I can't even
-
@tonyshowoff said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller The NYNEX OC3 I mentioned above, was over multiple links and they claimed that it was "redundant", but as you can imagine, if you were in the New York area in the 90s, it's NYNEX so it's easy to believe they'd say something like that.
I had similar "it's not really redundant" two carrier fiber issues in Scranton in the early 2000s.
-
@scottalanmiller The only thing dumber I've heard, at least from the phone company in the 90s, was when I was told that ISDN doesn't have an IP address, and no I don't mean in some sort of niche point to point frame relay stuff, I mean as in for piss poor Internet access. I did ask "well, how is it sending/receiving packets without an Internet Protocol address" and the guy just laughed and said "I don't know man, it just doesn't have an IP address!"
-
@DustinB3403 said in I can't even:
This topic is beyond levels of insane and the response to "liquidate everything and host these on a web hosting platform" is
I can't
Because you have no idea how to run a business.
-
@tonyshowoff said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller The only thing dumber I've heard, at least from the phone company in the 90s, was when I was told that ISDN doesn't have an IP address, and no I don't mean in some sort of niche point to point frame relay stuff, I mean as in for piss poor Internet access. I did ask "well, how is it sending/receiving packets without an Internet Protocol address" and the guy just laughed and said "I don't know man, it just doesn't have an IP address!"
I can totally envision this. I work at an ILEC for 7 years. Some of those people don’t know anything except how to splice copper together.
-
So this conversation just happened.
Co-Worker: Is there anyway to know when an asset is expired? Like what is still in warranty etc?
Me: Yeah it goes by purchase date, if that isn't provided the system goes by creation date.
Co-Worker: I can't have that, we need to still use our excel spreadsheet!
Me: TO MYSELF F.... moron. . . put the information into the system for purchase date and you'll have a nice current and accurate expiry date for assets.
Co-Worker: walks away in a huff. -
@scottalanmiller Sounds like he needed a better business plan, possibly a consultant to help with some of those basics.
-
@jmoore said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Sounds like he needed a better business plan, possibly a consultant to help with some of those basics.
I don’t fix stupid. I doubt @NTG does either.
-
@JaredBusch said in I can't even:
@jmoore said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Sounds like he needed a better business plan, possibly a consultant to help with some of those basics.
I don’t fix stupid. I doubt @NTG does either.
But do you at least try? There's money to be made, right?
-
@DustinB3403 said in I can't even:
@JaredBusch said in I can't even:
@jmoore said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Sounds like he needed a better business plan, possibly a consultant to help with some of those basics.
I don’t fix stupid. I doubt @NTG does either.
But do you at least try? There's money to be made, right?
Actually, no, there generally is not any money to be made. People like that don't see the value and even if they sometimes pay some of the bills, they will nickle and dime it and that is not worth it, ever.
-
@JaredBusch said in I can't even:
@jmoore said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Sounds like he needed a better business plan, possibly a consultant to help with some of those basics.
I don’t fix stupid. I doubt @NTG does either.
I fix stupid if we are brought in specifically to fix it, like replacing management. But otherwise, nope.
-
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
-
@Reid-Cooper I've got some videos that they need
-
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
This comes to mind:
Note: Brave doesn't necessarily mean smart.
-
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
So, are they still a customer?
-
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
And IT reported that to the CFO/CEO and they signed off on it? wow.
-
@Dashrender said in I can't even:
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
And IT reported that to the CFO/CEO and they signed off on it? wow.
They deserve to pay all costs associated with all that stupid.
-
@travisdh1 said in I can't even:
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
So, are they still a customer?
Money is money.
-
@Dashrender said in I can't even:
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
And IT reported that to the CFO/CEO and they signed off on it? wow.
They have no IT. Owner was on the call. I think this might be one of those hobby situations.
-
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
@travisdh1 said in I can't even:
@Reid-Cooper said in I can't even:
Talked to a customer today....
"No, we want nothing to do with the 'complication' of virtualization." What we want is simply 13 physical servers all in a single blade enclosure, all six years old, deployed new and set up on bare metal.
This is what happens when you let developers pretend to be IT people. New purchases of six year old systems, thirteen of them when two would do just fine, blades instead of normal servers. So much cost, so much risk, and they were angry that we thought that they should consider virtualization. They were even considering not doing RAID!
So, are they still a customer?
Money is money.
And grief is a bloody mess
-
Why do people do this.
Thread has been dead since 2011. What could possible make you think you should reply to it?
