@JaredBusch said in What Are You Watching Now:
@pmoncho said in What Are You Watching Now:
Finalllllllllyyyy. Been waiting a long while. (It's understandable though)
Never watched an episode of this yet.
It is a little slow through the first 3 episode but gets much better IMHO.
@black3dynamite said in What Are You Watching Now:
Finalllllllllyyyy. Been waiting a long while. (It's understandable though)
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
@pmoncho said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
I agree with you. I don't keep up much with the DB space but I have noticed MySQL falling out of favor over the last few years.
Yeah, PostgreSQL has really picked up the pieces. Now that it's nearly always faster and is a single product, it is getting the momentum. And it's an awesome system, so kudos to them.
We use it for nearly all production workloads now. MySQL / MariaDB have always focused on high performance "light" needs like WordPress. But PostgreSQL is faster for that now, while offering so many more features, so it's becoming the safe choice for essentially everything once you get past SQLite.
Good to know. Will keep this in mind.
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
@pmoncho said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
There may not have been a lack of support, but more of a sense of stability for the future. Maybe some developers who were on the fence about using the product went full in knowing a large company can continue to supply support for the product well into the future.
It already had support from giant companies, though. The Oracle purchase took what was seen as a crazy stable product and actually caused a lot of panic. PostgreSQL was the big winner and the instability, infighting and fracturing of the MySQL ecosystem actually drove people away. When Oracle bought MySQL, it was the clear leader in the RDBMS space, nearly every ecosystem used it by default, nearly every developer not getting an incentive chose it. Once Oracle bought it, people fled from it. MariaDB picked up a lot of that since it had bigger vendor backing, and had the developers, whereas Oracle only got the brand name. But loads of developers, and most importantly lots of infrastructure projects, demoted MySQL to a second tier option and moved to PostgreSQL because it was already more advanced, just more complex, but now seen as more stable. Similarly with Sparc, Solaris, and Java. All three have lost massive marketshare under Oracle, all were thriving when they were purchased.
I agree with you. I don't keep up much with the DB space but I have noticed MySQL falling out of favor over the last few years.
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
I wonder if Oracle makes enough from MySQL sales to cover the cost of having purchased it.
I wonder the same thing. It is what made me ask the original question. I am apparently missing something about SaltStack that will generate enough revenue or value for VMware to get its money back and then some. Unless of course it was all about what you mentioned earlier, just being able to control the direction of the software. That could have large value in and of itself.
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
@pmoncho said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
MySQL, OTOH, made much more sense because it is at the heart of data, thus giving the software much more importance and the need for immediate support services.
Was there ever any lack of immediate support? We always had support access prior to Oracle buying them, and still do with MariaDB. Oracle support isn't that great (not bad, just nothing amazing), so I'm not sure that there was any benefit there.
There may not have been a lack of support, but more of a sense of stability for the future. Maybe some developers who were on the fence about using the product went full in knowing a large company can continue to supply support for the product well into the future.
@JaredBusch said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
Fifth, keeping it from falling into someone else's control.
Java, MySQL
I never really understood the Java purchase as, it seemed, more people complained about it than liked it. MySQL, OTOH, made much more sense because it is at the heart of data, thus giving the software much more importance and the need for immediate support services.
@scottalanmiller said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
@pmoncho said in Opinions: Ansible vs. SaltStack:
What would be the sense of purchasing a solid open source project like SaltStack?
Being OS, VMware can add their own developers to the project and still integrate it with their products without the cost of purchasing the company.Control of commits is the primary one. Marketing is the second. And often, but it depends on the project, ability to have a closed source copy used somewhere.
As a software company, it's super common that you maintain a closed source secondary license so that you, as the owners, are not bound to the open source limitations or requirements that other people are. No idea if VMware is going to do this, or if they can (there are licensing factors in the past that determine this), but it's a possible reason.
This was my original thought of why but then I figured, if they want to close source it, someone could just fork the latest version and then most will then migrate to the open source version.
Fifth, keeping it from falling into someone else's control. Remember IBM did this with Ansible, too. So there is a trend.
Makes sense. I guess the last thing one would want is for a competitor to buy a product deeply ingrained in your own software.
And sixth... revenue. SS brings in money, and you can make way more money as the actual project than as someone who just supports a project. If the later worked just as well, I'd make as much money as IBM does supporting Linux, but owning Red Hat gives them a slight edge
I didn't think there would be much SS revenue from a product like SaltStack or similar apps. Apparently I don't see all the power of SaltStack itself.
What would be the sense of purchasing a solid open source project like SaltStack?
Being OS, VMware can add their own developers to the project and still integrate it with their products without the cost of purchasing the company.
Maybe not specific to what you need but this is a ps script I use to copy specific files I want. I believe it would work for folders also with the proper switches on the robocopy command.
I will uncomment the "/L" line as a test to make sure I will get what I want before executing the file line.
$files="C:\temp\file_list.txt"
$SORC="C:\sorcfolder\temp\sorcfolder"
$DEST="F:\destfolder\temp\desfolder"
#Externally set input value as string
[string[]] $arrayfromfile= @(Get-Content $files)
#& robocopy /L $SORC $DEST $arrayfromfile
#& robocopy $SORC $DEST $arrayfromfile
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
And my point is that your point is wrong. We know what your point is. I've debunked it. You aren't addressing what I've said, just repeating the case that I've addressed.
They aren't in an actual position to get the bill through, so stating over and over again that they are at fault doesn't mean anything. Unless YOU or THEY actually have the power to do something, you don't then blame them or you for not doing something pointless, right?
If you do, then it's your fault as much as theirs. If not, then it isn't their fault either.
From my original standpoint, I will just have to agree to disagree with you on a few items and move along with life.
With that, it's time for dinner and time with the family. We all know that is definitely the most important. 
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
But why should they bother? They know it will NEVER pass.
You could ask the manager to sell your a big mac at BK for $0.10, but the chances he'll go for it are nill, so do you really want to waste your time?
If it never gets put up for a vote, no one will ever know the 100% factual outcome. I believe if something is of utmost importance, then get off one's butt and do something. In this instance, they need to get a bill up for vote.
I get that something are not as important after a while so I get why they don't do anything. Just tired of hearing about it yet no bill is up for a vote. Sometimes we have to say, put up or shut up! Heck, that is why I like voting, it is a yes/no answer of what the populous thinks (in Congress).
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
One very tiny subset of the rules. That's all. There's a big difference between making someone follow the rules and making sure that one itty bitty bit of paperwork is filed correctly. And 99% of what the IRS does isn't that, it's verifying math, making deposits, sending returns, etc. The amount that is "verifying" anything is absolutely small and not their focus and never actually checks on the rules, just on the process followed.
Like an ISO audit. It checks that you followed the process, but doesn't verify the process. But the IRS can get the FBI involved. The FBI is the one that actually checks on those things, if they feel that they need to.
But even in an IRS audit, it's a very loose check. It's in no way definitive.
So if the FBI is not contacted, then it is a possibility, that the IRS has not found anything that would require further investigation?
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
Doesn't matter - my point still applies.
My point was that Nancy and Chucky have not done anything to forward the, President should publicize tax returns, even though they are in a position to actually get a bill started and put on the floor and up for a vote but choose to not do it. There is a reason why, but we just don't know.
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
NO... and what laws.. Let's say trump's wife gave the taxes to NYT - do you think that is illegal?
What if his tax attorny gave it to NYT - is that illegal, likely yes.. but not IRS to go after them.. that would be the justice system.
I was responding directly to your statement and nothing about the Trump situation.
I though the whole prupose of an IRS audit was to make sure the person followed the rules. If not, please correct my thinking on this.
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
WHAT? That's like saying there are no laws making giving private data away isn't already illegal - OF course it is.. to specific people.
But it shouldn't be a law that say, your wife, couldn't give your tax info away...
I was only talking about my logic of putting a bill before Congress, that's all. I kinda ran it all in one sentance
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
That you are concerned that Trump's taxes are out tells me that you fear what they contain. A lot. If they were good, you'd be happy that they were exposed or you'd assume that he released them himself. That you feel that they are so bad that a crime must have been committed, goes really, really far to tell us how you actually feel about Trump. Even, possibly, what you haven't admitted to yourself.
OK now this I take pause with - this is almost like, but not exactly, like saying - if you have nothing to hide, you should never use or need encryption... and there is such a thing as privacy...
But public figures should not be allowed to have financial privacy... because that's where most if not all of the corruption comes in.
My question is, isn't that were the IRS comes in? Isn't that their job to make sure that a person follows the laws?
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
Did you miss my WHOLE example about world peace? This isn't hard. There's been no bill for world peace, so they must not want it either, right?
You make it sound like putting a bill before Congress is hard. Your world peace example is totally irrelevant here. If you want to eat, you must get food. Pretty simple in my opinion
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
https://kids-clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
How a Bill Becomes a Law.... this is basics of US government. House only proposes it. It's the Senate (and generally the president) that have to approve it.
Good, I know we both remember School House Rock. They had total power under Obama, yet was never done. Hmmm...
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
After four years, Nancy still hasn't lifted her finger to do so.
That's not how congress works. Your bias is strong.
Ummmm, She and Chucky have FULL power to generate a bill and put it before Congress. They did nothing so far and they ARE the ones in the position to make it happen.
Sure, but not the power to make it pass the Senate. They are NOT the ones able to make it happen, it's that simple.
I have not heard about a bill presented to either section of Congress by any Congressman so apparently it is irrelevant to all politicians that tax records be made public.