Barker Bites Back
A look at some newsy stuff and interesting bits as well as those hopefully amusing byways of technology.
Thursday 30 August 2007, 12:37 PM
IBM server falls off a lorry
In IBM's case, $1.4m-worth of server really did fall off the back of a lorry. And it broke.
Or at least it was damaged, damaged enough for the lawyers to be dragged in and the legal action to start.
IBM says it is not to blame for the accident which led to the server slipping from a forklift (be honest, it can so easily happen, just not usually with $1.4m worth of server) but now the company that suffered the damaged server is suing.
Virginia-based contractor TR Systems is the company suing. So, IBM has now filed its own action in return, claiming it is the company's own clumsiness that is to blame.
According to Information Week, IBM reckons that TR Systems "was negligent in moving this server on its forklift over a concrete lip". Tsk! Shocking.
The server was destined for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The government contractor responsible argues that the machine would have withstood the jolt were it not for shoddy packaging, apparently. IBM does not accept that. I am not sure I can either. IBM guilty of shoddy packaging? If they were, it must be a first. IBM usually covers its products with packaging. Layers of the stuff. Times must have changed.
But perhaps it is the move to all things "green" and the need to cut down on waste could be the issue.
Now there's an idea. "IBM blames green movement for shoddy packaging"? This could run and run.
Or at least it was damaged, damaged enough for the lawyers to be dragged in and the legal action to start.
IBM says it is not to blame for the accident which led to the server slipping from a forklift (be honest, it can so easily happen, just not usually with $1.4m worth of server) but now the company that suffered the damaged server is suing.
Virginia-based contractor TR Systems is the company suing. So, IBM has now filed its own action in return, claiming it is the company's own clumsiness that is to blame.
According to Information Week, IBM reckons that TR Systems "was negligent in moving this server on its forklift over a concrete lip". Tsk! Shocking.
The server was destined for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The government contractor responsible argues that the machine would have withstood the jolt were it not for shoddy packaging, apparently. IBM does not accept that. I am not sure I can either. IBM guilty of shoddy packaging? If they were, it must be a first. IBM usually covers its products with packaging. Layers of the stuff. Times must have changed.
But perhaps it is the move to all things "green" and the need to cut down on waste could be the issue.
Now there's an idea. "IBM blames green movement for shoddy packaging"? This could run and run.
Tuesday 21 August 2007, 3:43 PM
Gartner warns about XenSource
XenSource/Citrix deal could upset the open source community, according to a Gartner analyst. Writing in Computerworld, analyst George Weiss said that the XenSource chief Peter Levine has "to make a concerted effort in order to retain the loyalty of the open-source Xen developers".
After Citrix's £150m acquisition of XenSource, there may now be too much uncertainty over the future of the Xen project destiny for the community to continue to support it, he suggested.
"The possible downside here is the open-source community might see that technology being co-opted by a larger conglomerate or proprietary company," Weiss said, according to Computerworld.
After Citrix's £150m acquisition of XenSource, there may now be too much uncertainty over the future of the Xen project destiny for the community to continue to support it, he suggested.
"The possible downside here is the open-source community might see that technology being co-opted by a larger conglomerate or proprietary company," Weiss said, according to Computerworld.
Tuesday 21 August 2007, 2:14 PM
Shocking waste of storage. No surprise
If there was a prize for a piece of research that throws up a blindingly obvious conclusion, that could be won by the latest research from Vanson Bourne, produced for the web hosting specialists, Hostway. One of the key nuggets is that 94 percent of IT managers "invest in more storage than they need".
Well surprise, surprise. It is a common fact that IT managers buy more storage than they need. It is called over provisioning and everyone does it for two simple reason: storage is cheap and the consequences of running short of it are dire. The answer is to over provision.
It is a known issue but only one that has become pressing recently as companies have started to take on board the issues around climate change and the effect of all that excess power use. And the high cost of power, of course.
Storage is part of that problem since storage is based on disks, disks spin and burn power to do so. Cut the disks spinning and you cut back on power use and cut energy use.
But to return to the original fact, Vanson Bourne's research actually asked IT managers the following question. "Do you ever buy more storage that you need, so that you have capacity for your future needs?"
Well who isn't going to answer "yes" to that question? Even allowing for climate change and the need to cut energy use, people are always going to buy storage to ensure they "have capacity for future needs". It is called planning.
But this is to be unduly harsh. There is a reason behind such an apparently obvious question.
Vanson Bourne's client, Hostway, wants to push its on-demand and other storage solutions and quite right too. Storage is currently inefficient and wasteful but there are myriad solutions out there that can make it less wasteful, more cost effective, cheaper and better for the environment too and on-demand can be a key component for many.
So, well-done Hostway/Vanson Bourne for asking the questions of users. I just can't help thinking there might have been better questions. Such as "do you have any intention of using thin-provisioning?" That would have been a good one.
Well surprise, surprise. It is a common fact that IT managers buy more storage than they need. It is called over provisioning and everyone does it for two simple reason: storage is cheap and the consequences of running short of it are dire. The answer is to over provision.
It is a known issue but only one that has become pressing recently as companies have started to take on board the issues around climate change and the effect of all that excess power use. And the high cost of power, of course.
Storage is part of that problem since storage is based on disks, disks spin and burn power to do so. Cut the disks spinning and you cut back on power use and cut energy use.
But to return to the original fact, Vanson Bourne's research actually asked IT managers the following question. "Do you ever buy more storage that you need, so that you have capacity for your future needs?"
Well who isn't going to answer "yes" to that question? Even allowing for climate change and the need to cut energy use, people are always going to buy storage to ensure they "have capacity for future needs". It is called planning.
But this is to be unduly harsh. There is a reason behind such an apparently obvious question.
Vanson Bourne's client, Hostway, wants to push its on-demand and other storage solutions and quite right too. Storage is currently inefficient and wasteful but there are myriad solutions out there that can make it less wasteful, more cost effective, cheaper and better for the environment too and on-demand can be a key component for many.
So, well-done Hostway/Vanson Bourne for asking the questions of users. I just can't help thinking there might have been better questions. Such as "do you have any intention of using thin-provisioning?" That would have been a good one.
Tuesday 31 July 2007, 3:59 PM
IDE not dead, at least not quite
Headlines this week loudly claimed that IDE drives were dead, and died sometime round about Monday this week, or Tuesday, depending on which site you checked. They were sort of right.
A Seagate spokesman was quoted, sort of, as saying that Seagate had stopped producing the disk drive standard after 20 years sterling service.
We asked a Seagate spokesperson to give us the skinny. The spokesperson pointed out that 1) the company had stopped development on the things last year (so no news there then) and 2) would continue producing them until later this year, or possibly next.
Or as the spokesperson put it: "The company will continue to offer PATA drives until late 2007, possibly spilling over into the first quarter of 2008."
So certainly dead, but not quite yet.
A Seagate spokesman was quoted, sort of, as saying that Seagate had stopped producing the disk drive standard after 20 years sterling service.
We asked a Seagate spokesperson to give us the skinny. The spokesperson pointed out that 1) the company had stopped development on the things last year (so no news there then) and 2) would continue producing them until later this year, or possibly next.
Or as the spokesperson put it: "The company will continue to offer PATA drives until late 2007, possibly spilling over into the first quarter of 2008."
So certainly dead, but not quite yet.
