I can't even
-
@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?
-
@JaredBusch lol, great way to get support.
-
On twitter today from Bill Kindle...
Manager, 6 months ago:”You can’t back that machine up, it’s very important to this process that can have no downtime!”
You won’t believe what happens next
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
On twitter today from Bill Kindle...
Manager, 6 months ago:”You can’t back that machine up, it’s very important to this process that can have no downtime!”
You won’t believe what happens next
Wasn't he a member here until the site that shall not be named put the kibosh on ML?
-
@RojoLoco said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
On twitter today from Bill Kindle...
Manager, 6 months ago:”You can’t back that machine up, it’s very important to this process that can have no downtime!”
You won’t believe what happens next
Wasn't he a member here until the site that shall not be named put the kibosh on ML?
I thought so, but I can't find his account.
-
Customer just sent me a picture of this....
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Customer just sent me a picture of this....
You me previous customer.
Cause WTF!
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Customer just sent me a picture of this....
This is what I had to deal with. And this is pared down from what it was. Now, I can close the door on this rack. Most of those cables were terminated improperly. Move something and someone lost connectivity.
Same with this rack. Tons of re-cabling.
-
Got a request yesterday. Give user X (CEO) access to only (subdirectory of shared folder.) Ok, complete. has access to ONLY that directory.
Today: User X can't see the directory.
FFS, what did you expect? Fun with users, hah.
