Time to gut the network - thoughts?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.
I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.
So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."
So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.
The obvious thing, if you really wanted to push the point, is to ask for a non-Cisco consultant or VAR to give you an alternative and ask why the Cisco solution is bad. Then compare notes. Maybe question the original vendor again. But I'm not suggesting that anyone need go that far, if the logic behind why Cisco was selected is reasonable, that is easily enough.
This isn't about finding every bad case or bad advice or bad motivation, it's about improving the process so that we find it more often than if we didn't.
I didn't ask that you ask them for advice, that would be silly. You are asking them for the sales pitch.
Ah yes, so you're asking them for the exact thing you're supposed to be wary of.
Yes, and you should absolutely be wary of it. Remember this is for specifically getting the specifically opposing marketing, not advice, so that you know the strong "case" against the solution you are trying to question.
So why would you ask for advice in the first place and not just ask to VARs?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're giving general advice here, Scott. The advice should not be - be critical if you get suggested somethign you've seen an ad for.
instead your advice should be - be critical, 100% of the time... ask them why that choice was made. Period.. this to me seems like the real advice you are tying to make.
Nope, like I explained, the second set of advice is bad. It simply becomes words. I've not made my point clear if you think that the second would solve the first.
You can't be critical 100% of the time, no one can. I'm giving advice on when to be more on alert so that you can spend less time questioning things that have no specific reason to be questioned.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
Yes please.. what TV shows are talking about SANs?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're right, because you're taught that you always look both ways when crossing a road regardless of ANY other circumstance.
You feel that you need to be taught that? And that when telling you when to be even MORE cautious it wouldn't cause you to stop being normally cautious the rest of the time?
Why is that different here than when getting advice?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
There are not TV ads for using SANs. And he specifically said TV show. You said, "because there are". Stop changing the arguments.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're giving general advice here, Scott. The advice should not be - be critical if you get suggested somethign you've seen an ad for.
instead your advice should be - be critical, 100% of the time... ask them why that choice was made. Period.. this to me seems like the real advice you are tying to make.
Nope, like I explained, the second set of advice is bad. It simply becomes words. I've not made my point clear if you think that the second would solve the first.
You can't be critical 100% of the time, no one can. I'm giving advice on when to be more on alert so that you can spend less time questioning things that have no specific reason to be questioned.
yes you can be critical 100% of the time, when you are getting advice from a PAID consultant - because come on, how often does that really happen?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
We humans aren't taught to distrust advertisements, so this logic wouldn't apply.
You say this, in a discussion where I just taught you to distrust advertising? I've been taught my whole life to distrust ads. I've always taught people to distrust ads. This is super, ultra basic being a human.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
OH jeezz.. well then almost every product anywhere is in an ad about something.. so again, we're back to being wary of everything. lol
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
There are not TV ads for using SANs. And he specifically said TV show. You said, "because there are". Stop changing the arguments.
OKay, stop making ones so silly that I have to reword them into something that makes sense. What TV shows teach anything? Why was that brought up if not to just be pointless? If the question is "why should we be wary of SANs" we have the obvious answer. If the question is "why aren't there shows teaching good technology practices" then someone is just trying to derail the conversation with something pointless.
Why was this brought up?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
We humans aren't taught to distrust advertisements, so this logic wouldn't apply.
You say this, in a discussion where I just taught you to distrust advertising? I've been taught my whole life to distrust ads. I've always taught people to distrust ads. This is super, ultra basic being a human.
I'd call you a snowflake then.
as for you teaching me... OK I guess we'll go with that.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
OH jeezz.. well then almost every product anywhere is in an ad about something.. so again, we're back to being wary of everything. lol
You are working SO hard to try to make it okay to not be wary of the most obvious dangerous cases. Why? There are clearly not ads to normal people for everything. Why are you making that statement? When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
That's the whole freaking point. These people aren't going to see these ads. So they won't know to not trust the product.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
We humans aren't taught to distrust advertisements, so this logic wouldn't apply.
You say this, in a discussion where I just taught you to distrust advertising? I've been taught my whole life to distrust ads. I've always taught people to distrust ads. This is super, ultra basic being a human.
I'd call you a snowflake then.
as for you teaching me... OK I guess we'll go with that.
Maybe, but all good learning starts somewhere. But I don't buy the snowflake thing. This is such common knowledge that my wife gave you an insulting look *not knowing who said it" and couldn't believe that someone would question that this is common knowledge. This sounds like the desperate "SAMLand" arguments. What you are implying is beyond insulting to everyone. Normal people definitely know that marketing is there to sell them things and that they should be wary of what it pushes.
Haven't you ever heard of all those parents that don't want their kids watching commercial television all the time for this reason? Are you aware of PBS?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
yes you can be critical 100% of the time, when you are getting advice from a PAID consultant - because come on, how often does that really happen?
Depends, if you are a company, how often is your IT guy advising you on something? Few times a day? Hundreds of times a day? It's a LOT in a normal business.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
That's the whole freaking point. These people aren't going to see these ads. So they won't know to not trust the product.
Right. SO since there are no ads, there is no special concern around people trying to sell an L2 switch based on the marketing. So you get my point now. You word it strangely, though.
Why do you feel that they should distrust L2 switches? It would be unrelated to the conversation that we are having.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
That's the whole freaking point. These people aren't going to see these ads. So they won't know to not trust the product.
Right. SO since there are no ads, there is no special concern around people trying to sell an L2 switch based on the marketing. So you get my point now. You word it strangely, though.
Why do you feel that they should distrust L2 switches? It would be unrelated to the conversation that we are having.
Is this an alternate universe? Cisco switches have been in this conversation the whole time. So again, how do you distrust your consultant when they say you should get a Cisco switch if there aren't any ads for their switches?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Okay so apparently I gave too much credit for this statement and have to answer it again. I thought that this was just worded poorly. So the question is... since people who are non-technical don't read forums, study up or know the basics dont know that SANs are bad conceptually, how would they know that they are.... unless it's the topic of a television show warning them?
I'm lost now. Who learns about running a business from television shows? WHere did that come from if that was what was really asked?
I thought that this was on topic and meant to say "how would they know without seeing advertising for SANs" since this conversation is about how seeing ads should give you an indication of when to be wary. And since SANs are advertised to the general public like crazy, I thought that that was what was meant. Because that's who they would know. This thread gives them the answer - they don't need television shows to teach them the ways of the world, the fact that there are ads is enough to make them cautious. Then they know when to dig deeper and look to see if someone is incentived incorrectly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
Now you're into specialized cases. And specialized cases are the exact opposite from @stacksofplates original question, where the shoeshop owner is trying to get some paid advice who knows nothing about computers. If the paid consultant suggested a SAN to him, he would have NO clue if that was good or bad.
Not really, SANs are so oversold that they are sold to non-technical people directly easily half the time. Not specialized at all.
Sure, but those people would have no exposure to these forums, etc to know that SANs are more often than not, a bad idea. How would they ever know that unless there were dozens of TV shows talking about just that.
Because there are.
What TV shows? Name one that has talked about not using a SAN.
They don't, there are ads about USING a SAN. That is what makes you wary.
OH jeezz.. well then almost every product anywhere is in an ad about something.. so again, we're back to being wary of everything. lol
You are working SO hard to try to make it okay to not be wary of the most obvious dangerous cases. Why? There are clearly not ads to normal people for everything. Why are you making that statement? When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
When was the last time I saw an ad for anything other than Cisco/Baracuda/and that other billion dollar per device networking company.. Juniper ever.. than answer is never.
I've never seen an ad for UBNT, pretty sure I've never seen an ad for Netgear or Aruba, etc... so what you're telling me is that I need be wary of the top three, but not wary of anything else - but then you're not saying that either, because you'r eONLY saying, be wary of things that are advertised..
OK yeah sure, that's helpful I guess, but I don't understand why you don't feel this implies the inverse. which you claim it doesn't imply the inverse, well Scott's probably never implied anything in his life because that would mean that people would have to make their own inferences to what he is saying, which would then be things he's not saying, so they wouldn't be allowed on the table.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
When is the last time you say an L2 unmanaged switch ad in public?
That's the whole freaking point. These people aren't going to see these ads. So they won't know to not trust the product.
Right. SO since there are no ads, there is no special concern around people trying to sell an L2 switch based on the marketing. So you get my point now. You word it strangely, though.
Why do you feel that they should distrust L2 switches? It would be unrelated to the conversation that we are having.
Is this an alternate universe? Cisco switches have been in this conversation the whole time. So again, how do you distrust your consultant when they say you should get a Cisco switch if there aren't any ads for their switches?
Wow, okay I guess I see the connection that you made. But I was talking about being wary of Cisco because their brand is advertised. I've never heard of Cisco pusing an L2 unmanaged switch (maybe around 2000, no idea.) The issue is not the switch, so there isn't a reason to be wary (specifically.) The issue is what is advertised, which is the brand in this example. Do you feel that there is a reason to be wary of switching as a concept?
I'm showing why Cisco brand advertising makes it easy to be sold Cisco and we should be wary of that connection and question it. This should not lead you to question the concept of modern networkings itself. Any more than you question at the baseline.
There are insane numbers of Cisco ads. I see them constantly, and not in IT circles.
