Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   Where did my IT money go? *shakes magic 8-ball* Outlook foggy   (forbes.com) divider line 75
    More: Fail, Magic 8-Ball  
•       •       •

4184 clicks; posted to Business » on 11 Apr 2012 at 10:12 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-11 08:28:00 AM  
"More Than One-Third of IT Budgets Now Spent on Cloud: Survey"

I don't know what this Cloud Survey is asking, but, it sounds like quite the racket.
 
2012-04-11 09:13:01 AM  
Bows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air and feather canyons everywhere...
 
2012-04-11 09:27:18 AM  
Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?

~reads article~FTFA:Applications that companies will be moving to the cloud within the next three years include email/messaging; collaboration/conferencing; data storage; customer relationship management; and human resources.

Yep, just as I thought, middle IT management telling upper management we are deploying "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included)services when it's old school client-server so they will think they are getting in on this cutting edge "cloud"(you know the drill) thing they keep hearing about in stupid trade mags and Forbes.

Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.
 
2012-04-11 09:33:14 AM  

sammyk: Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.


My point exactly!
 
2012-04-11 10:04:50 AM  
Farking vaporware.
 
2012-04-11 10:07:02 AM  

sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?

~reads article~FTFA:Applications that companies will be moving to the cloud within the next three years include email/messaging; collaboration/conferencing; data storage; customer relationship management; and human resources.

Yep, just as I thought, middle IT management telling upper management we are deploying "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included)services when it's old school client-server so they will think they are getting in on this cutting edge "cloud"(you know the drill) thing they keep hearing about in stupid trade mags and Forbes.

Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.


Three of the products I support are going to have a concurrent cloud offering. Devil's in the details in regards to your question. I wish I could get into the specific details of how we're doing it but because it's the "next new shiny thing" it would be improper.
 
2012-04-11 10:16:01 AM  

sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?


SHHHH! When it's "cloud" we don't have to hear as much biatching about downtime!
 
2012-04-11 10:28:53 AM  
Maybe Subby should try Thunderbird instead?
 
2012-04-11 10:37:04 AM  
The other 2/3rd is spent on synergy.
 
2012-04-11 10:40:22 AM  

Arkanaut: Maybe Subby should try Thunderbird instead?


*shakes tiny fist of rage*

what's the word?
 
2012-04-11 10:41:48 AM  

The Smails Kid: Arkanaut: Maybe Subby should try Thunderbird instead?

*shakes tiny fist of rage*

what's the word?


"Thunderbird!"

"What's the price?"

"Two thirds of your IT budget!"
 
2012-04-11 10:59:27 AM  

Diogenes: Three of the products I support are going to have a concurrent cloud offering. Devil's in the details in regards to your question. I wish I could get into the specific details of how we're doing it but because it's the "next new shiny thing" it would be improper.


jayhawk88: sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?

SHHHH! When it's "cloud" we don't have to hear as much biatching about downtime!


So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.
 
2012-04-11 11:07:40 AM  

sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?


Yes.

~reads article~FTFA:Applications that companies will be moving to the cloud within the next three years include email/messaging; collaboration/conferencing; data storage; customer relationship management; and human resources.

Yep, just as I thought, middle IT management telling upper management we are deploying "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included)services when it's old school client-server so they will think they are getting in on this cutting edge "cloud"(you know the drill) thing they keep hearing about in stupid trade mags and Forbes.

Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.


DrewCurtisJr: The other 2/3rd is spent on synergy.


'Convergence' is the new buzzword for it. As in, finding one vendor who will provide an end-to-end 'toaster' solution for the CIO to gloat over. If I sound bitter, it's because I'm stuck in the middle of making this shiat-pile work at my job.
 
2012-04-11 11:08:10 AM  

TwoHead: Bows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air and feather canyons everywhere...


You really don't know clouds at all, do you?
 
2012-04-11 11:09:58 AM  

sammyk: Diogenes: Three of the products I support are going to have a concurrent cloud offering. Devil's in the details in regards to your question. I wish I could get into the specific details of how we're doing it but because it's the "next new shiny thing" it would be improper.

jayhawk88: sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?

SHHHH! When it's "cloud" we don't have to hear as much biatching about downtime!

So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.


As usual, marketing is running the asylum again.

/pairs are now gardens
//gardens are now farms
///farms are now clouds
 
2012-04-11 11:10:31 AM  
And by the way, WTF is a "private cloud" ? Sounds a lot like a goddamn mainframe (or central array) with workstations, to me.
 
2012-04-11 11:10:38 AM  

sammyk: Diogenes: Three of the products I support are going to have a concurrent cloud offering. Devil's in the details in regards to your question. I wish I could get into the specific details of how we're doing it but because it's the "next new shiny thing" it would be improper.

jayhawk88: sammyk: Wait a minute. When you deploy "cloud"(douchey finger qoutes included) services on your private network aren't you just deploying standard client-server apps?

SHHHH! When it's "cloud" we don't have to hear as much biatching about downtime!

So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.


I thought "cloud" generally just meant that it was "centralized" vs. being on your system (which, as stated, email has almost always been anyway... it isn't like most people are running their own POP/IMAP server on their machine... your Outlook was tying into one centralized on some other machine).

Also, more and more predominantly now a days, when someone is talking about using the "cloud", more often than not that means they are letting some 3rd party service control (at least some of) your data (ie, being stored on their servers, etc.), which might or might not be advisable.
 
2012-04-11 11:10:44 AM  

sammyk: I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.


That's one possible deployment. I have a great example of another that I simply can't share at this time.

But if it makes you feel any better it still sucks and drains all end user value out of my product.
 
2012-04-11 11:11:23 AM  
I moved all my IT to the cloud a long time ago, before it was cool

t0.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-11 11:13:34 AM  
I sometimes wonder what cutsie nickname they would have given to client/server apps if networking books had used a different image to represent the internet

/we needs a PS Challenge for this
 
2012-04-11 11:18:46 AM  
Are there any companies that make their money as solely go-betweens for corporate espionage? Because that's where all the money is going to be as more and more companies push their info into the cloud, and I want in now.
 
2012-04-11 11:20:13 AM  

HighlanderRPI: I moved all my IT to the cloud a long time ago, before it was cool

[t0.gstatic.com image 338x149]


alexplorer.net

I can't hear you over the sound of my biatchin' Beats by Lando headphones.
 
2012-04-11 11:31:41 AM  

Unoriginal_Username: I sometimes wonder what cutsie nickname they would have given to client/server apps if networking books had used a different image to represent the internet

/we needs a PS Challenge for this


Everytime I've dropped a cloud on a visio doc it means I don't feel like explaining this shiat to you. It's magic and it just farking works, stop bothering me and fund my project!
 
2012-04-11 11:33:46 AM  

CognaciousThunk: 'Convergence' is the new buzzword for it. As in, finding one vendor who will provide an end-to-end 'toaster' solution for the CIO to gloat over. If I sound bitter, it's because I'm stuck in the middle of making this shiat-pile work at my job.


We've got one of these shiat-piles coming our way soon. They've been working with a vendor for forever and a day to finalize the look and functionality of an outward-facing web portal and they just now thought it would be a good idea to bring in web programming (yay me) and marketing. I can just about see the future on this one: head of the project, worried about losing his job, comes to us, we fix it in time for release, he gets the credit, we get kudos from our manager and nothing else.
 
2012-04-11 11:35:31 AM  

Diogenes: sammyk: I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.

That's one possible deployment. I have a great example of another that I simply can't share at this time.

But if it makes you feel any better it still sucks and drains all end user value out of my product.


I'm sure it's an interesting implementation. But it still a marketing buzzword and boils down to client-server. It's the equivelant of calling anytthing fault tolerant "robust".
 
2012-04-11 11:36:26 AM  

sammyk: So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.


I think when people start talking "private cloud" the idea is generally to try and replicate a lot of the streamlining and automation you might get from a cloud provider, internally. Having the storage, front-end, runtime, database, identity, etc etc services all there and available for "the user" to access and take advantage of without necessarily having to have the keys to the server room, so to speak. Just getting into virtualization seems to be about half the battle. You're right, fundamentally there's really nothing new here, it's just buzzword overuse.
 
2012-04-11 11:56:24 AM  

sammyk: I'm sure it's an interesting implementation. But it still a marketing buzzword and boils down to client-server. It's the equivelant of calling anytthing fault tolerant "robust".


Yeah, I've been around IT long enough to know alot of it is "new shiny thing" buzz. And I'm sure there are shops that are just recasting their old stuff.

Today's cloud could just as easily be viewed as "hosted services" (which was a buzz not too long ago). But again, it depends on implementation.
 
2012-04-11 12:07:47 PM  

Diogenes: sammyk: I'm sure it's an interesting implementation. But it still a marketing buzzword and boils down to client-server. It's the equivelant of calling anytthing fault tolerant "robust".

Yeah, I've been around IT long enough to know alot of it is "new shiny thing" buzz. And I'm sure there are shops that are just recasting their old stuff.

Today's cloud could just as easily be viewed as "hosted services" (which was a buzz not too long ago). But again, it depends on implementation.


Today's cloud is a lot like 1960's IBM mainframe.
 
2012-04-11 12:10:18 PM  

sammyk: Unoriginal_Username: I sometimes wonder what cutsie nickname they would have given to client/server apps if networking books had used a different image to represent the internet

/we needs a PS Challenge for this

Everytime I've dropped a cloud on a visio doc it means I don't feel like explaining this shiat to you. It's magic and it just farking works, stop bothering me and fund my project!


That sums it up well. I remember back in the day after dropping the cloud you were expected to label it. One day, after yet another VP back from a three beer lunch waved at the diagram and said he liked that cloud thing, people just stopped bothering and called it the cloud.
 
2012-04-11 12:28:31 PM  

jayhawk88: sammyk: So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.

I think when people start talking "private cloud" the idea is generally to try and replicate a lot of the streamlining and automation you might get from a cloud provider, internally. Having the storage, front-end, runtime, database, identity, etc etc services all there and available for "the user" to access and take advantage of without necessarily having to have the keys to the server room, so to speak. Just getting into virtualization seems to be about half the battle. You're right, fundamentally there's really nothing new here, it's just buzzword overuse.


So a modern IT infrastructure with LDAP slapped on top for single sign on authentication. Yep its a marketing buzzword to get your projects funded. I've done a lot of virtualization and it does not change teh client-server paradigm
 
2012-04-11 12:43:09 PM  

jayhawk88: sammyk: So clustering/load balancing the app means it's magically "cloud" enabled? Or is it having the ability access the app with multiple devices?

I call BS, it's still client/server and it's nothing new on the ethernets.

I think when people start talking "private cloud" the idea is generally to try and replicate a lot of the streamlining and automation you might get from a cloud provider, internally. Having the storage, front-end, runtime, database, identity, etc etc services all there and available for "the user" to access and take advantage of without necessarily having to have the keys to the server room, so to speak. Just getting into virtualization seems to be about half the battle. You're right, fundamentally there's really nothing new here, it's just buzzword overuse.


My company has been doing something similar for one of our customers. Right now the customer typically dedicates an entire machine to running a particular service, which often means that lots of hardware is being under-utilized. At least in theory, if we offered them a private cloud solution (and, yes, I realize it's a marketing buzzword), they could run everything on VMs that are provisioned according to what each service needs, and therefore get the same work done with less than half the hardware.

I don't quite understand why they can't just run multiple services on a single host without using virtualization, though. It might just come down to corporate politics.
 
2012-04-11 01:02:15 PM  

anfrind: I don't quite understand why they can't just run multiple services on a single host without using virtualization, though. It might just come down to corporate politics.


I know that if you're dealing with software/services from vendors, they always get their panties in a bunch about needing their own servers with nothing else on them, sometimes to the point where it affects support contracts.
 
2012-04-11 01:25:17 PM  

anfrind:
I don't quite understand why they can't just run multiple services on a single host without using virtualization, though. It might just come down to corporate politics.


If I need to deploy 10 more instances of SuperServiceX, in a virtualized world I just deploy the image and be done with it. Without that, I have to reconfigure an operational host. Additionally, If SuperServiceX binds to a particular port, it makes it much more difficult to do on a single host instance. If I virtualize, I can deploy and then configure all of that at my network edge.
 
2012-04-11 01:31:43 PM  

mcreadyblue: Today's cloud is a lot like 1960's IBM mainframe.


In a way. But you can have a distributed architecture with a cloud. It just gives the appearance of a singular instance.

Which, again, is not necessarily unique to cloud tech.

It's the pendulum swinging.
 
2012-04-11 01:41:03 PM  
NIST publication 800-145, PDF (new window), defines a "cloud" as a set of "things" that provide you with:

* On-demand self-service
* Broad network access
* Resource pooling
* Rapid elasticity
* Measured service

One problem with "cloud" computing is that to obtain all 5 characteristics you have to use an inordinate amount of smoke and mirrors. For instance, most type-1 hypervisors provide you with broad network access, resource pooling, and rapid elasticity. So if you come up with a home-grown app that lets people request their own virtual machines and tracks their usage, viola, you now have a private cloud.

Another problem with "cloud" computing is that your company has literally no internal apps that are "cloud capable" today. Every application in your software catalog will have to be specially prepared before it can be put "in the cloud". Whether you are talking about fully automating the application deployment or engineering the split between compute units and headless storage, no program can be picked up from where it currently sits and dropped into the cloud.

Now, I'm not trying to bash the cloud. I worked on designing the one we built for my company for the majority of 2010, and the technologies we selected are extremely powerful, capable of doing amazing things. I do want to inject a grain of reality though. When it comes to the cloud, you are most likely not prepared. If you don't have push-button zero-touch deployment scripts for your servers and applications, you aren't ready for the cloud. If you don't have a development group that can handle API programming, you aren't ready. If you don't know anything about the devops movement, you aren't alone, but you also probably aren't ready. :)
 
2012-04-11 02:24:55 PM  
I think Software as a Service (SaaS) vs. individual installations or even server-based installations is considered "cloud" these days. Vendors provide the service/storage/functionality and clients provide the data and money, no messy months-long implementation required*.


*ideally
 
2012-04-11 02:29:00 PM  

TwoHead: sammyk: Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.

My point exactly!


Couldn't agree more. I work for a Boutique IT Shop, rather small, with around 100 clients. When the Cloud thing started ramping up, all the clients started clamoring for it, and we could have made a grip of money off their stupidity, but we instead explained what The Cloud is and how they already had a similar setup so it would have been literally a waste of money.

It's getting pretty absurd and people with less morale fiber could make a killing off people's stupidity, which is why IT gets such a bad rap.
 
2012-04-11 02:48:53 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: TwoHead: sammyk: Fine, call it a "cloud" app, if it means my project is better funded you can call it anything you damn well please.

My point exactly!

Couldn't agree more. I work for a Boutique IT Shop, rather small, with around 100 clients. When the Cloud thing started ramping up, all the clients started clamoring for it, and we could have made a grip of money off their stupidity, but we instead explained what The Cloud is and how they already had a similar setup so it would have been literally a waste of money.

It's getting pretty absurd and people with less morale fiber could make a killing off people's stupidity, which is why IT gets such a bad rap.


You're going to be pissed when they leave you because you didn't provide them with the cloud services they asked for.

It's the cloud, dammit, and we gotta have some!
 
2012-04-11 03:03:38 PM  

sammyk: So a modern IT infrastructure with LDAP slapped on top for single sign on authentication.


No.

If somebody walked up to you and said "well, isn't 'the web' just tcp/ip packets with some fancy graphics formats added to the data segments for pizazz?" would you look at them like they're an idiot? Because you'd be right to. It's a deliberately obtuse oversimplification of a high-level concept by pedantically and pointlessly reducing a complex system into its component parts for no other apparent purpose than to be flippant.

You're not wrong when you say that "cloud computing" is a badly misused buzzword that gets wrongly attached to nearly everything involving virtualization, but you are wrong in suggesting that because opportunistic sales people abuse the term that it's not a real thing.

Private cloud computing is the natural endpoint of resource virtualization. When all of your resources have been completely divorced in presentation from any underlying proprietary restrictions, whether they be hardware or software, you have a cloud. You know longer provision "servers" and "clients", you provide policies, rulesets, and standards that allow people to provision those things for themselves. When Finance says they need a new server, you don't go out and install a VM for them, set it up, and give them access, you provide the policy that allows Finance to do that themselves by carving their own resources out of the pool.

The fact that, at the core, the hardware hosts, storage network, ethernet, and client machines in Finance still operate in a client/server model no more makes it a traditional client/server architecture than the web operating over TCP/IP makes it low level networking. There is a substantial difference in management for both the clients in this scenario, and the datacenter employees.

Which, I think, is why people like you are so terrified to learn about private clouds. It takes away some of the arcane magic that goes on in the datacenter and puts it in the hands of clients while making technical people more responsible for planning and policy and less responsible for the actual implementation after the cloud is set up. That seems to terrify tech people.
 
2012-04-11 03:08:00 PM  
Your head must be foggy if you're still using Outlook. It's not 2002 anymore.
 
2012-04-11 03:17:04 PM  

reverendsaintjay: Now, I'm not trying to bash the cloud. I worked on designing the one we built for my company for the majority of 2010, and the technologies we selected are extremely powerful, capable of doing amazing things. I do want to inject a grain of reality though. When it comes to the cloud, you are most likely not prepared. If you don't have push-button zero-touch deployment scripts for your servers and applications, you aren't ready for the cloud. If you don't have a development group that can handle API programming, you aren't ready. If you don't know anything about the devops movement, you aren't alone, but you also probably aren't ready. :)


It's a natural problem with this type of technology and it's not a new one. Twenty years ago companies wanted to get into the world wide web, but how many had the know how or infrastructure to build and host a website in 1992/3/4? Think about something as common as a T1 delivery today and think about what a crazy thing that was twenty years ago. Think about the initial switch to VOIP and how many companies with a traditional PBX stumbled helplessly through that process. Hell, think about the switch to twisted pair cabling, something more common than dog shiat these days. I remember back in the 90s having a "professional" come in to pull CAT-3 cable for us and I caught the bonehead yanking on it around a sharp corner in the plenum to try and "break it loose from the snake tray bracket it was caught on" because he didn't realize how fragile it is. He wasn't stupid (although he was apparently poorly trained), it was just a new thing and people didn't have experience with it yet.

Most companies stumble blindly through the initial phases of any new technology implementation, private clouds are no different. Larger companies with more resources will figure it out and standardize tools while smaller companies will stumble through it to get the initial exposure and experience before switching to the tools that become available to make it work right. Then we'll move on to some other technology and go right back to the whole "IT'S A BUZZWORD LOL1!!1" and stumbling, bumbling silliness all over again.
 
2012-04-11 05:06:17 PM  

Splinshints: sammyk: So a modern IT infrastructure with LDAP slapped on top for single sign on authentication.

No.

If somebody walked up to you and said "well, isn't 'the web' just tcp/ip packets with some fancy graphics formats added to the data segments for pizazz?" would you look at them like they're an idiot? Because you'd be right to. It's a deliberately obtuse oversimplification of a high-level concept by pedantically and pointlessly reducing a complex system into its component parts for no other apparent purpose than to be flippant.

You're not wrong when you say that "cloud computing" is a badly misused buzzword that gets wrongly attached to nearly everything involving virtualization, but you are wrong in suggesting that because opportunistic sales people abuse the term that it's not a real thing.

Private cloud computing is the natural endpoint of resource virtualization. When all of your resources have been completely divorced in presentation from any underlying proprietary restrictions, whether they be hardware or software, you have a cloud. You know longer provision "servers" and "clients", you provide policies, rulesets, and standards that allow people to provision those things for themselves. When Finance says they need a new server, you don't go out and install a VM for them, set it up, and give them access, you provide the policy that allows Finance to do that themselves by carving their own resources out of the pool.

The fact that, at the core, the hardware hosts, storage network, ethernet, and client machines in Finance still operate in a client/server model no more makes it a traditional client/server architecture than the web operating over TCP/IP makes it low level networking. There is a substantial difference in management for both the clients in this scenario, and the datacenter employees.

Which, I think, is why people like you are so terrified to learn about private clouds. It takes away some of the arcane magic that goes on in the datacenter and puts it in the hands of clients while making technical people more responsible for planning and policy and less responsible for the actual implementation after the cloud is set up. That seems to terrify tech people.


First off I really really enjoy being flippant.

Secondly I have been in IT for almost 20 years. If new technology terrified me I would have been drummed out of this business a long time ago.

Thirdly you sound like the finance guy that knows just enough to be very dangerous. I will never trust finance or hr people to provision anything more complex than a sharepoint or simple web site. Sorry, building your home network and maybe your own pc does not qualify you to engineer enterprise class applications. You will fark it up in ways that can not be predicted.

Lastly, I am all for providing tools that empower the business to do things for themselves. I also automate the fark out of anything I can. Those are the things where a competent IT dept adds value to the business. But I am also there to protect you from yourself, especially when your fark ups can cost the business billions.
 
2012-04-11 05:23:37 PM  

MrEricSir: Your head must be foggy if you're still using Outlook. It's not 2002 anymore.


In enterpise environments Outlook/Exchange is not just still very much current it also happens to be the lesser of two evils. Cough! Lotus Notes Cough!
 
2012-04-11 05:50:48 PM  

Loki-L: In enterpise environments Outlook/Exchange is not just still very much current it also happens to be the lesser of two evils. Cough! Lotus Notes Cough!


In enterprise environments, using software and hardware that's a decade or two out of date is the norm in general.
 
2012-04-11 07:27:10 PM  

MrEricSir: Your head must be foggy if you're still using Outlook. It's not 2002 anymore.


I was not aware of any massive breakthrough in secure corporate email and PIM that suddenly made Exchange obsolete. If anything, the fact that it plays nice with Android and iPhone has actually made Exchange the defacto corporate email solution. The desktop app itself isn't the greatest, but Exchange OTA ActiveSync is great on every phone I've used it on. I don't know why anyone would still use a Blackberry in this day and age.
 
2012-04-11 07:39:01 PM  

Mad_Radhu: I was not aware of any massive breakthrough in secure corporate email and PIM that suddenly made Exchange obsolete.


You aren't aware of Google Apps? Really?
 
2012-04-11 07:52:18 PM  

MrEricSir: Loki-L: In enterpise environments Outlook/Exchange is not just still very much current it also happens to be the lesser of two evils. Cough! Lotus Notes Cough!

In enterprise environments, using software and hardware that's a decade or two out of date is the norm in general.


It doesn't hurt that MSFT makes all the stuff, but I can say that Microsoft is most definitely not a decade or 2 behind. We were using the newest versions of Win7 (and I'm guessing by now, there's at least a small dogfood of Win8), IE, Outlook, Office, everything. No legacy apps that had to be supported, no nothing.

/Ok, about a third of their internal sites would shiat themselves if you tried to use any browser other than IE, but other than that.
//And yes, I'm aware that MSFT makes the programs and so is 9000x better prepared for an upgrade than everyone else (plus the "New versions are free" bit), but still, it was really nice.
 
2012-04-11 08:05:43 PM  

MrEricSir: Loki-L: In enterpise environments Outlook/Exchange is not just still very much current it also happens to be the lesser of two evils. Cough! Lotus Notes Cough!

In enterprise environments, using software and hardware that's a decade or two out of date is the norm in general.


Lotus Notes is still under active development. I'm running (not by choice) a version of Notes that was released in 2009. Unfortunately, it feels just as slow, bloated, and clunky as I imagine it did back in the early 90's.

MrEricSir: Mad_Radhu: I was not aware of any massive breakthrough in secure corporate email and PIM that suddenly made Exchange obsolete.

You aren't aware of Google Apps? Really?


A lot of organizations (such as defense agencies and their contractors) simply can't trust someone else to host their proprietary information. Some don't even feel safe transmitting it between their own machines over the Internet, no matter how well encrypted.
 
2012-04-11 08:08:18 PM  
Cloud


Or what is know as letting someone else do your shiat for you...
 
2012-04-11 09:01:50 PM  

MrEricSir: Mad_Radhu: I was not aware of any massive breakthrough in secure corporate email and PIM that suddenly made Exchange obsolete.

You aren't aware of Google Apps? Really?


Guess what Google uses to sync email, contacts, and calendar info between Gmail and non-Android handsets like iPhones? Exchange ActiveSync. (new window) Gmail on its own also doesn't provide the necessary security features like remote lock and wipe, and forcing alphanumeric PINs, so Google also depends on Exchange ActiveSync to provide those features for Google Apps customers.

Since you are basically just getting a knockoff of Exchange with Google Apps, why not get the real thing with hosted Exchange if you don't want to maintain your own company email server?
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report