I can't even
-
8 minutes into a call where the person who had the problem isn't available and the receptionist is trying to explain the problem with their server not being on the network.... "So is the server good now?"
I explained that I just got on the phone and haven't even had a chance to do much yet.
"Oh of course, I understand"
2 minutes later... "Is the server good now?"
I can't even.... Geeze
-
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
-
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
LOL. I'll echo.... WTF
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
LOL. I'll echo.... WTF
Here I've been annoyed with just one Sophos firewall!
-
@travisdh1 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
LOL. I'll echo.... WTF
Here I've been annoyed with just one Sophos firewall!
I thought Sophos was pretty good, just expensive?
-
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
Definitely an odd setup regarding the 50% thing. But dropping separate firewalls on a switch is not very uncommon at all. SO many people simply have no idea how to do networking.
-
@wirestyle22 said in I can't even:
@travisdh1 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
LOL. I'll echo.... WTF
Here I've been annoyed with just one Sophos firewall!
I thought Sophos was pretty good, just expensive?
I've found it more of a hindrance in getting other things working. Like SaltStack and Zimbra, it likes to disable both clients.
-
@wirestyle22 said in I can't even:
@travisdh1 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@taurex said in I can't even:
I came across this WTF configuration in one of the local medical centres. Two low-end Sophos boxes are behind a $20 switch that is also connected to the single fibre Internet connection provided by an Ethernet demarc device (not shown on the image). Apparently, each firewall is set up to serve 50% of the available WAN bandwidth to their tenants...
LOL. I'll echo.... WTF
Here I've been annoyed with just one Sophos firewall!
I thought Sophos was pretty good, just expensive?
Not generally considered very good. The best of bad gear, maybe. Definitely not something I would normally deploy. But certainly better than stuff like SonicWall or Fortinet. But "good" might be pushing it a bit far. It's a UTM, which is generally a bad product category, and it isn't even remotely in the Palo Alto category. Sophos AV is fine, of course. And as a vendor Sophos is fine. But it's a UTM that is shown here, and that's not good in this range. A Sophos security VM behind a firewall would be different.
-
Guys - you are looking the wrong direction to assess the damage to the road. Or did Fitz-Simmons drop Gravatonium again?
-
Why isn't this just native in Windows?
https://github.com/raandree/NTFSSecurity
chmod 777for the win
-
My whole week is an "I can't even".
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
My whole week is an "I can't even".
I can understand... but look at it from my POV.... ugh..
-
@gjacobse said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
My whole week is an "I can't even".
I can understand... but look at it from my POV.... ugh..
Trust me, it's even worse from here!
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@gjacobse said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
My whole week is an "I can't even".
I can understand... but look at it from my POV.... ugh..
Trust me, it's even worse from here!
I can believe it. ... really .. I can.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@gjacobse said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
My whole week is an "I can't even".
I can understand... but look at it from my POV.... ugh..
Trust me, it's even worse from here!
I have my popcorn ready, need more details
-
2018 - 2005 = 25?
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
2018 - 2005 = 25?
More then one person? 25 people with 1 year of experience?
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
2018 - 2005 = 25?
I've never cared for people who do the cumulative years experience. 5 guys with 5 years experience = 25 cumulative years experience. Seems deceptive.
With that being said, I don't see the fuss here. If I were to start a new business, I would say the amount of years experience I had doing the work I was doing which is exactly what they seem to be doing. In this case I know that the business has been running for 13 years but they have an additional 12 years experience on top of that.
-
@zachary715 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
2018 - 2005 = 25?
I've never cared for people who do the cumulative years experience. 5 guys with 5 years experience = 25 cumulative years experience. Seems deceptive.
It's fine, when explained. The "people added up" thing, but it's REALLY weird for a company that claims to have lots of staff and locations to have been around for 13 years and when adding up everyone who works there to only come up to 25 years. That means each person has only a week or two of experience at best!
As an example, my HOUSEHOLD IT experience total is over 75 years. Household. If we counted the entire company, it would be insanely high. And it would reflect the size of company, not the experience of the staff.
Like my household has an average of more than 20 years per person. It's 25.67 actually. So my HOUSE has more experience than their COMPANY. That's nuts. And ours is 100% business, theirs is mostly home user. So wow, again.
For those wondering, my house has a 32, 30, and 15 years IT people.
