|
Dr.Walt Fair, PE wrote: "Are you crazy, we can't do that!"
I appreciate this story and can relate to the overzealous salesman-type. The one I worked with wound up doing a stint in prison, but well before that he sold software and owned/co-owned at least half-a-dozen companies.
Anyhow, I believe a good team is the combination of a visionary leader and talented people who can put up with them.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
The summary for Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) deprecation - Windows IT Pro Blog reads:
WSUS remains operational but is no longer investing in new features.
As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't change anything. And frankly, MS could have made this announcement 10 years ago, it wouldn't have made any difference either. WSUS today looks and feels and performs exactly the same as it did 10 years ago. It hasn't improved. It hasn't gotten any worse either. It's a known quantity.
The role will still be in Windows Server 2025, and the blog entry points out "we are preserving current functionality and will continue to publish updates through the WSUS channel".
In other words, if you have WSUS today, it'll continue working. Since the role is still in Server 2025, I'm betting they're still going to be publishing updates through that mechanism at least until Server 2025 itself goes out of extended support (in 2035). If there's anything to worry about, it's whether the next version of Server after that includes the role or not. Until then? This is a non-event, IMO.
But the resulting discussion somehow degenerated into how MS is trying to get everyone to manage their patching through Azure, and that some related features on Azure in the past have (already) been deprecated, and the end goal is to get people to subscribe to some service costing $5/server/month.
People are freaking out about that and coming up with all sorts of scenarios like it's a big conspiracy, but in the end none of that is a WSUS issue. MS can start charging for Azure services all it wants, WSUS isn't going away. Besides, people have already built viable alternatives. Today you could script pretty much everything WSUS does, within a few hours.
You commit to cloud provider services, you're giving up control, then you're at their mercy, and then they can start charging you for those services. But this announcement doesn't say, or even suggest, WSUS is gonna get broken soon and people won't have a choice but to move to Azure. Of course MS would love that. But the blog entry makes it clear WSUS isn't going away.
So Azure is, and remains, a different problem. Those Azure complaints are completely valid, but they belong in another discussion altogether.
If you're using WSUS today, does this announcement worry you?
|
|
|
|
|
This is yet another example of Microsoft's desire to move everything from on-premise to cloud.
WSUS has always had huge problems with database fragmentation, to the point that I wrote a PS script combined with a SQL Server database defragmentation script I pulled off a Technet blog over a decade ago to keep my WSUS servers healthy and responsive.
|
|
|
|
|
For sure WSUS has always had its own set of problems, but as mentioned, by now it's a known quantity, in terms of what to expect and what to do about it. I've come across scripts myself that do the sort of thing you brought up, and wrote a few more of my own.
If those are such big problems for people that they'd rather rely on MS to keep evolving patch management, then that's why these on-going services are pay-for. But people can't claim any of this came without their own warnings.
|
|
|
|
|
Explain
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do they expect to gain from posting a stupid comment ?
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I remind them that there is no meaningful difference between pretending to be stupid for attention and actually being stupid.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
There is a classification of a multi-talented person called a Polymath. This is a person who has mastered a number of specialized fields of knowledge. I'm wondering if there is a specific definition of that term. Does anyone here know that answer?
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, the term is used for very highly talented folks (e.g. Von Neumann) so the bar is high, but I never met (neither Roger nor) an exact definition.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
My dictionary definition gives it as from the Greek: poly = many, mathes = learned.
|
|
|
|
|
The closest person to it I know is Mr. The Codewitch who has multiple degrees, and is a polyglot, but I don't know if he would actually fit most people's estimation of the term. He's talented in several areas, but he does tend to lean on linguistics a little harder than medicine.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
The wikipedia page is a good place to start looking.
From what I understand, there is no one true definition of a polymath.
And my interpretation is that it's probably less ans less possible in the modern world to be one.
In the scientific world, new discoveries and research fields are a lot more specialized.
Maybe in the Arts and social studies it can be easier.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: In the scientific world, new discoveries and research fields are a lot more specialized.
My tongue-in-cheek explanation: human brain can hold only a limited volume of information. Just like the volume of a lake is "surface" x "depth" we can know more about less or less about more. The two extremes are when we know nothing about everything and everything about nothing.
In my particular case, I have a very shallow mind 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
 Reminds me of this Conan Doyle - Sherlock Holmes quote:
"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones".
From A Study in Scarlet
|
|
|
|
|
Nice! Not long ago I had a conversation with my grandson on a similar theme and I was arguing that looking at a brain in action is not unlike looking at a skilled juggler that can keep all those balls in the air. While one has to admire the skill, there is also another element - the balls. Looking at a juggler without balls is not very impressive; looking at a brain operating without knowledge is also not fun. You have to add stuff in that attic!
There is a third element beside the skill and balls: the curiosity that puts everything in motion.
Quote: The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.
Plutarch
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
My undrstanding, possibly flawed, is someone who is a recognized expertin several technical fields.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know if the term Polymath would apply to this person ?
I am sure he uses Math but his real job title is "Head & Neck Reconstructive Surgeon"
When I ask him how many surgeries he had done like the one he was about to do on me
the reply was not to brag but he understood I know something about surgeons as a Pharmacist.
This fellow is
Board Certified in Orthopedic Surgery
Board Certified in Vascular Surgery
Board Certified in Plastic Surgery
Board Certified in Otolaryngology
His official title at University Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio is
Director of Head & Neck Reconstructive Surgery
Rod Rezaee M.D.
What did he do to me?
He broke my jaw was going to take a bone from my ankle and fuse it into my jaw
but he decide to use screws and skip the ankle bone.
He removed a vein from my non dominate left arm and revascularized my tongue.
He then removed on layer of skin from left wrist and wrapped my tongue where the tumor was.Why the wrist no hair growth there thank god or I would have a hairy tongue!
To patch the wrist he removed one layer of skin from my thigh.
Of all this process that was the most painful during recovery.
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a clear, unambiguous definition of a polyglot - a person who masters a number of different languages?
I guess that the answer is 'No'. So don't expect to find one for a polymath.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Is there a clear, unambiguous definition of a polyglot
Rather certain that you cannot find one of those for a 'table' either.
After all
- Legs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, more. Plus a definition might include zero for a block used as table
- Use: Food, medical, decorative, drafting, construction, Horigotatsu, Chabudai, communal, end.
Not to mention - math table, periodic table, table the discussion, sql table
|
|
|
|
|
A customer of a customer went to use our new software yesterday.
At the end of the day I made a quick fix based on an incident we had during the day.
And this morning, 6:45, I got a call... It didn't work.
And because that didn't work, nothing worked anymore.
So apparently, the flow is: my service gets a message, I send back a direct "basic" message and later (asynchronous) I get a full OK message from the software.
Now the issue was that only the basic message was returned.
I then interpreted that basic message as being the full message from the software, and the software hadn't changed and worked well yesterday.
So my conclusion was that somehow my really small quick fix stripped the full message down to a basic message.
Turned out someone set a setting preventing the software from returning full OK messages altogether 
Nothing better than being called out off bed with a full production stop so you can search for an error that isn't there 
|
|
|
|
|
"Yesterday, upon the stair
I met an error who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
I wish, I wish he'd go away!"
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
From a lovely little poem
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
