eventually we will have to migrate from on-premise to online since Foundation is the only product that makes financial sense on-premise and Foundation has been killed).
That's why NO ONE complains about the minimum wage being too high, they complain that the minimum wage is "too close to their wage."
Definitely seen that a lot, it's weird.
I've completely missed this on Facebook somehow.
Oh it is huge. I've seen it from a lot of different people... mostly those that earn only a little more than $15/hr and/or military. I've also seen military people mocking those people for not understanding how pay works in the private world.
I've seen the low wage workers arguing this. I have also seen high wage and business owners making the same argument. Everyone I know in the military, except for that one RWNJ who joined just to shoot people, is for a wage increase.
And... you'd need a database to track the databases!
Actually, as I think about it, separating databases really just becomes semantics. As long as it is a single application, separating the databases adds overhead (mostly for the developers) but in reality, it is always still all one datastore. One way or another, the application has to behave essentially the same no matter which way you do it.
The one advantage to having them separate is that you can have different "versions" for different customers. But I'm not sure that that is a good thing.
Man this is all confusing to me thank GB for the NHS
Yes, that's one of the biggest issues... that it is confusing. The average American has to maintain a level of insurance expertise that is completely out of scope with their knowledge, experience and expertise in other areas.
That seems to be purposeful. So that insurance and providers can double bill or otherwise extort as much money as they can.
No doubt there. And so that people will give up and just pay more rather than figuring out how to be affordable.
Oooh, ok. That's the difference then. Must be for a different use. With Alfresco, each time you upload a change, it's saved as a version (major or minor). Then you can restore to versions, see edits made by users with timestamps and some other info.
Right, its even more granular. You can go back versions to individual document components.
I'm with you on Google Apps. It's a good product but it is very limited and doesn't have the look and feel of modern apps. I don't like using Gmail either. It's unnecessarily quirky and busy. Google doesn't make things as fun to use or as easy to use as they could.
I think that the Chromebook model is better than it seems. Only problem is is that businesses are struggling to adapt to it. But it is a business problem and failing, not a Google one. Google supplies the tools, business can't grok them.
In the same vein, the Linux world has everything businesses need and have for a decade or more and yet almost no businesses have cares to go down the 100% Linux path regardless of the massive savings and ease of use once the transition is over.
While you are asking, though, I should point out (and it says this in the top post) that Elastix 4 is not stable and not well supported. We all highly recommend using FreePBX instead, today, in 99% of cases. I would definitely look at that first, before going down the Elastix 4 path.
Adam - welcome to the community and overlay networking!
Not trying to hijack the thread as this appears to be a ZT feature request topic, but since Pertino has come up a number of times, here are the answers:
DNS: PITA. We solved it by using customer internal DNS in AD environments. This is a solution for many customers, but not the end all. Without some type of local integration, overlay networks can never really be used for an internal company network because protocols will not translate.
Free plans: all trials revert to a free network for up to 3 devices; existing free plans with more devices are still live - thanks beta testers! Take the class-action suit to LMI
Chef/Puppet: you can automate Pertino installs with your orchestration tools. We even have a Docker compatible client for cloud-bursting, cross-DC networking
LDAP integration/custom UI: We've got some APIs already available, some in the works. Plan is to make it so if you don't want to, you never have to enter the Pertino console.
BTW: from Googling around tonight, it appears the SYnology can also be setup to use commercial backup programs like CrashPlan.
Though that CloudSync that @MattSpeller is talking about also looks killer.
It does, but we have a VM specifically for that. I don't how it would perform on the synology, but I didn't want to add any more services to it. The VM just mounts the normal shares and backs them up to Crashplan.
Good point, edited it.
Was refering to SW, as the last SW probably, which in turn ends the Scale boat likely.
My post was referencing SW, not Scale.
I have a ticket for next years Spiceworld, so I hope this years ain't the last. Also hoping Scale do the boat cruise again next year too.
SW 2017 is already booked, I can't imagine that there will be any issues with it happening now. And the boat cruise isn't scheduled but is so popular and such a success that I can't imagine it not happening.
Every single one that I've worked with had it's own version control built in, but would often cost extra for the licensing. You setup a server with the version control software for everyone to use. The workflow is then open V.C.S. -> checkout the file to be changed/add new file -> make changes -> save changes locally -> login to V.C.S. and check in the new version. Most of them would keep previous versions of files as well, and log who checked out each file (mostly so the next person who works on the file can go track them down when someone doesn't do the final step.) I'd say stick with the built-in tool chain.
I don't look at it as bleakly as you do. You in no way told the receiver they couldn't receive it, you told them they have to use a different method to receive it. Is it a good experience - I'm not going to argue that point, frankly I don't care as long as it works.
But you did... you sent them an email and the email didn't include the payload, it told you to go look in another system for the payload that didn't arrive (the princess is in another castle.) Why did you need the email if email isn't delivering the message? It's obviously similar to failure... two systems are being used for a single thing. All they want is the payload, not a message telling them about a payload elsewhere.