Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference
-
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
What has changed:
locally hosted LOB app moved to cloud providerNTG was doing this in the 1990s. That this was the new paradigm was well established by then. It was 1999, 18 years ago, when Microsoft published their DNA paper on SaaS and the future of application design. That's why we say that anyone not doing that on MS tech is clueless, because MS said it was the path forward that long ago.
That's a two decade change, not a one decade. And even two decades ago, it was well established.
Let me ask this - The application was web based, just locally hosted in our own datacenter. So, where we still so bad off? Granted, perhaps risk wise we should have been in a reputable DC, but let's look past that for this question.
Sounds like it was "ready" to move to hosted. NTG was doing hosted apps though, in that mode, in the 1990s.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
Let me give this another go, and see if I can be any clearer. There are people out there already doing the things that will be normal for everyone else in 5-10 years (especially SMB since it generally takes longer to filter down). I want to hear what they're doing and why. Maybe it is the State of the Art discussion, but having only one voice speaking makes it narrow because of human limitation. Maybe what I want doesn't exist.
You mean having a single conference speaker on a topic rather than a round table type thing?
Round table would be fine. I'm not biased for or against. I'd just like to hear what forward leaning organizations that see IT as a competitive advantage are doing to keep that edge. The specifics of my comment about the State of the Art is that while you are forward leaning you are one person and are thus limited in perspective.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
What has changed:
locally hosted LOB app moved to cloud providerNTG was doing this in the 1990s. That this was the new paradigm was well established by then. It was 1999, 18 years ago, when Microsoft published their DNA paper on SaaS and the future of application design. That's why we say that anyone not doing that on MS tech is clueless, because MS said it was the path forward that long ago.
That's a two decade change, not a one decade. And even two decades ago, it was well established.
Let me ask this - The application was web based, just locally hosted in our own datacenter. So, where we still so bad off? Granted, perhaps risk wise we should have been in a reputable DC, but let's look past that for this question.
Sounds like it was "ready" to move to hosted. NTG was doing hosted apps though, in that mode, in the 1990s.
Hosted, not hosted, didn't change the way the application worked. So I'm not really sure where we are going in the discussion.
One reason to keep it local at the time is the amount of scanned files being sent to the system. A 10/10 meg connection suited us for the entire lifespan of that product because there was little to no file uploads that weren't onsite. We would have needed a much larger pipe if we were doing file uploads to a hosted solution.
-
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
Let me give this another go, and see if I can be any clearer. There are people out there already doing the things that will be normal for everyone else in 5-10 years (especially SMB since it generally takes longer to filter down). I want to hear what they're doing and why. Maybe it is the State of the Art discussion, but having only one voice speaking makes it narrow because of human limitation. Maybe what I want doesn't exist.
You mean having a single conference speaker on a topic rather than a round table type thing?
Round table would be fine. I'm not biased for or against. I'd just like to hear what forward leaning organizations that see IT as a competitive advantage are doing to keep that edge. The specifics of my comment about the State of the Art is that while you are forward leaning you are one person and are thus limited in perspective.
I suppose quite frankly - I too would like to hear this. I visited Dropbox in San Fran two years ago. There was very little Windows there, Mac's everywhere. Cisco IP phones everywhere.
I was told there was no MS AD. So I was wondering - what did the use for central authentication? Is central authentication even needed? Do we stop worrying about that, and only manage access at the resources themselves? OK - fine - but now you have potentially dozens of authentications to manage and maintain.
Moving on to files, Obviously they were using Dropbox to move files around, and as I mentioned, I would like to move away from file shares - but people are difficult at best to move to different ways of doing things - and NextCloud/SharePoint via a web interface are horribly inefficient compared to typical network shares. Only through integration of the applications with things like NextCloud/Sharepoint/Dropbox are you able to move away from the traditional shares, without a full on revolt and production efficiency drop. -
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
Let me give this another go, and see if I can be any clearer. There are people out there already doing the things that will be normal for everyone else in 5-10 years (especially SMB since it generally takes longer to filter down). I want to hear what they're doing and why. Maybe it is the State of the Art discussion, but having only one voice speaking makes it narrow because of human limitation. Maybe what I want doesn't exist.
You mean having a single conference speaker on a topic rather than a round table type thing?
Round table would be fine. I'm not biased for or against. I'd just like to hear what forward leaning organizations that see IT as a competitive advantage are doing to keep that edge. The specifics of my comment about the State of the Art is that while you are forward leaning you are one person and are thus limited in perspective.
Sort of, except it's one person who specializes in this area, moreso than pretty much anyone in the industry - IT futurists essentially don't exist - and someone who talks to top people throughout the industry to accumulate opinions and ideas on this. So while it is one presenter (actually three in this case) it's not like one person's opinion.
-
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
What has changed:
locally hosted LOB app moved to cloud providerNTG was doing this in the 1990s. That this was the new paradigm was well established by then. It was 1999, 18 years ago, when Microsoft published their DNA paper on SaaS and the future of application design. That's why we say that anyone not doing that on MS tech is clueless, because MS said it was the path forward that long ago.
That's a two decade change, not a one decade. And even two decades ago, it was well established.
Let me ask this - The application was web based, just locally hosted in our own datacenter. So, where we still so bad off? Granted, perhaps risk wise we should have been in a reputable DC, but let's look past that for this question.
Sounds like it was "ready" to move to hosted. NTG was doing hosted apps though, in that mode, in the 1990s.
Hosted, not hosted, didn't change the way the application worked. So I'm not really sure where we are going in the discussion.
One reason to keep it local at the time is the amount of scanned files being sent to the system. A 10/10 meg connection suited us for the entire lifespan of that product because there was little to no file uploads that weren't onsite. We would have needed a much larger pipe if we were doing file uploads to a hosted solution.
This was your point, you said that LOB moved to the cloud provider. I was pointing out that that was a common, standard thing long before that point.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Dashrender said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
What has changed:
locally hosted LOB app moved to cloud providerNTG was doing this in the 1990s. That this was the new paradigm was well established by then. It was 1999, 18 years ago, when Microsoft published their DNA paper on SaaS and the future of application design. That's why we say that anyone not doing that on MS tech is clueless, because MS said it was the path forward that long ago.
That's a two decade change, not a one decade. And even two decades ago, it was well established.
Let me ask this - The application was web based, just locally hosted in our own datacenter. So, where we still so bad off? Granted, perhaps risk wise we should have been in a reputable DC, but let's look past that for this question.
Sounds like it was "ready" to move to hosted. NTG was doing hosted apps though, in that mode, in the 1990s.
Hosted, not hosted, didn't change the way the application worked. So I'm not really sure where we are going in the discussion.
One reason to keep it local at the time is the amount of scanned files being sent to the system. A 10/10 meg connection suited us for the entire lifespan of that product because there was little to no file uploads that weren't onsite. We would have needed a much larger pipe if we were doing file uploads to a hosted solution.
This was your point, you said that LOB moved to the cloud provider. I was pointing out that that was a common, standard thing long before that point.
well, it was moved because out old vendor killed the product, and we moved to a cloud provider, not a self managed solution. More like an O365 solution, everything managed by the vendor.
-
@Dashrender In regards to cloud shares/storage, I picked up an eval of Sharefile along the way and its probably a better developed product than anything I have used thus far. Onedrive, Dropbox, etc cant touch it.
I am looking forward to seeing Nextcloud evolve.
Sorry a little off topic...
-
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
Round table would be fine. I'm not biased for or against. I'd just like to hear what forward leaning organizations that see IT as a competitive advantage are doing to keep that edge.
I've been in that spot before. Looking back it didn't really matter what people were saying about what we might be doing in 5 years. - I was waiting for vaporware to materialize and hardware manufactures to SKU stuff so I could buy it.
At this point in my career, if I know that a manufacture has plans to come out with a new laptop docking station and I can plan my laptop purchases around that, I feel like I'm doing ok.
-
@Mike-Davis said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
Round table would be fine. I'm not biased for or against. I'd just like to hear what forward leaning organizations that see IT as a competitive advantage are doing to keep that edge.
I've been in that spot before. Looking back it didn't really matter what people were saying about what we might be doing in 5 years. - I was waiting for vaporware to materialize and hardware manufactures to SKU stuff so I could buy it.
At this point in my career, if I know that a manufacture has plans to come out with a new laptop docking station and I can plan my laptop purchases around that, I feel like I'm doing ok.
That's more hardware or products than paradigms. It's pretty rare that good foresight is wrong in that short of a term.
-
I know I"m crazy late to this but I'll throw my 2 sense out....
Vendor neutral for what?
VMworld (and VMware in general) is essentially Switzerland if your curious what people are doing for networking, and storage. You can talk with Cisco, and AWS people at the conference. You could go to this conference and focus on non ESXi related conversations and sessions the entire time if you wanted (there are like 700 different sessions). Throw in the brownbag and booth theatre sessions and there are likely over 1000 unique presentations. The other reason I'm a fan of the conference for al long time is the community. There is a conference before the conference (Opening Acts) put on by the VMunderground team where it's panels's and you can talk to people over vBrisket lunch about how/why they are doing things. A conference with a lot of people in your field gives you the opportunity to talk to peers about not just what people are saying on stage but also validate what others are doing.
DellWorld is neutral if your wanting to see where non-hardware overlay vendors are going (Microsoft, RedHat, VMware are all there to talk and present).
AWS and Microsoft conferences will yield similar benefits partly because they (like VMware and Dell) have so many products (and partner ecosystem partners) surrounding them that while there are always slightly rose tinted glasses on things they had enough product diversity that you can learn a little about everything in them.
If you want an analyst driven conference about the future of IT, IDC is what Gartner promises to be IMHO. Any of their presentations at other conferences (I saw their people speak in vForum in Kuala Lumpur and their vision for digital transformation is really spot on with what I see in the field).
The "vendor focused" conferences really only get tunnel vision when they are about a single vendor who only has a single product (or maybe 2 products) in a very narrow filed. Pure Storage's conference would be an example (Where you can expect the sessions on HCI to be pure FUD, because they don't have an HCI product).
I'm pretty sure I attend more conferences than everyone else on this website.
-
@scottalanmiller Lets play "solaris did it first!"
Containers are so awesome (Scott mutters something about zones).
SDS is so badass! (ZFS did it first!)
Virtualization (has been around since the mainframes) -
@John-Nicholson said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
I know I"m crazy late to this but I'll throw my 2 sense out....
Vendor neutral for what?
VMworld (and VMware in general) is essentially Switzerland if your curious what people are doing for networking, and storage. You can talk with Cisco, and AWS people at the conference. You could go to this conference and focus on non ESXi related conversations and sessions the entire time if you wanted (there are like 700 different sessions). Throw in the brownbag and booth theatre sessions and there are likely over 1000 unique presentations. The other reason I'm a fan of the conference for al long time is the community. There is a conference before the conference (Opening Acts) put on by the VMunderground team where it's panels's and you can talk to people over vBrisket lunch about how/why they are doing things. A conference with a lot of people in your field gives you the opportunity to talk to peers about not just what people are saying on stage but also validate what others are doing.
DellWorld is neutral if your wanting to see where non-hardware overlay vendors are going (Microsoft, RedHat, VMware are all there to talk and present).
AWS and Microsoft conferences will yield similar benefits partly because they (like VMware and Dell) have so many products (and partner ecosystem partners) surrounding them that while there are always slightly rose tinted glasses on things they had enough product diversity that you can learn a little about everything in them.
If you want an analyst driven conference about the future of IT, IDC is what Gartner promises to be IMHO. Any of their presentations at other conferences (I saw their people speak in vForum in Kuala Lumpur and their vision for digital transformation is really spot on with what I see in the field).
The "vendor focused" conferences really only get tunnel vision when they are about a single vendor who only has a single product (or maybe 2 products) in a very narrow filed. Pure Storage's conference would be an example (Where you can expect the sessions on HCI to be pure FUD, because they don't have an HCI product).
I'm pretty sure I attend more conferences than everyone else on this website.
This is interesting feedback John. I've never been to either VMworld or Dell World, so I assumed they were completely oriented around their products.
It sounds like you liked what Gartner's analysts had to say. They have a poor reputation here, but I haven't looked at their output enough to form my own conclusions.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
I know I"m crazy late to this but I'll throw my 2 sense out....
Vendor neutral for what?
VMworld (and VMware in general) is essentially Switzerland if your curious what people are doing for networking, and storage. You can talk with Cisco, and AWS people at the conference. You could go to this conference and focus on non ESXi related conversations and sessions the entire time if you wanted (there are like 700 different sessions). Throw in the brownbag and booth theatre sessions and there are likely over 1000 unique presentations. The other reason I'm a fan of the conference for al long time is the community. There is a conference before the conference (Opening Acts) put on by the VMunderground team where it's panels's and you can talk to people over vBrisket lunch about how/why they are doing things. A conference with a lot of people in your field gives you the opportunity to talk to peers about not just what people are saying on stage but also validate what others are doing.
DellWorld is neutral if your wanting to see where non-hardware overlay vendors are going (Microsoft, RedHat, VMware are all there to talk and present).
AWS and Microsoft conferences will yield similar benefits partly because they (like VMware and Dell) have so many products (and partner ecosystem partners) surrounding them that while there are always slightly rose tinted glasses on things they had enough product diversity that you can learn a little about everything in them.
If you want an analyst driven conference about the future of IT, IDC is what Gartner promises to be IMHO. Any of their presentations at other conferences (I saw their people speak in vForum in Kuala Lumpur and their vision for digital transformation is really spot on with what I see in the field).
The "vendor focused" conferences really only get tunnel vision when they are about a single vendor who only has a single product (or maybe 2 products) in a very narrow filed. Pure Storage's conference would be an example (Where you can expect the sessions on HCI to be pure FUD, because they don't have an HCI product).
I'm pretty sure I attend more conferences than everyone else on this website.
I think talking to your peers hurts more than it helps. A lot of my misunderstandings (not all, but most) stem from me receiving misinformation. I probably spend more time unlearning incorrect concepts than I do learning correct ones. I can count the amount of humble IT peeps I've met on one hand--whether they really know what they are doing or not. This field seems to attract a lot of people who want to be the authority on things but aren't. I fit into this category, but I try my absolute best to not give misinformation if I can.
-
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
It sounds like you liked what Gartner's analysts had to say. They have a poor reputation here, but I haven't looked at their output enough to form my own conclusions.
If you feel that this makes sense, you've not understood our point. You cannot look at their output and know what they do on the other side. They ARE pay to play marketers, there is no question, opinion or grey area there. That's what they are. We've all worked for vendors that have been charged or attempted to have been charged to give them good results in the Gartner products. Everything Gartner does is designed to make you feel like their output is legitimate, that's the entire goal. That they are unethical and absolutely undermining to you as an IT pro cannot be in question.
There is no condition where false information designed to confuse you should be considered, none. Once you know that that is what they do, there is no condition under which they should be considered further.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
I think talking to your peers hurts more than it helps. A lot of my misunderstandings (not all, but most) stem from me receiving misinformation. I probably spend more time unlearning incorrect concepts than I do learning correct ones. I can count the amount of humble IT peeps I've met on one hand--whether they really know what they are doing or not. This field seems to attract a lot of people who want to be the authority on things but aren't. I fit into this category, but I try my absolute best to not give misinformation if I can.
Partially matters how you define peers. Or who your peers are. If you are an entry level person, your peers are entry level and yes, listening to them is very, very bad. If you go to SW, it's clear what the peerage there has done and it has destroyed the knowledge and competence there in so many cases. So much misinformation passed back and forth to make it look legitimate.
-
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
It sounds like you liked what Gartner's analysts had to say.
No, he likes IDC, not Gartner.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@wirestyle22 said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
I think talking to your peers hurts more than it helps. A lot of my misunderstandings (not all, but most) stem from me receiving misinformation. I probably spend more time unlearning incorrect concepts than I do learning correct ones. I can count the amount of humble IT peeps I've met on one hand--whether they really know what they are doing or not. This field seems to attract a lot of people who want to be the authority on things but aren't. I fit into this category, but I try my absolute best to not give misinformation if I can.
Partially matters how you define peers. Or who your peers are. If you are an entry level person, your peers are entry level and yes, listening to them is very, very bad. If you go to SW, it's clear what the peerage there has done and it has destroyed the knowledge and competence there in so many cases. So much misinformation passed back and forth to make it look legitimate.
This is the same train of thought I take, which essentially means most of you are not my peers but are more my mentors
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
It sounds like you liked what Gartner's analysts had to say.
No, he likes IDC, not Gartner.
Thanks for clearing that up. It makes more sense now.
-
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@scottalanmiller said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
@Kelly said in Vendor Neutral IT Strategist Conference:
It sounds like you liked what Gartner's analysts had to say.
No, he likes IDC, not Gartner.
Thanks for clearing that up. It makes more sense now.
I've not worked with IDC but have no knowledge of them working like Gartner does. And it is hard to hide because if you have any vendor side exposure, that Gartner reaches out to extort vendors is common knowledge as they do it to everyone. Same kind of thing that Dunn & Bradstreet do. Give us money, or we'll report bad things about you.
