@scottalanmiller said in Why Are UTMs Not Recommended Generally:
@dave247 said in Why Are UTMs Not Recommended Generally:
It seems like you are stuck in the past with how to do things and anything that presents itself as a new way of doing things, you throw a fit about. I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but I don't think you are being very reasonable with how apposed you are being to the concept of a UTM.
So let me ask you, do you feel that Windows SBS server, where all functions are crammed into a single device rather than being separated out into individual VMs, is smart? Because that was a big trend fifteen years ago, make it "simple" for IT shops that "didn't get it" and it was crap. Performance was crap, stability was crap, everyone who was "stuck in the old ways" laughed at them for being caught up in marketing and hype and not thinking through what they were doing, and eventually the model showed to be so ridiculous that even MS discontinued it.
UTMs require you to do things in a fundamentally unreliable and expensive way. Router hardware is not as reliable, cheap, or performant as your server infrastructure. But it makes loads of money for the VARs and networking companies.
What you see as "stuck in the old ways", we see as "understanding how it works." UTMs aren't a new idea, they are just new on the market. It's a new way to trick people into spending too much (thanks to security theater and security being too confusing for most shops) with by fancy terms and marketing blitzes and hoping that people buying them don't know the history or realize that all of that functionality is something we've had access to, and been doing better for a long time.
Remember, UTMs aren't new, thinking that UTMs are a good idea is new. That's a huge difference.
It's one of the current "buzz words" in IT. Like SAN was ten years ago. Took a few years of fighting, now everyone knows how ridiculous, costly, and risky that trend was. But for many years there, those of us pushing hyperconvergence (the "old" way) were laughed at for not doing what was "new", which neither thing was new.
Then hyperconvergence got the marketing and now it is seen as "new", even though we were pushing it before SANs were popular.
You see UTMs as new. We see them as a bad idea that is very old.
You say UTMs are new here but in another spot you say they aren't new. I'm not surprised. I've read through hundreds of your posts and seen various spots where you contradict yourself. You once argued with me for hours about a router and a firewall being the exact same thing. You spew out vast amount of information in the form of debating and arguing about IT stuff but what it really boils down to is that you are splitting hairs about various IT concepts.
I'm not sure if you do this "for the good of the IT community" or if you're doing it to bolster your own ego. Ether way, you can't seem to have a simple discussion without unpacking a torrent of paragraphs and fragmenting discussion threads in some sort of frighting Scott Alan Miller battle-dance, where you come out the victor because your opponent is forced to yield due to shier exhaustion from all the reading and typing.
I truly understand what you are saying and where you are coming from with a lot of this stuff, but you are just tireless with the discussion.
I'm out.
