Cloud computing is supposed to save us all tons of dough. You do away with your
servers, disks, interconnects and air conditioners, and run all your software
over the wire from a cloud. You presumably save on hardware, energy and management.
But cloud services don't magically configure themselves or keep themselves
up-to-date. Some, like BitCurrent analyst Alistair Croll (I imagine Alistair
with a pipe, a smoking jacket and a shelf full of dusty old books), believe
it can actually be more
difficult and expensive to manage this remote software. Not only will admins
have to administer this software, but their companies may add more and more
applications to the mix -- increasing complexity and admin time.
Do you care about clouds? Have you found any good Web sites that cover cloud
services or teach you how to build your own clouds? URLs welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 22, 20080 comments
Doug may be sad to see the Gates-Seinfeld commercials go, but James thinks the
whole endeavor was a failure from the get-go:
I saw the first commercial and thought, "Wow, that has to be the
lamest commercial I have ever seen! They should fire whichever agency sold
'em that load of crap." Then I saw the second commercial and I realized
why Vista sucks so bad. It's because Microsoft has a bunch of morons working
for it. If it can't see how lame those commercials were, they should all be
fired and bring in some people with enough sense to say, "Hey, those
commercials suck, let's go hire that company that made the Apple ads. At least
they have a sense of humor."
Now I hear that Microsoft is scrapping the Seinfeld commercials because
they "accomplished what they wanted," which I guess was proving
that MS is out of touch with reality. OK, so tell me another one. More like
Microsoft finally saw that people were only laughing at how ridiculous its
commercials were, especially compared to the Apple commercials (I thought
the latest one with PC in the pizza box was the best one so far). If MS doesn't
pull their collective heads out of their behinds, they are going to end up
digging such a deep hole, they will never be able to climb out of it.
-James
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 22, 20080 comments
I admit I was
pretty
rough on the first Gate/Seinfeld video. In fact, I thought Bill was way
funnier than Jerry. I hope the ad whizzes at Microsoft didn't take too much
of that to heart and that critics like me aren't the reason there will be
no
more episodes of the Bill-and-Jerry show.
That's right: After three installments, Microsoft is shelving the Jerry commercials
in favor of a new batch starring a guy that looks like the PC guy from the Apple
commercials.
I'm actually pretty bummed. The second and third installments were darn good,
and way different from your average TV fare (with four kids, I know a lot about
average TV fare). Just as there have been petitions to bring XP, how about one
to bring back Jerry?
Posted by Doug Barney on September 22, 20080 comments
One reader is optimistic about VMware's
virtualization
ambitions:
A Datacenter Operating System? I think that'd be wonderful if implemented
correctly. From my experience, most datacenters have a tendency to have a
server per application to ensure the reliability of that application and that
multiple applications won't tread on each other's territory. It also makes
it easier to plan upgrades, patches and new releases.
With everything running under a virtual environment, we open up a new
possibility. If all you are going to run is a Web server, then why not have
an OS that is designed from the ground-up to be a Web server? You could have
the same for a file server or a print server. I know that Windows Server 2008
has headed in this direction by only installing the roles needed, but there
is probably still a LOT of unnecessary code that allows this one OS to be
everything to everyone. Without this extra code, the OS would run much faster
and would be much easier to secure. I think the time is right for someone
to develop operating systems that are designed from the ground-up to maximize
the benefits of a virtual environment.
-T.W.
The second
installment of the Gates-Seinfeld ads is out, but the response hasn't changed
much (read: lukewarm):
The second ad had funny parts to it, like the grandmother and the setup,
but there were many moments where the ad was too lame (like the bedtime story).
The ads need work. They lack and need a certain je ne sais quoi. I'm disappointed
in the ads because MS is spending so much money on them and they're not as
entertaining as Apple's Mac and PC ads.
-Christian
The first commercial seemed really bad, but it did set the tone. The second
one IS better. Obviously, it's like all the foreign car commercials, where
you know absolutely nothing about the car when it is over, but in this case,
everybody in the target audience knows what the product and message is, regardless
of how bad the delivery may become. I think at this point, we just miss Bill,
and are glad to watch him in mini sitcoms on TV.
-Mel
I have no idea why Bill Gates is in a commercial; as a business person,
I don't get it. Why would I care if he became a normal person or an oddball?
All I want is for Vista to work quickly, correctly and with zero maintenance!
The average consumer has no idea what should work or should not on their PC;
if they get a Blue Screen of Death, then they think this is normal.
The Mac commercials are very accurate and, sad to say, Microsoft really
doesn't care; it's all about marketing. In fact, Microsoft reminds me of Ford
and GM: They have made cars which fail after so many years and now they are
paying the price for this inferior "marketing" quality.
-Mike
I guess I'm thinking that these Gates-Feld commercials are going to take
folks somewhere and when we get there we'll all be converts to Microsoft.
I know that we'll all end up in Vista-ville down the road, though I'm dragging
my feet like everyone else. Often, the changes that end up being "for
the better" are often the ones that are uncomfortable to wiggle into
-- maybe like the "conquistadors." The ones that are comfortable
in the store end up being loose and sloppy.
Vista SP1 fixed some issues I had with one of my customers whose "dollar-store
laptop" didn't want to participate in their Windows Domain. If Microsoft
can continue to chip away at the nuisances and annoyances to provide a secure
and stable platform, we'll move on.
-Dan
But unlike the ad, Doug's
crack about the difference between a VMware CEO and a pitbull was unequivocally
funny...to one guy:
I laughed at your joke.
-Anonymous
Thanks for the support, Anonymous. Everyone else, feel free to chime in! Leave
a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 18, 20080 comments
All week, the financial news has been bleak. Lehman Brothers saying uncle,
stocks falling faster than a base jumper, the doom-and-gloom analysts getting
unlimited air time...
But I was living in a different world. At VMworld, there were some 10,000 customers
looking to transform their shops, over 200 third parties creating a brand-new
and vibrant market, and a company, VMware, looking to do revolutionary things
-- doing it all with a fair bit a class and savvy.
Virtualization also offers us a way out of this economic and even energy mess.
Through the massive centralization of servers, PCs, networks and storage that
virtualization allows, we can save mega megawatts. The energy saves are stupendous,
as are the hardware and management economics.
Posted by Doug Barney on September 18, 20080 comments
Everyone, it seems, is trying to crash VMware's big VMworld party. Microsoft's
shenanigans this week are well-documented, but Citrix (also a pioneer in thin
client computing) made some noise, too -- right in VMware's back yard: Citrix
unveiled
server virtualization tool XenServer 5.
Some have questioned Citrix's commitment to XenServer given that the company
is so close to Microsoft and such a fan of Hyper-V. Perhaps XenServer 5 will
help answer that question. New features focus on monitoring, disaster recovery
and more options for third-party programs.
Where do you see Xen going, and is Citrix truly committed? Send conjectures
to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 18, 20080 comments
Sun is one of the pioneers, if not the pioneer, in thin client computing. While
the "Network Computer" that Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison talked
about for years never quite materialized, the Sun Ray line is a very effective
thin solution.
But just as Sun made up with Microsoft, it apparently isn't religious about
thin client and other virtual tools. This week, in fact, Sun agreed
to sell and support VMware's Virtual Desktop Infrastructure and Virtual
Desktop Manager.
This software can be used to drive Sun Ray devices, or customers can opt for
a purer Sun solution. Sun has a pretty cool strategy of pushing its unique technology,
such as SPARC and Solaris, as well as a full complement of industry standard
(read: Wintel) tools.
What do you think of Sun these days? Opinions accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 18, 20080 comments
In a Q&A session, Maritz was asked about support for non-VMware hypervisors.
He said, "At this point in time, we don't support hypervisors other than
our own," adding that VMware isn't religious about hypervisors and it would
consider it if there was enough demand.
After private conversations, it's clear that the door is open for other hypervisors.
The trouble is in doing things like VMotion with Hyper-V et al. that are so
easily accomplished with ESX.
Posted by Doug Barney on September 17, 20080 comments
While Microsoft has a series of discrete tools for servers, PCs, applications
and management, VMware is now
talking
about what it calls a Datacenter Operating System. If that wasn't bold enough,
this OS (well, it's not really an OS) handles computers, networks and storage
(not sure how Cisco and NetApp feel about all that).
Essentially, VMware wants you to build your own clouds. The cloud isn't just
Google et al., but the datacenter right down the hall. Under this plan, computing
becomes a utility -- carefully managed by VMware.
This works for fine Google, which invests billions in built-from-scratch server
farms to which it adds built-from-scratch applications. But how do you do that
when you don't have billions to invest in built-from-scratch server farms to
which you can add built-from-scratch applications? You have to deal with all
things legacy.
To me, going forward this is a fine IT goal, but while the end result sounds
simple, getting there is immensely complex. If VMware succeeds with these plans,
it will not only become the new Microsoft, but the new Cisco and EMC, as well
(oh, yeah, they already are EMC).
Is this pie in the sky or money in the bank? Answers readily accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 17, 20080 comments
Readers talk browsers -- specifically, why Firefox trumps IE, and whether Netscape
died a natural death:
I don't know what you don't like about Firefox. I find it fast, intuitive,
extensible and easy to use. Granted, I've been in on this session since 1982;
I've seen EVERY version of IE. I've seen everything that IE can possibly do
and I am not happy with IE. I only use IE because of some Web sites, like
the educational system's Web site. Otherwise, I do everything else in Firefox.
If I had to choose just one feature of Firefox that I rely on most, it's
the infinite zoom feature.
-Ari
Netscape definetely died. Take a look at Firefox (well, it's free). It's
still gaining momentum over IE, and now Chrome is doing its part. If Netscape
would've offered a very compelling reason to stick with it, it would be alive.
But I'm sure it would be as freeware.
I think Microsoft did a good job (even tough, unconsciously) in making the
market for the Web browsers at no cost. I don't think paying for such a piece
of software would've improved the security and quality.
-Armando
John isn't sure how, exactly, the movement toward cloud
computing is going to help him save energy:
Let see if I am getting this right: If I use the cloud instead of my
own datacenter, I can save energy? As I see it, the datacenter I use, either
Microsoft's or my own, may or may not be energy-efficient. I do not see how
the location has anything to do with how much energy it uses. Try this: If
I use my home computer, which is bloated because it is running Vista, and
buy a cloud service to handle my checkbook, correspondence and record keeping,
according to your theory I would save energy. I don't understand how that
can be true.
This reminds me of the fellow who is going to save energy by charging
his cell phone from the car. No, that isn't free energy; the car's engine
has to run a tiny bit harder to charge the phone. It isn't much, but it is
the same amount as you would draw from the wall outlet at home. Charging where
you get it is a trade, and not necessarily an improvement. It depends on all
the factors involved. Maybe if I buy one of China's $99 laptops instead of
my home desktop with 2GB et al., that might save me some energy. But it is
not because the laptop is battery-powered -- it is because it might, just
might, use less power to do its work.
-John
Speaking of cheap
laptops, Marc thinks that no matter how inexpensive they get, Linux laptops
won't catch on in the States:
In the U.S., low-cost PCs are extremely attractive to cost-conscious
segments. But in the end, American consumers are needed to drive costs down.
In the end, no matter how much you drive down costs with low-power, Linux-based
systems, user demand is the key and consumers (at least in the USA) ask for
Windows. Why? Well, lots of Web sites are dependent upon IE (Firefox just
won't cut it). Commercial products, be they for personal productivity, multimedia
or gaming, overwhelmingly are available for Windows and, sometimes, Macintosh.
Not much commercial software is available for Linux. The fact that most Linux
software is free just doesn't help when the consumer cannot shop of those
Linux choices at their favorite retailer.
This new Chinese laptop might do well in European and Asian markets,
but without the ability to run Widows applications or view IE-centric Web
sites, don't expect it to take hold in the USA.
-Marc
And Chris, who was in Las Vegas during 9/11, shares his memories of the aftermath:
A day or so after the tragedy, all gaming stopped for one minute at noon
to remember the victims. All major attractions were closed (such as the Stratosphere
rides and headliner acts), since they were considered potential targets. The
oversized electronic hotel signs had patriotic messages such as "God
bless America" instead of the usual advertising. The Fitzgerald casino
downtown changed its marquee to read, "Our thoughts and prayers go out
to the victims of this week's tragedies." It is probably the only time
they've ever had a prayer on their marquee. Every sports book was shut down;
instead, their mammoth screens displayed the news channels.
Friday, Sept. 14, the hotels minimized all exterior lighting, including
turning off marquees and decorative lighting, to memorialize Tuesday's events.
In addition, for 10 minutes, they turned off ALL exterior lighting. We were
in a cab, and it was as if the entire strip simply disappeared. It was an
unbelievable sight, or rather a lack thereof!
-Chris
Tell us what you think! Leave comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 17, 20080 comments
New VMware CEO Paul Maritz stood in front of a crowd of (I'd have to guess)
thousands and, like Sarah Palin,
gave
the speech of his life. What's the difference between a former VMware CEO
and a pitbull? Lipstick. And if you put lipstick on Hyper-V, it's still Hyper-V.
No, Maritz really didn't say any of those things. In fact, that's probably
the lamest joke I've ever penned (send barbs my way at [email protected]).
The Maritz talk wasn't quite as well-received as Palin's convention speech.
Virtualization Review Editor Keith Ward wasn't
impressed, whereas I thought Martitz came across as thoughtful, highly technical
and one not afraid of pushing the envelope.
Posted by Doug Barney on September 17, 20080 comments
Based on the aforementioned Michael's reaction, the second Seinfeld-Gates commercial
is already
more
successful than the first:
In case you haven't seen it yet, here
is the next installment. It's on YouTube. I was crying about 30 seconds in.
That grandmother is hilarious.
-Michael
But that might not make a difference for Darren from the U.K., who has just
one question:
Sorry, who is Seinfeld?
-Darren
And Raymond shares his thoughts on the naysayers who think the Large Hadron
Collider will
only spell disaster:
I do not understand why the fear mongers want to stop the LHC. I may
not be a particle physics major, but I would love to see what we will learn
from their experiments and, like the article stated, we have higher energy
collisions that are being caused by cosmic rays all around us and they have
not destroyed the earth.
There are always doom-and-gloom people out there and we never seem to
learn to ignore them. When they tested the first atomic bomb, there were people
that were worried that the chain reaction would not stop and the earth would
be destroyed. I can remember when all the planets aligned on the same side
of our sun and it was not torn apart like some apocalypse doomsayers said
it would. By the way, if I recall, we were supposed to go back to the Stone
Age when the year 2000 hit because of the Y2K computer bug...so I guess I
am not really writing this message to you after all.
-Raymond
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on September 16, 20080 comments