|
topenga posted:Texas loving State loving University had these bastards as late as 2007. Hated them soooo loving much. Oh, and on top of that, they're only USB 1.1, so it's a pain in the rear end to install anything from a thumb drive.  We still have GX-240s, 260s, Dimension 4000s, even the ones with RDRAM. We use them to replace OLD GX-1, GX-100, and GX-150 computers. How the hell did anyone think a 450mhz P-3 is an acceptable office machine? If I like an office member enough, I'll just make a computer out of spare parts to get them along. At the very least, they'll get a 1st generation P-4 and 512-1GB RAM. Until the last couple months, I had a computer which was below the system requirements for the ticketing system we use EVERYDAY.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 14:47 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
Lenovo's support site.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 14:53 |
|
|
You want painful? Try to install a modern Linux distro on an IBM xSeries 305 or 306 machine. It comes on DVD, and you only have a CD-ROM. Fine, it has two whole USB ports, I'll just use a USB DVD drive. Oh wait, these Pentium 4s with PCI-x only have USB 1.1 ports.  In response to the "I'm so pissed off that my computer is latest and greatest" post made awhile back. These same machines P4s at 2.66Ghz with 1GB of RAM now have to run 3 or 4 VM images because "virtualization is the future". Nevermind that 90% of what we do is pound on network interfaces, which is something that VMs are pretty terrible at. While I'm at it, VMWare Server 2.0 is a PITA. In Windows it will properly start at boot maybe 25% of the time (the other times you have to go into services and manually start it), then your bridged interfaces will suddenly stop working for no apparent reason and you have to go into the network config box and twiddle the dropdown for it a couple of times to bring it back. If you attempt to put one of the virtual NICs into promiscuous mode (turn on TCPDump for instance), it will immediately lock up and require you to reset it as well. Then there's the NAT daemon, which helpfully jacks the TTL of all outgoing multicast packets down to 1 and does not pay attention to IGMP at all. Want to multicast over a wireless network, tough poo poo because bridged mode won't work (the wireless card won't forward packets from your VM) and NAT mode won't work for the reasons mentioned above. Your only options are to find some software router (like Zebra) that works on windows and actually route the packets or build some sort of multicast reflector on the windows side. For extra fun, VMWare Server 2.0 is a 500 MB download, because it installs a full webserver, tomcat, and who knows what else on your system to run its slow as balls configuration interface. VMWare Server 1.0 was more like 50MB and had the same functionality in a little custom app. While I appreciate the idea of being able to connect to the VM from anywhere, in practice it adds a whole lot of overhead and doesn't buy me anything.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 15:50 |
|
|
Crowley posted:Aaah the 4000-series. Even without the hood if those are the ones I'm thinking up their oriented so that the usb has to go upwards at about a 70 degree angle to go into the slot. If you have one of those cases on the ground good loving luck getting that USB cord plugged in.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 15:55 |
|
)
|
jandrese posted:You want painful? Try to install a modern Linux distro on an IBM xSeries 305 or 306 machine. It comes on DVD, and you only have a CD-ROM. Fine, it has two whole USB ports, I'll just use a USB DVD drive. Oh wait, these Pentium 4s with PCI-x only have USB 1.1 ports. Next time use an IDE DVD drive or a network based install?
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 15:57 |
|
|
People who literally do not give a drat about quality. so I've gotten the documentation finished and an entry in the changelog. Like you asked. Pussy. Really? That's amazing. Eat a dick, radley.Checking the documentation: quote:This processtakes an the files from server A, manipulates ti and stroes results on server B for pickup by user Checking the changelog: quote:see documentation for process detail What does this process do? What files does it work with? How are those files manipulated? What server names? What errors does it throw? Who knows, who knows.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:07 |
|
|
boo_radley posted:People who literally do not give a drat about quality. I took to witholding payment until our providers delivered satisfactory documentation. That worked! and got me wildly unpopular too. Sir Nigel posted:Even without the hood if those are the ones I'm thinking up their oriented so that the usb has to go upwards at about a 70 degree angle to go into the slot. If you have one of those cases on the ground good loving luck getting that USB cord plugged in. EDIT: Faxes piss me off. This isn't 1995 people! Send a goddamn email, I'm not setting up some fax-solution just because you think our contacts can't use email! :angry: (Why is it that companies from the US tend to want everything as a fax? It's more work for all of us.) Crowley fucked around with this message at Sep 3, 2009 around 16:21 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:16 |
|
|
Lum posted:Next time use an IDE DVD drive or a network based install? I ended up doing the net install in the end. Because these are 1U servers, the drives are all laptop form factor so I don't have a random DVD drive to toss in there.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:27 |
|
|
Crowley posted:EDIT: Faxes piss me off. This isn't 1995 people! Send a goddamn email, I'm not setting up some fax-solution just because you think our contacts can't use email! :angry: In the US, there is a whole lot of legal weight behind faxes that you don't get with email. There are ways of sending email that have the same legal properties, but it involves setting up technologies that many companies have not bothered with (signing, encryption) so most people just fall back to faxes. Some companies worry about sending plain text over the internet as well. I think the idea is that it's harder to intercept/copy a fax.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:32 |
|
|
Crowley posted:I took to witholding payment until our providers delivered satisfactory documentation. I cannot withhold my coworker's paychecks.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:38 |
|
|
jandrese posted:In the US, there is a whole lot of legal weight behind faxes that you don't get with email. There are ways of sending email that have the same legal properties, but it involves setting up technologies that many companies have not bothered with (signing, encryption) so most people just fall back to faxes. I guess that makes sense, but why can't a high-res scam have the same validity as a low-res fax? We're also blessed with a national encryption certificate issued by the government. You don't have to use it, but if you do your emails have the same validity as a written and signed letter. We also use the certificates to communicate securely internally in the national institutions and citizens can use them to handle (almost) all their relations with the government online. boo_radley posted:I cannot withhold my coworker's paychecks.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 16:50 |
|
|
jandrese posted:I ended up doing the net install in the end. Because these are 1U servers, the drives are all laptop form factor so I don't have a random DVD drive to toss in there. You can pick up slimline DVD drives for not much more than the regular size ones these days. Also most kit that uses slimline drives in a non-laptop install tends to screw a little adaptor into the back that presents a standard 40-pin IDE connector so you can just unplug the cable from that and use a standard DVD drive anyway. Of course this means doing your install with the server half hanging out of the rack. I usually get around that by just sitting the server on/under a desk until the software is ready to go. Crowley posted:I guess that makes sense, but why can't a high-res scam have the same validity as a low-res fax? Best typo on this page 
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 17:42 |
|
|
topenga posted:Texas loving State loving University had these bastards as late as 2007. Hated them soooo loving much. The college at which I work still has them. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I went around and replaced some Gateways from like 2001 that some instructors were still using with Optiplex GX620s.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 18:48 |
|
|
Crowley posted:Aaah the 4000-series. Yeah, I've ripped off move of those covers than I care to discuss.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 19:37 |
|
|
Lum posted:You can pick up slimline DVD drives for not much more than the regular size ones these days.  Who needs optical drives when you have PXE?
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 19:41 |
|
|
When putting in tickets, one person likes to really ham it up. I don't actually think that this particular person has been talking to us for a full year about a printer issue because this is the first ticket we have on the particular matter. All week every single one of their tickets includes some ridiculous time frame. It's been six months in one instance, several weeks in another, and today was a full year. I'm imagining that some time next week that I'm going to be getting that they've been asking for something to be done since before they were born.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 20:30 |
|
|
Ratmtattat posted:When putting in tickets, one person likes to really ham it up. I don't actually think that this particular person has been talking to us for a full year about a printer issue because this is the first ticket we have on the particular matter. God, I hate tickets like that. "This has been broken for the last 3 weeks, URGENT!!!" Great, so why are you a) just putting in a ticket now, and b) putting it in through the self-serve system, which has a 1 week SLA, or for that matter c) all of the above, and the helpdesk could have fixed this in 5 minutes if you had bothered to just pick the phone up. For stuff that's pissing me off, how about IT personnel who feel that it's beneath them to speak to users? Yes, one of the things I do is desktop support. That does not mean that you need to send the ticket back to me to ask the user a question that you could already have the answer to, right now. One of these days I'm going to send it back to them with a note that just says, "What, is your hand broken?"
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 20:56 |
|
|
Rod emailed me today to tell me that a user needed local admin rights on a workstation. Since I'm entirely out of anything that even looks like outrage these days, let's play a fun game and see how many ways you can think of to accomplish this task that would've involved less typing than a two-line email and less of a delay for the user than emailing me at the beginning of my lunch. I think if you count Remote Desktop and Remote Assistance separately I came up with four before I'd finished reading the email.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:16 |
|
|
potato of destiny posted:For stuff that's pissing me off, how about IT personnel who feel that it's beneath them to speak to users? Yes, one of the things I do is desktop support. That does not mean that you need to send the ticket back to me to ask the user a question that you could already have the answer to, right now. One of these days I'm going to send it back to them with a note that just says, "What, is your hand broken?" Same problem of not enough information in the tickets. We actually get tickets in now that state that the user is experiencing a problem, but that they refuse to explain what is going on and keep saying "HELP!" over and over again. I should say that I've seen more than a few tickets like that.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:30 |
|
|
Crowley posted:I guess that makes sense, but why can't a high-res scam have the same validity as a low-res fax? Because faxes have been legal documents since the 1930s or so, 50 years after they were invented but also like 40 years before they were widespread.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:33 |
|
|
potato of destiny posted:God, I hate tickets like that. "This has been broken for the last 3 weeks, URGENT!!!" Great, so why are you a) just putting in a ticket now, and b) putting it in through the self-serve system, which has a 1 week SLA, or for that matter c) all of the above, and the helpdesk could have fixed this in 5 minutes if you had bothered to just pick the phone up.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:37 |
|
|
People who make twice what I make yet don't understand how the simplest functions of our platform operate. Case in point, we run our main service on a cluster of 50 servers, with 7 instances of the application running on each server. The app is written in java and there are maintenance jsp's that can call cache inspection/clear methods on a given instance of the app. It's a fairly simple concept but some people like this guy just don't get it... quote:Fritz, I think this is pretty straight forward. You put the url in a browser and it produces a compile error. Just do that same thing in a test environment instead of production and you'll see the same thing. I'm a little annoyed that a Senior Developer can't figure this so I send this back... quote:That's the output you see in the browser when you hit the URL. Maybe not the most descriptive response I've ever sent but the problem is self explanatory. So what happens? I get this back... quote:Why did you hit the URL, what were you trying to accomplish in production? Ok, look motherfucker. I think it's pretty obvious what I was trying to accomplish. That page does one thing and one thing only - it clears a cache. I'll give you one guess what I was trying to do. I get smarmy... quote:I was trying to clear the cache. That's what you do when you want to clear the cache. You hit the URL. He hits me with this... quote:is hitting the url part of several steps or is it the only url you hit to clear the cache. That's a valid question but keep in mind that people on his team design these pages. That's a pretty simple question to answer if he spent 10 seconds looking at the code. Anyway I respond and inform him of our process. quote:There is a tool that hits the cache clear page for each instance. This is a process he should understand, instead I get this... quote:What is the tool, how is the tool used, could you recreate the issue for this ticket with that tool in a test environment. If you don't understand why opening a page in a browser 350+ times (once for each application instance) would be a tedious exercise and why we have a need for a tool that does this then I doubt any explanation I give is going to help. But this email thread has gone on long enough so let me just do your job for you... quote:Forget about the tool. It doesn't matter if there's a tool or not. The tool, the browser, and myself doing a curl from the command line are all just doing an HTTP GET on the jsp. The only reason the tool exists is to hit every server in a cluster because it's not practical to do that manually. All you need to know is that since the new cache went into production CacheFactory.getProductCache() no longer returns an object of type Map. That's the issue here. That's why the output is wrong. I don't know what other information I need to provide. There, it's all settled... Or is it?! quote:Thanks. But could you tell me the the URL I need to hit? Not only have I done your job for you by telling you exactly what piece of code needs to be fixed (which was obvious from the ticket, had you chosen to actually read it). But I've also had to provide answers to some of the stupidest most obvious questions I've ever been asked. And then when I think it's all over you hit me with a question that I answered in the ticket. gently caress, you even quoted the answer in your first email to me. And even if you didn;t, it's not that loving hard to figure it out. And the sad part is that I get questions like this every loving day. From people who make twice as much money as me. HatfulOfHollow fucked around with this message at Sep 3, 2009 around 21:49 |
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:39 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Because faxes have been legal documents since the 1930s or so, 50 years after they were invented but also like 40 years before they were widespread. Your country needs to get with the times, man. 
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 21:48 |
|
|
brc64 posted:Ask me how much I love a relatively simple task taking 3 times as long as it should because WebEx hosed up. The corporate culture here is to assume everything takes 3x as long because it WILL gently caress up. Then, when poo poo works, people notice you have a lot of time on your hands so they give you 3x the work.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 22:17 |
|
|
jandrese posted:You want painful? Try to install a modern Linux distro on an IBM xSeries 305 or 306 machine. You want painful? Try to install AIX on a blank IBM Power5 without an HMC. Only server I know of that requires you either a) buy ANOTHER server which you will probably use once in a great while, or b) hack together a connection to a different server on a separate VLAN which may or may not conflict with your address space in order to install the OS. IBM hardware has always been designed to sell you more IBM hardware, but this is what drove it home for me.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 22:23 |
|
|
Crowley posted:Your country needs to get with the times, man. Problem is that most retail and proprietary systems integrate without issue with a faxmodem. Very few systems integrate flawlessly with email because there are so many varieties. What if you built it to take advantage of AD, but it's a linux shop? What if you built AD and Pine support, but they use sendmail? What if you built AD, Pine, and Sendmail support, but they use Lotus Notes? And so forth. Then there is the annoying "Our people can't type" thing that I run into. Reading a string of ten numbers is easy compared to trying to spell out my email address to some neanderthal over the phone. Couple this with the fact that they tend to type by banging their hands on the keyboard randomly, and you lose all hope that you'll actually get an email because they won't ever notice (EVER) that your email got bounced from hotmargle.com.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 22:26 |
|
|
Arsten posted:What if you built it to take advantage of AD, but it's a linux shop? What if you built AD and Pine support, but they use sendmail? What if you built AD, Pine, and Sendmail support, but they use Lotus Notes? This would be why they have standards, like SMTP and Pop3, which are relatively software agnostic.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 22:29 |
|
|
I'm in the military in a field that deals with networking and whatnot. The advancement exam is next week and I am up for advancement and am pretty confident in my abilities. Another guy, Smithers, is up too. Sammy is helping him. To begin, Sammy had Smithers draw the OSI model on a whiteboard. Presentation Application Transmission Session Network Data Link Physical Sammy didn't catch a single loving mistake on that and just moved on. I'd like to believe he was sabotaging Smithers but I've known both of these incompetent fucks for a few months and god drat is is frustrating working with people who think a loopback address is the one that "loops through all the computers on a network to test it." Seriously, we've all been through the same loving schools, how do you not know these things. What pisses me off even more is if someone had no personal experience with any of us they would assume we were all equals  And because this loving injustice occurs to me daily I am posting in this thread.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 23:00 |
|
|
Arsten posted:hotmargle.com. New domain found!
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 23:01 |
|
|
xarph posted:You want painful? Try to install AIX on a blank IBM Power5 without an HMC. Err, not sure what you're missing, but this is entirely trivial. Insert CD, boot server connect serial port or monitor, answer questions, done. No need for a HMC. At the very most you're going to have to press f8 or whatever to get openfw to use the bootlist that includes the cd/dvd drive.
|
| # ? Sep 3, 2009 23:35 |
|
|
Casao posted:This would be why they have standards, like SMTP and Pop3, which are relatively software agnostic. Yes, but more software abusing those antiquated standards is bad. Especially horribly-written retail software.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 04:35 |
|
|
xwonderboyx posted:I'm in the military in a field that deals with networking and whatnot. The advancement exam is next week and I am up for advancement and am pretty confident in my abilities. Another guy, Smithers, is up too. Sammy is helping him. To begin, Sammy had Smithers draw the OSI model on a whiteboard. To be fair, nobody in the real world gives a crap about the OSI 7 layer model. It's one of those things everybody learns in school because it's easily testable and it makes for a nice network diagram. IMHO, the OSI model is overly complicated for what it is trying to convey. The distinction between several of the layers is rather muddy. Application and Presentation are frequently joined at the hip, and the most commmon transport on the internet (TCP) straddles the session layer.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 04:54 |
|
|
potato of destiny posted:God, I hate tickets like that. "This has been broken for the last 3 weeks, URGENT!!!" Great, so why are you a) just putting in a ticket now, and b) putting it in through the self-serve system, which has a 1 week SLA, or for that matter c) all of the above, and the helpdesk could have fixed this in 5 minutes if you had bothered to just pick the phone up. February Boss: PLEASE UPDATE THE WEBSITE RIGHT AWAY IT IS CRITICAL. IT: Okay, happy to help. Which website needs updating and what content needs to be updated? Boss: ... March Boss: WHY HAS NO ACTION BEEN TAKEN ON THIS IT HAS BEEN 1 MONTH. PLEASE UPDATE THE EVENTS PAGE ASAP. IT: Okay, now we know which page you're talking about. What needs updating? Boss: ... May Boss: THE EVENT WE NEEDED TO HAVE POSTED TO THE EVENTS PAGE IS NOW OVER, WHY DID NOBODY TAKE CARE OF THIS THIS HAS BEEN A 3 MONTH ORDEAL. [cc: Executive Director, HR Director, All Senior Staff] IT: 
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 15:31 |
|
|
publicblast posted:My boss is responsible for a bunch of these tickets. quote:I noticed there are errors on (website). edit: and that's pretty much it 
boo_radley fucked around with this message at Sep 4, 2009 around 15:38 |
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 15:34 |
|
|
On the subject of web, our website loving sucks and has been ignored pretty much the past 5 years. It doesn't render properly in ANY current browser and nobody has had the time or energy to deal with it. Until now. One of our staff is taking some HTML classes at a local school and has decided he's going to overhaul our website. I get a call from him this morning, find out that he's signed us up for a hosting service (we are hosting the website on our own server) and that he needs our registrar information so that he can direct the domain to the new hosting service. Sure, who cares that we use that domain for web, mail and ftp? I know there are things we can do (keep the MX records the same, add a cname record for ftp.domain, etc), but I guarantee you that the guy doing this project didn't think of any of this.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 15:55 |
|
|
publicblast posted:May Reply-all - "The following items detail our attempt at acting on this request. As you can see, the required information was never provided despite repeated follow-ups attempting to ascertain what specific actions were required." and paste the correspondence from the ticket.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 16:19 |
|
|
Also, in regards to ticket #XXXXXX, (Edit: Accipter did a much better version than I did). And just for the hell of it, add a few more people in the cc: list. That's what I do.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 16:26 |
|
|
jandrese posted:To be fair, nobody in the real world gives a crap about the OSI 7 layer model. It's one of those things everybody learns in school because it's easily testable and it makes for a nice network diagram. IMHO, the OSI model is overly complicated for what it is trying to convey. The distinction between several of the layers is rather muddy. Application and Presentation are frequently joined at the hip, and the most commmon transport on the internet (TCP) straddles the session layer.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 17:37 |
|
|
Petitioning the Pick Priesthood: Yes, you must always arrange your queries so that you don't use "less than or equal" or "greater than or equal" Really? Why? it doubles the time your query takes to run; each WITH statement has to say "is this less than? No? OK, how about equal?" See? Two comparisons instead of one.
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 17:43 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 17:12 |
|
|
APIPA 
|
| # ? Sep 4, 2009 17:56 |
|
