Macs Landing on Corporate Desks, Led by iPhones and iPads

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by MattInOz

To be fair.... Semi-Fail
but it does show promiss.

Yes Thunderbolt is really just a high bandwidth cable but you can put a cluster interconnect on the far end instead of the CPU end. Which means someone could build a hub with namespace translation hardware for each machine embedded in the hub instead of the machine but no one has yet.

Funny to call it "semi-fail" when you provide a link to a Fibre-Channel adapter for $800.

How many Fibre-Channel clusters are there? (Not clusters using Fibre-Channel for storage - there are a lot. But clusters using Fibre-Channel for IPC....)

Look back a bit, linux2mac made several specific claims about using Apples and T-Bolt for clustering - all of them shown to be ludicrous since none of the systems proposed can support daisy-chaining.

But, still "crickets" if we're waiting for a response from her.

And, T-Bolt is not "just a high bandwidth cable" in the sense of being a general purpose network interconnect (or a special-purpose inter-processor link like InfiniBand). It's a extension of an internal bus to external cabinets, mostly master (CPU) - slave (IO device) except for limited peer-to-peer capability between specifically designed peers.

The only time multiple masters works is in porn videos.... Sharing slaves is a delicate situation.
__________________

These links about T-Bolt clustering are early mental masturbation exercises by people who didn't yet realize what T-Bolt really was. (And their not understanding T-Bolt is understandable, since the early information about T-Bolt was very high on hype and very low on facts - and many of those links are quite old.)

[mijail]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Is it perhaps one of those religious things, where Apple wants you to use NFS (the Nightmare File System) instead of CIFS (the Common Internet File System)? Or maybe there's a secret project to bring back AppleShare?

Huh, that was a long time without seeing anyone call CIFS to SMB (Satanic Mess of Bloat). Anything to do with religion either?

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by mijail

Huh, that was a long time without seeing anyone call CIFS to SMB (Satanic Mess of Bloat). Anything to do with religion either?

Nice try at a joke - but "Nightmare File System" gets 41K hits on Google, and "Satanic Mess of Bloat" gets 0. (Although it will probably soon have two hits.)

And not that you'd know or care, but the current CIFS release has very significantly improved the performance over turn of the century CIFS.

SMB2

Microsoft introduced a new version of the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol (SMB 2.0 or SMB2) with Windows Vista in 2006. Although the protocol is proprietary, its specification has been published to allow other systems to interoperate with Microsoft operating systems that use the new protocol.

SMB2 reduces the 'chattiness' of the SMB 1.0 protocol by reducing the number of commands and subcommands from over a hundred to just nineteen.

It has mechanisms for pipelining, that is, sending additional requests before the response to a previous request arrives, thereby improving performance over high latency links.

It adds the ability to compound multiple actions into a single request, which significantly reduces the number of round-trips the client needs to make to the server, improving performance as a result. SMB1 also has a compounding mechanism — known as AndX — to compound multiple actions, but Microsoft clients rarely use AndX.

It also introduces the notion of "durable file handles": these allow a connection to an SMB server to survive brief network outages, as are typical in a wireless network, without having to incur the overhead of re-negotiating a new session.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cifs#SMB2

But haters are gonna hate, regardless of the facts.


... and still crickets. ( http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav )

[mijail]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Nice try at a joke - but "Nightmare File System" gets 41K hits on Google, and "Satanic Mess of Bloat" gets 0. (Although it will probably soon have two hits.)

It wasn't a joke, it was only a paraphrasing of the opinions of the main developers of the SaMBa project. For an example, search for "horrible" here. Or search for "horrible" or "wart" in here.

You know, I feared that leaving NFS as "Nightmare" and SMB as "Common Internet FS" could leave uninformed people with a wrong idea.

----------

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

But haters are gonna hate, regardless of the facts.

Nice, coming from the one who mentioned religions

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by mijail

Nice, coming from the one who mentioned religions

But aren't religions inherently separated from facts?

And, in fact, I never said "religion", I said "religious"...

Is it perhaps one of those religious things, ...

...which isn't necessarily connected to belief in a deity, but does connotate adherence to a belief based on dogma rather than evidence.

Just ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

[mijail]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

And not that you'd know or care, but the current CIFS release has very significantly improved the performance over turn of the century CIFS.

You mean, as NFS, which had its last RFC (RFC!) update on 2010?

----------

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

But aren't religions inherently separated from facts?

Yep, and some more than others...

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by mijail

You mean, as NFS, which had its last RFC (RFC!) update on 2010?

Which did nothing to stop the nightmares....

And what's with "RFC!" - is that a new religion?

[mijail]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

Which did nothing to stop the nightmares....

If the Satanic Mess should be a dream by now, it's not working either!

Originally Posted by AidenShaw

And what's with "RFC!" - is that a new religion?

Yep, it's the religion usually connected with common internet thingies. Which points to the rich (or should we say "shameless") irony in the "Common Internet" part in the CIFS name, even more so when Microsoft started some RFC standardization which fell apart.

(Huh, now I wonder why Microsoft didn't keep at that: it would be hilarious if they had named IE the "Mandatory Internet Browser", for example )

[longpath]

Originally Posted by Confuzzzed

You probably were not offered said job!!! I have been using Macs since 1994 (uninterrupted) and mid-1990s was not a great batch of apple products! Not that Windows 95 was much better BUT at least you didn't have to worry about software compatibility with the rest of the (working) world around you

Actually I was; but I was also offered a better job a short time after as the Admin for a small marketing and design firm, and I did take that job (the commute was shorter too).

[Dirtfarmer]

Originally Posted by bpaluzzi

If only AutoCAD made a Mac version... oh wait.
And Office "pain and suffering"? Please. Any examples of that hyperbole (which, in reality, is about a half-decade out of date)

AutoCAD and Inventor Fusion to not a design house make.

If you don't believe me, come tell my 9 Inventor guys that they have been shunted to Mechanical. I wonder if it comes with a free slide rule to help you perform an FEA?

----------

Originally Posted by nefan65

I've been in IT for 20 years, and everything you said is subjective, and opinion. It wreaks of "Job Security". Consumerization of IT is here, and will grow stronger. Opinions like yours are those of the old Mainframe guys...

Over time VDI, and similar will negate any client platform specific need. Granted it's in the infant stages, but it's growing rapidly. Even Microsoft sees it, and is changing their way of business...

I love it. Anyone who wants to deploy robust services right now using off-the-shelf products is a "dinosaur".

Meanwhile, your solution for my users to get to work right now is "Here's your iMac. VDI is coming...later. Even Microsoft sees it".

If you live in the real world and have real workers who need to do real work right now today, you don't sip your latte and tell people what you think is coming. In fact, my predecessor was fired for doing exactly that.

He gave the Engineers a 2d sketching application that is compatible with *nothing* called Graphite.

He gave everyone else very expensive macs, then when they wanted to do work he told them to connect to a Windows Terminal Server where they could run ERP, proper Excel, Sharepoint, and collaborate with other companies.

He had a building full of $2k iMacs and $3k Macbook Pros that were serving as Thin Clients...and running Entourage.

And Entourage is horrible!

Mac is not in the Enterprise. Mac has told the enterprise to pound salt.

[longpath]

Originally Posted by Confuzzzed

I think this is a serious issue. But the more Mac penetration into corporate world there is, the more 3rd party software designers have to provide for OS-X.



This I don't agree with. I have a PC desktop at work. Pretty good spec. Windows 7. Works well most of the time. Makes me want to tear my hair out some time. But I still look forward to going home to my apple stuff. If I had the option of having an iMac at work, I would jump at the chance. But it won't happen for 3-4 years because most enterprise software is so aligned with microsoft platforms. Unstable. Yes. But, sadly, Mac incompatible.

----------



You probably were not offered said job!!! I have been using Macs since 1994 (uninterrupted) and mid-1990s was not a great batch of apple products! Not that Windows 95 was much better BUT at least you didn't have to worry about software compatibility with the rest of the (working) world around you

I was, in fact, offered the job. I declined.