Blogruptcy

Blog Bankruptcy or "Blogruptcy" comes about with the convergence of 3 underlying factors.  "Comment Bankruptcy", "Logical Bankruptcy" and finally "Ethical Bankruptcy".  I don't do this lightly, but this past week I've witnessed events which lead me to declare one particular blog completely bankrupt.

Chuck Hollis is no Braveheart Blogger

The present day of corporate blogging enjoys a good argument now and then to drive web traffic and increase exposure.  However in the court of public opinion, about the only thing more foolhardy than picking an ill-advised fight against well-informed opponents – is lacking the intellectual fortitude to actually finish what you started.  Rarely does a debate come along where this axiom is displayed more clearly the Storage Capacity Efficiency kafuffle started by EMC last week, but apparently finished by NetApp.

First nail in the coffin: Chuck was already drowning in the middle of the storm he started by declaring comment bankruptcy when he couldn't counter all of the pointed questions about the numerous flaws in his argument.

The Suspense is (mostly) Over

By now some of you who have followed this soap opera saga between EMC & NetApp are probably curious what could have offended Chuck's delicate sensibilities so much that he had to shut the discussion down?  Here it is paraphrased from memory, unless Chuck changes his mind and decides to post it after all.  Disclaimer - I also added supporting links just now to some of the points below which I couldn't do when submitting the comment yesterday:

Hi Chuck,

As the long-standing king of the storage hill, I know it's hard for EMC to accept the new reality that NetApp's "block mode emulations" are taking marketshare from your "native" FC arrays, but based upon positive analyst reviews and strong customer acceptance (Disclaimer - NetApp and EMC actually tied for first place in the full SearchStorage article on this Enterprise Award category), EMC is simply going to have to learn to share more and more of their SANdbox.

I'm also curious if you can answer some basic trivia questions:

1. What does the "L" in LUN or MetaLUN actually stand for? 
2. Do EMC arrays spread data across more than one drive when configured with RAID 0/3/5/6? 
3. How are iSCSI LUN's implemented on Celerra? 
4. How does Virtual Provisioning work on your other disparate blocks platforms (CX & DMX)? 
5. How does VMware ESX Server simultaneously operate multiple guest machines on one physical machine (I didn't actually write this in the comment yesterday, but why not take advantage of hindsight now? :)

This whole illusion that "emulated" LUN's are somehow inferior to "native" LUN's is just plain silly given that the only "native" I/O is one that occurs on a single physical spindle directly attached to a host. Everything else is some form of an abstracted / virtualized I/O which means the whole premise for your ridiculous positioning regarding NetApp SAN's is technically (logically) bankrupt.

Given that, for your sake I sure hope the "internal SPC-1 engineering" numbers for your CX4-960 are north of 60K, otherwise your "native" FC fanboys are going to have a lot of explaining to do relative to the NetApp FAS3170 (link added by me just now).

So there you have it.  What do you think Chuck was most offended by?

• The NetApp marketshare object growing larger than it appears in his rearview mirror? 
• Or perhaps the ridiculousness of his "emulated" vs "native" argument? 
• Or are the internal CX4-960 SPC-1 numbers locked somewhere deep in an EMC vault really that bad?

Feel free to vote with your comment(s)! J

The Need for Objectivity & Transparency

Highly admired corporations (and their bloggers by extension) practice high degrees of transparency in order to build and maintain credibility within their respective communities.  When debating opposing positions via blogs, credibility is gained by presenting evidence-based arguments vs subjective anecdotes.

Walking the Walk

Lack of evidence to support one's position is an indication of a weak argument, but the final nail in the coffin of all failed assertions is the need to suddenly lower a "notional iron curtain" by censoring blog comments, particularly in the middle of the debate.

Talking the talk during disputes is the only path to arriving at a resolution.  Walking the Walk is what it takes to win it.  What does it say about the legitimacy of one's position (or character) when the foolhardy instigator of an ill-advised quarrel resorts to patronizing & condescending remarks in his final comment designed to stifle further discussion?  In the court of blogging public opinion that kind of frowned-upon action earns a label.  It's also reveals a blogging Ethical Bankruptcy.

So there you have it.  Chuck's Blog has been proven to suffer from:

1. Comment Bankruptcy, 
2. Logical Bankruptcy, and finally 
3. Ethical Bankruptcy.

Which means it must therefore be declared Blogcrupt!

But Wait – There's Hope

Much like Chuck @ EMC, this guy below once also lead the greatest Ministry of Misinformation of modern times, yet I think eventually he settled down to a new career.  Perhaps there's hope for Chuck after all! J

Comments

[MultipleChoice]

(d) All of the above! ;-)

[AshleeFan]

EMC, EMC. Hmmm ... Patronizing, Condescending ... you forgot one ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/08/tucci_costs_vmware/
http://www.techslog.com/archives/2007/09/emc_sexual_harassment_lawsuit.html

Ah yes - misogyny!

[ChristianZ]

Chuck says:
"What irks me is that we often see NetApp either try to pretend..."

Such an arrogant, pompous whine displays a dangerous sense of entitlement EMC seems to have regarding their customers' business.

What ever happened to honest competition and earning the business? There can be honour in losing business in a sportsmanlike way, but Chuck shows how EMC refuses to play fair.

[Chuck Hollis]

Val, as I stated before, the reason I didn't post your last comment is that it crossed the line.

Nice editing job on the repost, by the way -- I guess you had second thoughts.

Since you don't see what the problem is, let me help you a bit -- it's not what you're saying, it's how you're saying it.

I don't believe I have to put up with personal insults, derogatory personal comments and the like.

I've never launched a personal attack on anyone, ever -- period.

The trick with this blog stuff, Val, is to learn how to disagree without being disagreeable.

When you learn some of the more subtle rules of the road, I'd be more than pleased to welcome your comments back again.

Until then, you'll have to use your own blog as a therapy session, not mine.

-- Chuck

[Val Bercovici]

Chuck,

Revisionist history coupled with censorship does not give you any moral high ground from which to preach what you yourself do not even practice.

When you begin to show some respect for NetApp, I will happily return in kind for EMC.

I may (or may not) have thrown in a little jab at EMC as part of my controversial comment the other day, but because of your need to suppress the free flow of information (true to form for EMC btw) our readers will never know.

Keep that finger in the dike pal. Maybe "this time it's different", and that strategy will actually work in keeping customers from finding out just how deeply "emulated" NetApp technology has penetrated your enterprise SANdbox.

[StorageJack]

Chuck,

Has patronization penetrated the EMC corp culture so deeply that you've become entirely desensitized to it?

You accuse an industry peer executive of behaving like a child on your blog, then come over here to lecture him on civility using the exact same tone?

Tell me again how that is being "agreeable"? Is this part of your "rules of the road"?

I think your picture needs to be added here now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

[Sjon]

Chuck,

I am not in either camp but I have to agree with StorageJack above.

Why don't you just post Val's comments and make the public judge for itself whether a line is crossed? Isn't that what public debate is all about? There's a word for this kind of "regime" you know, and I think neither you nor EMC wants to be related to it, right?

If you can't stand the heat, don't start blogging I'd offer.

[Lee Razo]

You know I was quite sincere when I suggested once that Chuck should consider a career in politics:

http://blogs.netapp.com/shadeofblue/2008/09/chucks-celestia.html

Since most of us know that everything Chuck writes is merely a parroting of EMC talking points sent down by his superiors, all this flip-flopping is really more indicative of EMC as a company than Chuck personally and the panic that NetApp seems to be causing within.

--Lee

[iheartstorage]

Val, I'm not going to dive into this debate, as I think this discussion has played out. I just wanted to say that I find it saddening that you posted the earlier comment from 'AshleeFan' - a roundabout accusation of misogyny leveled against an entire company.

You may throw up your hands and say 'Hey, I'll post any/every comment I get!' but I'd expect you to exercise better judgment here. Tell me, were I to dig up details regarding isolated legal allegations involving NetApp employees and go on to imply that NetApp as a company condones this alleged activity, would you post my comment?

I hope you wouldn't. But I hope you'll post this one.

[John]

Chuck,

I would have to agree others here. NOT allowing Val's post is like a small boy getting frustrated when he is losing a baseball game and in turn grabs his bat and ball and stomps off saying, "since you won't let me win, I am taking my ball, my bat and going home!" NICE!!!

I think I am an independent opinion on storage OEM’s. I would also point out that I firmly believe “passion” for ones company and its technology is not a crime nor offensive and should be open for “good businessmen” to debate. HOWEVER, censorship (such as this) is typically reserved for, and an accepted practice by, communist regimes who want their “own people” in the dark. Oh, and possibly the mafia...

So, I hope you grow up a bit and decide to come back out and play ball with the big boys in the neighborhood. (Or in other words, allow Val's post!)