It makes sense that any product written after the advent of these AI code generators, including the AI code generators themselves, will get worse as it starts to eat itself.
They have been around for nearly 20 years. I viewed them as an also-ran until Broadcom decided they didn’t need any of us as VMware customers anymore. Now Nutanix seems like a viable path for on-prem VM workloads that need a new home for those who don’t want to part with an arm and a leg on licensing but can’t move to public cloud either. I’m not sure how much of that market Oxide can capture. Not sure Nutanix is still doing the hyperconverged hardware themselves anymore.
I've been curious about Oxide for a year or two without fully understanding their product. People talking about the "hyperconverged" market in this thread gave me an understanding for the first time.
Given this, can you help me understand in what ways they are different?
When I went to the Nutanix website yesterday, the link showed that'd I'd previously visited them (not a surprise, I look up lots of things I see mentioned in discussions) but their website does an extremely poor job of explaining their business to someone who lacks foundational understanding, even once I'd started reading about "hyperconverged" just before.
If you want to KNOW the chain of custody for all of your OS and software, from the bootloader to the switch chip, and you want to run this virtualization platform airgapped, buying at rack-scale, you want Oxide. They are making basically everything in-house. That's government, energy, finance, etc. Customers that need descretion, security, performance, and something that works very reliably in a high-trust environment, with a pretty high level of performance.
If you need a basic "vm platform", VMware, Proxmox, Nutanix, etc. all fit the bill with varying levels of feature and cost. Nutanix has also been making some fairly solid kubernetes plays, which is nice on hyperconverged infrastructure.
Then if you need a container platform, you go the opposite direction - Kubernetes/OpenShift and run your VMs from your container platform instead of running your containers from your VM platform.
As far as "hyperconverged"...
"Traditionally" with something like VMware, you ran a 3-tier infrastructure: compute, a storage array, and network switching. If you needed to expand compute, you just threw in another 1U-4U on the shelf. Then you wire it up to the switch, provision the network to it, provision the storage, add it to the cluster, etc. This model has some limitations but it scales fairly well with mid-level performance. Those storage arrays can be expensive though!
As far as "hyperconverged", you get bigger boxes with better integration. One-click firmware upgrades for the hardware fleet, if desired. Add a node, it gets discovered, automatically provisions to the rest of the configuration options you've set. The network switching fabric is built into the box, as is the storage. This model brings everything local (with a certain amount of local redundancy in the hardware itself), which makes many workloads blazing fast. You may still on occasion need to connect to massive storage arrays somewhere if you have very large datasets, but it really depends on the application workloads your organization runs. Hyperconverged doesn't scale compute as cheaply, but in return you get much faster performance.
Sep 23, 2004 here! 285k scrobbles. Always been a loyal user. My use goes back far enough that I would have scrobbles queued up for when my dialup connection came online to push the days’ missed scrobbles up.
I initially moved to it because Shortcuts broke my "generate 2h of music I rarely listen to" shortcut (it stopped being able to add music to playlists - hilarious for an in-house app talking to an in-house app!) and someone suggested Marvis because it has a "dynamic smart playlist" and it also has integrated scrobbling.
You can pretty much replace the Apple Music frontend with Marvis (at least on iOS) and everything works the same (because it's still using Music as its backend.)
Those icons were well-designed for the newly computerized office employee of the day. The new school of icons are made by graphic designers for other graphic designers.
I agree with the author. I understand many of the reasons others give here for why icons could be beneficial- localization, literacy, vision issues, etc. all are great reasons to supplement text with icons, theoretically. But I disagree that these icons, I mean those shown as examples in the Apple menu, Safari menu, or Google Docs menus- actually convey anything useful and really do prove the authors point that they’re poorly implemented.
I realize it may be generational and privilege based, as I can read English and have a good deal of computer literacy. To my eyes the icon trend of flat, minimal icons paradoxically ask a user to possess a higher degree of computer fluency to successfully parse the artistic intent of the icon and map it to its function. When these icons don’t accurately convey their function (the Paste icon is a blank clipboard. What’s that do?) and when the design language is inconsistent within the same application and OS (do cogs mean Preferences? Services? you’re building a very confusing world for most of the user group types you claim to be helping.
It doesn't actually matter that much what the icon is. It's impossible to creat icons people would fully understand - otherwise you wouldn't need a label at all.
The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).
There are other factors like consistent placement that can help. This icon approach is good especially if you have common shared menu items over the OS or they change their placement throughout the app.
The IKEA instructions are generally regarded as a triumph of simplicity. Yet on more than one occasion I've come across cases where a few words in a call out would have prevented having to redo some step after later realising that some features had to be oriented a particular way - the pictures not quite conveying their intention until it was obvious in hindsight.
> The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).
In theory, yes. But if you look at the examples in the article, the shapes are basically all similarly-sized circles.
In the Apple example, "System Settings" is circle (A gear with barely discernible teeth.) "Recent Items" is a circle (a clock.) "Force Quit" is a circle (a rounded! octagon.) "Sleep" is...a circle with a line through the bottom third. "Log Out" is...a human silhouette in a circle! (Why?)
It doesn't matter what the icon is as long as the icons are distinct, and today's icons aren't.
Others have brought up the Office 97 style for good reason. Everything has an icon, on an icon toolbar. Every command can also be on a file menu but most of them there don’t have an icon. The ones that do are special or intended to draw your attention.
And there’s a consistent metaphor: for example the web browser is represented by a globe for the world wide web. So the “hyperlink” function is a globe with a chain. This the “preview as web page” is a globe with a magnifying glass (whereas the print preview command is a sheet of paper with a magnifying glass.).
This icon language hints at function through its form and helps serve as a cue, a reminder, or a visual representation of
its function.
And it all worked on 640x480 256 color screens. They are thoughtful and useful. These plain flat uninformative icons are just rude.
Sure. There are also icons that are plain flat and don't use metaphor and work great. Play, share, hamburger, bluetooth, power... i am sure there are more. Icons are more about familiarity than anything.
I assume you were very familiar with Office 97. I can tell you people born in 97 are probably not. High chance they might not like and understand the icons because they aren't familiar with them.
It's like when everybody wants to design logo as unforgettable as Nike. But in reality anything people see 20 times a day people will remember.
> The function of the icon is to have distinct shape so you are able to visually distinguish menu items quickly in future (more you use the app).
I wrote it in a different comment elsewhere: this is exactly why you don't want icons on every menu item. When everything tries to be stand out, nothing does. It's much easier to distinguish groups and "it's the third item below the icon" than "out of these identical looking icons one of them points to a menu item that does what I want".
Sure! I agree. My comment above probably seems like i think this new Apple design direction is good. I don't. Tahoe seems like amateur hour.
What i was mainly saying is that the icon does not have to describe the label for it to be effective. That doesn't mean that usage/quality of the icon suddenly doesn't matter.
A lot of apps people use these days are cloud-first and automatically save all the time, so there's not even a save button to have a floppy icon for! The icon to say that it's synced looks like a cloud, and if you're using a web browser it'll probably have a Download button with a download icon. No floppy disks in sight.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's computer users out there that wouldn't recognise the "save icon".
I disagree. Not all it's "autosave on cloud", and some apps keeps having an explicit save something button or option.
I recently had a discussion about replacing the "save icon" (IE. the old floppy disk icon) for an icon with an arrow pointing down, for a button that saves (don't download!) a custom query of the user in the system. Perhaps it could be replaced with another icon, but not by someone that everyone would think is "Download".
Growing grains is no longer relevant. You can just walk into any supermarket and purchase packaged cereals, breads, and cakes, and you don’t have to deal with operating a tractor, cultivating soil, or sowing seeds.
The article is too optimistic in its view of how short-form video allows everyone to partake in these trends. In an attention-driven culture where nothing cool can be kept a secret, as the very essence of coolness would be defined not by the thing itself but by how many people watched your tiktok about it, you end up with these nonsense low-quality “viral trends” that everyone is talking about because everyone is talking about it.
Very little of it is actually good. So what then, if it’s able to spread faster than ever before? It stinks!
Plenty of search overview results I get on Google report false information with hyperlinks directly to the page in the vendor documentation that says something completely different, or not at all.
So don’t worry about writing that documentation- the helpful AI will still cite what you haven’t written.
reply