The views expressed on this site are purely mine, and are in no way a reflection of the views of my employer. All suggestions and recommendations to the reader are based on what has worked for me in the environments I have been responsible for, or in reference to official material providing authoritative guidance. The information conveyed should not excuse the due diligence needed by the reader if they are working on these very complex topics. The nature of the content discussed may become outdated as software, hardware, and architectures evolve.
Credit, references, and accuracy
My history of blog posts demonstrate that I strive to give all sources who have influenced specific fixes or workarounds that I put into production their much deserved credit. If I state something inaccurately, correct me please. If I overlook something, please let me know, and I will be sure to correct it accordingly.
Citing sources in reference data, test results, and environment behavior
Blog posts on this site are typically framed around a position supported by performance metrics, test results, and other environmental evidence. The vast majority of my posts are framed this way because it is the type of content that I enjoy creating. There are three scenarios in which some or all supporting evidence is not a part of a blog post:
- Vendor restrictions. Some manufacturers have clauses written into various legal agreements that prohibit citing test or behavior results including performance graphs and other evidence showcasing the behavior of their solution.
- Customer/user restrictions. Some customers will not allow the direct use of performance data, or may not allow the use of their name. Even obfuscated performance graphs requires permission from the source, and even this level of anonymity is not acceptable to the owner of the data center where it originated.
- Intention of post. Occasionally the intention of a post is addressing a broader topic, and for the sake of maintaining the correct level of detail, or brevity, specific test results or details are not included.
The first two reasons are out of my control. If a post is missing specific information about test results, it is for one of the first two reasons, and any frustrations should be directed at the manufacturers of a given solution. The last reason comes up most often when discussing broad architectural, or business related matters, where the benefit to the reader is minimal, and adding additional screenshots would diminish the original intent of the post.
Facts, analysis, and criticism versus FUD
This blog contains facts, observations, and the professional opinion of the author. There are often many ways to solve a problem, but some are better than others. Identifying strengths and weaknesses in approaches or solutions is common. It has occurred since the beginning of time, and is just as common outside the boundaries of enterprise technology as it is on the inside. Describing weakness of a specific product or approach is NOT spreading fear, uncertainty, or doubt (FUD). It never has been, and it never will be. I do not take accusations of FUD lightly, and neither should those choosing to make such accusations. If you have concerns about some content found on this site, reach out to me directly, and share specifically what you believe is not conveyed fairly, or potentially inaccurate, and I will review. Public cries of FUD without any prior direct contact will clearly illustrate the motive of those complaining. There is nothing wrong with critiquing an approach or a solution, and I maintain that right to do so. However, great care is taken in all of my posts to deliver content that is as fair as possible. In turn I ask for a level of decorum and civility by those concerned.
Ethics, professionalism, and courtesy
I began this blog as an Administrator in the trenches. I have since held positions as a consultant, a Sales Engineer, and a Technical Marketing Engineer. I am currently a Technical Marketing Manager at VMware. So it should be no surprise that I will likely speak pretty favorably (but truthfully) about the solutions produced by the companies I’ve held employment. All content originates from my own ideas, and I have never been encouraged by an employer to convey a particular message, or even write on a particular topic. I generate content on this site – my personal blog – simply to share and inform. I write about technologies that I’m passionate about and that I feel is worthy of sharing. The topics may or may not have anything to do with my current place of employment.
I take extraordinary effort in being fair and respectful to other companies in this highly competitive industry. No company is the sole proprietor of great ideas and solutions, and I would hope the readers (including any perceived competition) will understand that as succinctly as I do. Professionalism, courtesy, trust, and sincerity is the equity I have built up in my career. I choose to continue to hold this in the highest regard, and will likely not acknowledge those who choose not to reciprocate.
To minimize conflicts of interest, this blog currently does not accept paid sponsorship advertisements. If this changes, the author does not accept any responsibility for the claims of a product or a service by a sponsor.
Unless explicitly noted, the content, and copyrights to the content are owned exclusively by Pete Koehler, the author of vmpete.com. No content on this site may be reused, reprinted in full or partial form, translated, or republished without explicit written consent. Such consent upon approval will require links to the originating post, credit to the originating author, and clear statements that it is a repost. The author reserves the right to change the intentions, purpose, or ownership of this blog at the sole discretion of the author.
Thanks for reading