What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?
-
Someone give a definition that doesn't involve "things I don't want to count are appliances". A real definition that we can use to define what counts and what does not. Because appliances are just servers without some clear definition to the contrary.
-
Scott, if you cannot see that you are pushing an agenda when it is specifically pointed out multiple times over multiple days, I am done.
@Minion-Queen contact me outside chat here because it sucks on iPhone.
-
@JaredBusch said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
Scott, if you cannot see that you are pushing an agenda when it is specifically pointed out multiple times over multiple days, I am done.
@Minion-Queen contact me outside chat here because it sucks on iPhone.
I can't. But I can see that you are. You will say anything to push an agenda. I'm asking for why you won't accept anything that doesn't support your own desires. You lie about what I say. I ask you to support it and you ignore it. Then you push your pro-Windows here and all I ask for is your definition and clearly you have nine. If it doesn't support your view, it's "bias".
-
I see that "asking you to support what you say" is pushing my agenda. Looks like my agenda is honesty and that doesn't jive here.
-
Notice that you'd rather quit posting than show what you are trying to push here.
-
Can't really give a definition but I can give an example.
If I purchase a product from a company, such as Brocade's ClickShare, and it is built to do one thing, then it is an appliance. Does it run on some modified form of *nix? Sure, but it is built to suite. Synology is really difficult to define as it can do multiple things such as storage and file sharing, and DHCP and now domain controlling, etc.
If I can't take a PC, install my OS of choice and my application of choice on it, then it is an appliance.
-
@NerdyDad said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
Can't really give a definition but I can give an example.
If I purchase a product from a company, such as Brocade's ClickShare, and it is built to do one thing, then it is an appliance. Does it run on some modified form of *nix? Sure, but it is built to suite. Synology is really difficult to define as it can do multiple things such as storage and file sharing, and DHCP and now domain controlling, etc.
If I can't take a PC, install my OS of choice and my application of choice on it, then it is an appliance.
But how many Windows VMs are bought or built to just do one thing? Take Ann ERP system or a health management system.
-
@NerdyDad said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
If I can't take a PC, install my OS of choice and my application of choice on it, then it is an appliance.
You CAN do that with all of my examples. All give you an open server OS.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@NerdyDad said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
Can't really give a definition but I can give an example.
If I purchase a product from a company, such as Brocade's ClickShare, and it is built to do one thing, then it is an appliance. Does it run on some modified form of *nix? Sure, but it is built to suite. Synology is really difficult to define as it can do multiple things such as storage and file sharing, and DHCP and now domain controlling, etc.
If I can't take a PC, install my OS of choice and my application of choice on it, then it is an appliance.
But how many Windows VMs are bought or built to just do one thing? Take Ann ERP system or a health management system.
You can take ShoreTel and fulfill the same example. VoIP appliance with Windows Server on it.
-
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
-
I agree with @scottalanmiller on this. I would definitely consider appliances as linux servers because they are 100% servers.
A server is:
a computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.They are generally running an offshoot of a major distro, so how aren't they servers?
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
-
@NerdyDad said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@NerdyDad said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
Can't really give a definition but I can give an example.
If I purchase a product from a company, such as Brocade's ClickShare, and it is built to do one thing, then it is an appliance. Does it run on some modified form of *nix? Sure, but it is built to suite. Synology is really difficult to define as it can do multiple things such as storage and file sharing, and DHCP and now domain controlling, etc.
If I can't take a PC, install my OS of choice and my application of choice on it, then it is an appliance.
But how many Windows VMs are bought or built to just do one thing? Take Ann ERP system or a health management system.
You can take ShoreTel and fulfill the same example. VoIP appliance with Windows Server on it.
And I'd say that that should count as a Windows server.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Yeah. I see the value of the point but can't figure out how to apply it meaningfully.
Example:
Is a FreeBSD VM a server?
If we add a web GUI to that VM (FreeNAS) does it change?
If we install that same OS to bare metal, does that change?
If we add vendor support to the same thing (TrueNAS) does that change?
If we get a functionally identical product from another vendor (Synology) does that change?Which point is the line? Is it the GUI, the bare metal, the support, etc?
I can't tell.
Now some products like NetApp remove OS access. That's a hard line that I could totally buy as a limiter. You definitely stop having a usefully general purpose OS. But I don't thing anyone has stuff like that. It's all stuff like Unitrends where you get full OS access if you want.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
I don't know. One could argue there are no servers. Only hypervisors and appliances, in that case.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
To make it more blurry...
Before VMs we still often got just the software for bare metal.
And most appliance VMs let you do more than is intended. FreeNAS or Synology being key examples. Thy might be intended as storage. But they can be desktops if you want.
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
I don't know. One could argue there are no servers. Only hypervisors and appliances, in that case.
Sure and in many ways that is true. Appliance and server are nearly the same thing today. All an appliance is is a specialized interface for a task. And both Linux and Windows are loaded with those by default for loads of tasks.
-
I think we really need to look in to the definition. Like we did with JBOD. Maybe appliance is just too loose of a definition to really pin it down and draw a meaningful line.
