Today I am reprinting a post in full from a very good friend of mine, Why am I doing this three reasons:
- I do not like censorship,
- I believe in the Streisand effect
- The fact that everything in this post is true
Now you will not find this post on the original site as Steve has been asked [sic: Told] to remove it.
I read a brilliant blog post by J Michael Metz today about the recent Gartner report on FCoE by Joe Skorupa. Of the many great lines and counter arguments in the post, likening Gartner to Chicken Little was comically accurate in my humble opinion, and is a typical analyst response to anything new and innovative: remember the scare stories about virtualization? If you listened to guys like Joe, would you ever get anything done?
Please go and read the post yourself, but here’s the general outline to give you a flavour:
- Define your terms – looks like Joe don’t know the difference between DCB and FCoE
- Learning how to count – convergence increases components! Does Joe think that virtualization increases physical server counts too?
- Financial barriers – well, this is crap in crap out. If you have more stuff (you don’t) then it’s more expensive (it isn’t)
- Increased complexity – because it’s new? because the teams, tools aren’t set up for it?
- Hard to debug – crap in/out again, especially if you don’t understand DCB and FCoE.
- Sublime to surreal – don’t do it because you might not get the benefit, but don’t rule them out. What the hell does that mean?
- Missed opportunities – when you don’t have an axe to grind, nor a hidden agenda, what’s the real opportunity?
- Myopic strawmen – what about ETS?
Don’t forget that the ten-page Gartner report can be yours for $200. Yes, that’s $20 a page. The good times must be back!
If Joe can sell just nine of those reports he might want to invest in this FCoE course.
This is a stupid situation and could have been avoided if those that had the power; had actually thought this decision through before making a knee jerk response, they would have spotted two major flaws to their censorship logic
- Hey Gartner I can still read it here
- The very fact that you have censored this post had raised its profile.
The fact of the matter is that Gartner was feeling exposed here, as they had released a piece of analysis that they were/are charging $200 to purchase, that is quite frankly full of inaccuracies, so instead, either re-writing the piece with the correct information, or defending their position they, pull the big boy bully tactics by getting the blogger’s employer to inform him to remove the post. In this day of social media the Big Analytical companies are feeling worried, they are loosing their dollars, due to the “Information” that they peddle being out in the open on respected Blog sites, and when they are called out for inaccuracies they huddle and strike out without thought for the resultant actions, Gartner have done more damage to their reputation with this action than if they had just let the post lie.
Now the end result is that we have lost a very good commentator and Blogger to the community, and all because of a big boy bully and a frightened corporate machine, it is the latter that surprises me the most, I would have thought that Cisco would have more backbone than that, for a company that purport to have embraced the world of social media they have acted the worse, Cisco could/should have defended Steve, It does not matter that they may not agree with his position on the matter. They should have responded along the lines of “Steve’s blog is his own personal space and is not affiliated to us his employers”.