Re: [9fans] go to this site

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Jacob Todd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 256 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:00:53PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> nebula.nasa.gov
> 
> and see what you see
> 
> ron
> 

I see some buzz-words. Couldn't find anything about Plan {9,b}/Inferno/Octopus.
-- 
Jake Todd
// If it isn't broke, tweak it!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

[9fans] go to this site

[ron minnich]

nebula.nasa.gov

and see what you see

ron

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Joseph Stewart]

Ron, I'm a noob and a naive.

Tell me what I'm missing here...

-joe

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> nebula.nasa.gov
>
> and see what you see
>
> ron
>
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[dave.l]

I see that I wasted about 3 minutes of my life.

On 27 Oct 2009, at 00:00, ron minnich wrote:

> nebula.nasa.gov
>
> and see what you see
>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Jeff Sickel]

 From what I see... it doesn't have any acronyms that:

   1) end in an 'I'
   2) begin with an 'I'
   3) have the word 'intelligent' in a descriptor

Though I am a bit worried about the choice of AIX as the replacement
for "Mae West."


Wait!  I'm wrong.  In the "services" section there is 'IaaS'.  It's
doomed to massive publicity and adoption with a significant amount of
something I don't want in the archive as to having said.  More luster
than is necessary.

-jas

On Oct 26, 2009, at 7:38 PM, Joseph Stewart wrote:

> Ron, I'm a noob and a naive.
>
> Tell me what I'm missing here...
>
> -joe
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> nebula.nasa.gov
>>
>> and see what you see
>>
>> ron
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Geoffrey Avila]

I see FOUR lights!!

I see that NASA has enough funding to sell itself as a supplier of IT
services of last resort. At least, I think that's what it says, given that
the encrustation of B-School logorrhea on that site is making me dizzy.*

I'm interested in what their terms of service might be. How do they do
backups? What's their assessment of Lustre stability, especially w.r.t
users who might have high-uptime requirements? What if I need a database
that isn't MySQL? And so on...

-GBA


 (...and I work every day at the place that coined the term
"Cyberinfrastructure(TM)", so this is no mean feat.)



> nebula.nasa.gov
>
> and see what you see
>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Latchesar Ionkov]

Did anybody come up with cloud management software called Zeus or Jupiter yet?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> nebula.nasa.gov
>
> and see what you see
>
> ron
>
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[ron minnich]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> wrote:
> Did anybody come up with cloud management software called Zeus or Jupiter yet?

interesting. I got
arg. you broke it.

and you guys got the web page and I just did.

And, yes, it's another !@@#$! cloud.

But why is USG competing with amazon?

ron

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[andrey mirtchovski]

"Clouds, Or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Put All My Computing
Where It Don't Belong."

I admit to a certain amount of glee seeing the news about major
outages of cloud services appear with predictable regularity:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/22/cloud_storage_concerns/ for
example.

andrey

ps: at a recent grid conference somebody suggested putting all "the
grids" in "the cloud". i'm still unsure whether this is the best or
the worst idea ever.

pps: p9 (in its 9p form) does have a place in clouds, making things
work and gluing things together underneath it all, unnoticed by
anybody. pity i couldn't submit a paper to IW9P.

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[ron minnich]

How about:

"Clouds: how we reinvented the time sharing bureau, which we all
hated, back in the day, and replaced with our own computers, and
recreated the time sharing bureau in our own company, and hated it,
and now our management has decided they hate us and want to fire our
IT people and trust somebody else's, who they wouldn't trust if they
worked here".

Or something.

ron

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[ron minnich]

true story: some ex-(name withheld) people were telling me they loved
their (name withheld) IT guys. Then (name withheld), for its own
reasons, decided to outsource their IT people.

You'd recognize (name withheld); it's one of the biggest computer
companies out there. They also like to sell their IT management wisdom
to other companies. They just don't want to use it in-house.

How is it that companies that want you to buy their IT expertise
outsource their own? It makes no sense.

ron

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[W B Hacker]

ron minnich wrote:
> How about:
>
> "Clouds: how we reinvented the time sharing bureau, which we all
> hated, back in the day, and replaced with our own computers, and
> recreated the time sharing bureau in our own company, and hated it,
> and now our management has decided they hate us and want to fire our
> IT people and trust somebody else's, who they wouldn't trust if they
> worked here".
>
> Or something.
>
> ron
>
>

Chinese 'bu shi' (corrupted US-wise to 'Bullshit') would be more succint....

NASA loves MySQL? Luster?

...and the 'White House' running PHP-based catch-me-fondle-me Drupal?

ROFLMELBEAO!!!

Bill

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> nebula.nasa.gov

	"After an extensive trade study, we selected Django, a
	python-based web application framework, as the first and
	primary application environment for the Nebula Cloud."

probably not the sharpest knives in the nasa kitchen.

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[tlaronde]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:00:53PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> nebula.nasa.gov

Well, at least the name makes sense for a french since in french nebula
means too: hazy. Computer in the air. Fuzzy logic, and impalpable
results (except for disasters which will be very palpable).
--
Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
                 http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89  250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[lucio]

> Well, at least the name makes sense for a french since in french nebula
> means too: hazy. Computer in the air. Fuzzy logic, and impalpable
> results

Nebulous, indeed.

++L

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Eris Discordia]

I was curious (not that I had any hope of understanding what's going on) so
I visited the place. I got this:

> HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:58:31 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.11 (Debian) PHP/5.2.6-0.1+b1 with Suhosin-Patch
> mod_python 3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_wsgi/2.3
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> Via: 1.0 nebula.nasa.gov, [...]
> Connection: close
> 12:59:25 ERROR 500: Internal Server Error.

And this,

> You broke it. Arg.

in the response body, when I visited it through an open proxy server in
another country.

But visiting from my own place results in,

> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:56:33 GMT
> Server: Apache/2.2.11 (Debian) PHP/5.2.6-0.1+b1 with Suhosin-Patch
> mod_python/3.3.1 Python/2.5.2 mod_wsgi/2.3
> Vary: Cookie
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
> Via: 1.0 nebula.nasa.gov
> Connection: close

And a "normal" index.html.

Wonder why the response depends on location.



--On Monday, October 26, 2009 19:39 -0700 ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
> wrote:
>> Did anybody come up with cloud management software called Zeus or
>> Jupiter yet?
>
> interesting. I got
> arg. you broke it.
>
> and you guys got the web page and I just did.
>
> And, yes, it's another !@@#$! cloud.
>
> But why is USG competing with amazon?
>
> ron
>

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

ron minnich wrote:

> How is it that companies that want you to buy their IT expertise
> outsource their own? It makes no sense.

Equally true story. We used to run our own servers. A (name withheld)
sysadmin always felt he knew better than management how servers should
be configured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to
Rackspace, where we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage
the resource as directed. And they're available 24/7/365.

There are two sides to this. You have a point, but so does Nicholas Carr.

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[erik quanstrom]

> Equally true story. We used to run our own servers. A (name withheld)
> sysadmin always felt he knew better than management how servers should
> be configured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to
> Rackspace, where we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage
> the resource as directed. And they're available 24/7/365.

this doesn't fix the underlying management problems
that allowed the original situation to develop.

- erik

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2158 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Wes Kussmaul <wes@authentrus.com> wrote:

> ron minnich wrote:
>
>  How is it that companies that want you to buy their IT expertise
>> outsource their own? It makes no sense.
>>
>
> Equally true story. We used to run our own servers. A (name withheld)
> sysadmin always felt he knew better than management how servers should be
> configured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to
> Rackspace, where we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage the
> resource as directed. And they're available 24/7/365.
>
> There are two sides to this. You have a point, but so does Nicholas Carr.
>
>
>
Also distributing security patches across many "islands of IT" is more
difficult than updating it in one place and beating the snot out of it to
make sure it's right isn't it?

I mean, say your company has 25 satellite offices... why should they all
have to do redundant work to update all the systems across the board.  Isn't
the repetition going to cause a higher chance of someone missing something?

Then again, you're left with the trade off of a "all eggs in one basket" to
some extent when you outsource.  How much worse is it really?

I once worked for <redacted company name> in the late 90s.  They still used
a mainframe system, even though everyone connected to it with a PC on their
desk, including the temps they hired (me) to do inventory stuff.  This
system would sometimes get a little, what I'd call, fucking slow, and yet
I'd still see the logic in only maintaining that mainframe one time instead
of having Nick Burns, you're company's computer guy, have to come around and
fix everyone else's windows workstation when they screwed up their ability
to work.

My guess is productivity was up, despite the slowdowns in the network, due
to the use of a centralized system.

Can "sticking everything in the cloud" give the same benefits?  I'm not 100%
convinced, but to say there were no advantages to the old model is probably
not realistic, though it's fun to complain about stuff instead of working,
which is what I'm going to do now :-)

Dave

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2766 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[ron minnich]

>> Equally true story. We used to run our own servers. A (name withheld)
>> sysadmin always felt he knew better than management how servers should
>> be configured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to
>> Rackspace, where we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage
>> the resource as directed. And they're available 24/7/365.

The poster of this one has kind of missed the point. How would he feel
if Rackspace outsourced their IT?

ron

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

ron minnich wrote:

> The poster of this one has kind of missed the point. How would he feel
> if Rackspace outsourced their IT?

Hit the first point, missed the second, batting .500

Poster Boy

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Equally true story. We used to run our own servers. A (name withheld)
>> sysadmin always felt he knew better than management how servers should
>> be configured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to
>> Rackspace, where we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage
>> the resource as directed. And they're available 24/7/365.
>
> this doesn't fix the underlying management problems
> that allowed the original situation to develop.

Yes, there was a management error in either a) bad sysadmin hiring
methods; b) not being clear enough about expectations; or c) both. But
the solution to the problem has worked well.

There is a lot of residual "management doesn't understand networks and
databases and operating systems so we will make decisions for them"
attitude out there, even where the reality of management's background
has changed. While it's true that "cloud computing" is a nonsense
phrase, there are reasons why server outsourcing gains traction.

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Sam Watkins]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:49:41PM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> How is it that companies that want you to buy their IT expertise
> outsource their own? It makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense - sell poor service+brand at high price, buy good
service at low price.

Sam

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[erik quanstrom]

> There is a lot of residual "management doesn't understand networks and
> databases and operating systems so we will make decisions for them"
> attitude out there, even where the reality of management's background
> has changed. While it's true that "cloud computing" is a nonsense
> phrase, there are reasons why server outsourcing gains traction.

if management really does understand things as well as
the it guys, then the it guys were unnecessary to begin with.
i would hope that anyone hiring someone in such a
position would be interested in their input!

it is a tried-and-true technique to blame workers for
management screw ups and outsource 'em.

also, let's be honest.  there can be a certain amount
of reluctance to use internal resources.  advice
is more credible if you pay for it.

so if the manager who is now in charge of talking to
rackspace says "rackspace can't x" there is a lot less
pressure to tell $colo that they're wrong.
$colo doesn't even have to give a reason.

- erik

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

erik quanstrom wrote:
>> There is a lot of residual "management doesn't understand networks and
>> databases and operating systems so we will make decisions for them"
>> attitude out there, even where the reality of management's background
>> has changed. While it's true that "cloud computing" is a nonsense
>> phrase, there are reasons why server outsourcing gains traction.
>
> if management really does understand things as well as
> the it guys, then the it guys were unnecessary to begin with.

Let's parse that.

If "things" means the details of what's happening on the server at this
minute that needs attention while management is distracted with matters
like revenue and stockholders, then obviously the IT guys are very
necessary, and management that doesn't recognize that is creating a big
problem.

If on the other hand a (name withheld) insists on a spam filtering
policy that is so tight it gets false positives on messages from a set
of important clients from the .int domain, and insists that it is his
perogative to determine said policy regardless of consequences... just
as a hypothetical of course...

> i would hope that anyone hiring someone in such a
> position would be interested in their input!

C'mon, that's a "when did you stop beating your wife" comment. Of course
  competent management is interested in the input of those who manage
the company's server resources. And if they're not interested, they're
not competent. There will be times when either side may be distracted by
fires that need putting out, and competent IT people and managers are
perceptive enough to understand that.

> it is a tried-and-true technique to blame workers for
> management screw ups and outsource 'em.

Yup, there is always the pointy haired foil to Dilbert. And there are
the Wallys. There is typically enough incompetence to go around at all
levels. That's what creates openings for us competent little guys.

> also, let's be honest.  there can be a certain amount
> of reluctance to use internal resources.  advice
> is more credible if you pay for it.

Ah yes, the fudili syndrome. Especially in this season we are thankful
for that trait in human nature. More openings for the agile.

I believe it was the Boston Consulting Group that came up with the
principle, "The low cost producer wins." One of our little companies is
eating the lunch of a big company that behaves in the way you describe.
Much fun.

> so if the manager who is now in charge of talking to
> rackspace says "rackspace can't x" there is a lot less
> pressure to tell $colo that they're wrong.
> $colo doesn't even have to give a reason.

Again, incompetence in big organizations is our friend. Please don't
share these obvious lessons with them.

Wes

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[erik quanstrom]

> >> There is a lot of residual "management doesn't understand networks and
> >> databases and operating systems so we will make decisions for them"
> >> attitude out there, even where the reality of management's background
> >> has changed. While it's true that "cloud computing" is a nonsense
> >> phrase, there are reasons why server outsourcing gains traction.
> >
> > if management really does understand things as well as
> > the it guys, then the it guys were unnecessary to begin with.
>
> Let's parse that.
[...]
> > i would hope that anyone hiring someone in such a
> > position would be interested in their input!
>
> C'mon, that's a "when did you stop beating your wife" comment. Of course

why doesn't your argument work if you switch from a
mangement to a technical perspective?  i was just
turning your argument around.  why would you not
want to listen to IT, unless they are getting in the way
and not doing their job?  that's an argument
that runs both ways.

my assumption is that if management is doing its job, then the
problem of IT guy making policy decisions, if it happens, will
be a resolvable problem.

the argument i see you makeing is in essence that fixing management
is impracticable.  i may be cynical, but i don't subscribe to that world view.

- erik

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

erik quanstrom wrote:
>>>> There is a lot of residual "management doesn't understand networks and
>>>> databases and operating systems so we will make decisions for them"
>>>> attitude out there, even where the reality of management's background
>>>> has changed. While it's true that "cloud computing" is a nonsense
>>>> phrase, there are reasons why server outsourcing gains traction.
>>> if management really does understand things as well as
>>> the it guys, then the it guys were unnecessary to begin with.
>> Let's parse that.
> [...]
>>> i would hope that anyone hiring someone in such a
>>> position would be interested in their input!
>> C'mon, that's a "when did you stop beating your wife" comment. Of course
>
> why doesn't your argument work if you switch from a
> mangement to a technical perspective?  i was just
> turning your argument around.  why would you not
> want to listen to IT, unless they are getting in the way
> and not doing their job?  that's an argument
> that runs both ways.
>
> my assumption is that if management is doing its job, then the
> problem of IT guy making policy decisions, if it happens, will
> be a resolvable problem.
>
> the argument i see you makeing is in essence that fixing management
> is impracticable.  i may be cynical, but i don't subscribe to that world view.

Well, I don't think I even hinted at anything of the sort, but I'm happy
to let others, who will be happy to see the thread die, judge.

Wes

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[Wes Kussmaul]

And in closing let me cite an esteemed colleague's recent announcement:

"Version 6.0 is a very important release. It streamlines the branding of
product line..."

--David Day, CTO at Zeus Technology

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:33 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> > I mean, say your company has 25 satellite offices... why should they all
> > have to do redundant work to update all the systems across the board.
>  Isn't
> > the repetition going to cause a higher chance of someone missing
> something?
>
> absent the plan 9 terminal model, who updates users' machines?
>

Right, that was the big illogical hole in the plan they had.  I couldn't
figure out why anyone who had everything the company needed for business
production and work, would want to use a PC with local storage for a
terminal system to a mainframe that basically couldn't do too much more.

I guess PCs were a cheap way to go, or Dell (or whomever it was) gave them a
great deal or something to make it seem it was worth their while.

Even all the email was on the mainframe, but it wasn't called email, it was
something else.

I suppose a few people may have needed word processing or spreadsheets or
whatever, but that was only because there was no way developed to do word
processing or spreadsheets on the mainframe.

Old stuff becoming new again shouldn't be surprising to anyone at this point
though I guess.

Dave


>
> - erik
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1848 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] go to this site

[erik quanstrom]

> I mean, say your company has 25 satellite offices... why should they all
> have to do redundant work to update all the systems across the board.  Isn't
> the repetition going to cause a higher chance of someone missing something?

absent the plan 9 terminal model, who updates users' machines?

- erik