From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4AE70F74.7000505@authentrus.com> References: <13426df10910261700p44f97793v9207b968b9e5a4c@mail.gmail.com> <14ec7b180910262021x7b2a0a35t36aa5e3004cde74f@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10910262047g557d9a5drf205b2841e02a414@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10910262049t71da906g559def97839559f1@mail.gmail.com> <4AE70F74.7000505@authentrus.com> Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:26:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3e1162e60910270826m281a7a9awba6ea117b7351605@mail.gmail.com> From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd761d09608e00476ec4cc4 Subject: Re: [9fans] go to this site Topicbox-Message-UUID: 917006ec-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --000e0cd761d09608e00476ec4cc4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Wes Kussmaul 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 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 --000e0cd761d09608e00476ec4cc4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Wes Kus= smaul <wes@authe= ntrus.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) sysad= min always felt he knew better than management how servers should be config= ured and managed even when in fact he did not. So we went to Rackspace, whe= re we are treated as customers and where sysadmins manage the resource as d= irected. 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 acr= oss many "islands of IT" is more difficult than updating it in on= e place and beating the snot out of it to make sure it's right isn'= t it? =A0

I mean, say your company has 25 satellite offices... wh= y should they all have to do redundant work to update all the systems acros= s the board. =A0Isn't the repetition going to cause a higher chance of = someone missing something?

Then again, you're left with the trade off of a &qu= ot;all eggs in one basket" to some extent when you outsource. =A0How m= uch worse is it really?

I once worked for <reda= cted company name> in the late 90s. =A0They still used a mainframe syste= m, even though everyone connected to it with a PC on their desk, including = the temps they hired (me) to do inventory stuff. =A0This system would somet= imes get a little, what I'd call, fucking slow, and yet I'd still s= ee 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 abil= ity 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 benefi= ts? =A0I'm not 100% convinced, but to say there were no advantages to t= he old model is probably not realistic, though it's fun to complain abo= ut stuff instead of working, which is what I'm going to do now :-)

Dave


--000e0cd761d09608e00476ec4cc4--