Hey, Larry, What About Java?

With the wealth of Sun open tools, it's pretty clear that not all would survive being commandeered by Oracle. Many see NetBeans getting quickly roasted. Beyond that, will Oracle put muscle behind OpenOffice just to irritate Microsoft, or set it adrift? And what about Java itself?

In the short term, all this uncertainty plays to Microsoft's favor, at least in the developer market. Everyone knows that Microsoft and Visual Studio ain't going anywhere and that new products and new versions will steadily appear for years to come.

What should Larry do with the Sun portfolio? Free business advice welcome and passed along at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 22, 20090 comments

Mailbag: Oracle-Sun, Office Ribbon, More

I think that you're right. The creative company meets the marketing giant. Could be a great match!
-Chris

I have to agree with you. I didn't see it coming either, but for high-end databases requiring more robust hardware than Intel can offer, Oracle+Sun could be a winning combination to compete against IBM.
-Marc

I think the Oracle acquisition of Sun makes a whole LOT of sense. Oracle's No. 1 platform is Sun; it's their core development platform for the Oracle database. Oracle's DB is heavily Java-centric; their management tools and installers are all Java. They need Java to survive unless they want to rewrite their installers, Oracle Enterprise Manager, etc. Sun now owns MySQL, a free, powerful, entry-level database. Now, THERE'S a good play for Sun/Oracle to build a migration path from MySQL to an enterprise-class DB when your needs "grow up." Databases are highly storage performance-dependent. Sun has a great storage story, excellent products in the disk and tape worlds, and excellent OEM agreements. Now Oracle has the ability to enhance revenue on both sides of the equation: leverage storage with DB engine licenses, or vice-versa. Oracle already had a "preferred" licensing model on Sun's SPARC processors that makes even more sense now. Buy Oracle on Sun and pay less than if you put in on Wintel platforms, etc. Overall, I just think it makes darn good sense.

What was IBM going to do with Sun? Migrate Solaris to PowerPC? More likely just kill it and "migrate" users to AIX. There was no strategic play in that world. Everything Sun has, IBM already has. It was just more of a "buy a competitor and shut them down" play to me than a marriage of technologies.
-Pete

If Oracle acquires Sun, it creates a large-systems-plus-applications rival to IBM. It might work for a while and then die like Unisys or DEC. It moves BOTH Oracle and Sun away from their failed bids to beat Microsoft on low-end servers and high-end desktops.

The Oracle-Sun California tech culture is a far better fit than if IBM absorbs Sun. Such a combination may be the only way to keep Sun's valuable hardware innovations alive for several more years. However, a far better combination would be a Cisco acquisition of Sun. The California tech synergy would still be there but with a far better product fit for both firms.
-Mark

Not sure about how Oracle will deal with the HW/OS mix. They currently are dabbling in Linux distros, though. They do share a similar Bay Area corporate culture, in a way that the Sun/IBM combo didn't.

The real question is: Is $7.4 billion too much to pay to squash a competitor (MySQL)? That open source DB has a large footprint in the Web world. I'll be downloading the latest (last?) version, just in case.
-R.C.Z.

The thing I'm most concerned about is the ripple effect in the open source continuum. Ellison will no doubt kill MySQL, creating a black hole that could suck in many more open source projects.
-Jacob

Meanwhile, Bernie was just impressed by his foresight:

I was right! This was what I wrote to you a few weeks ago. Oracle and Sun make a complementary fit where IBM and Sun overlapped.

I got something right! Wow...
-Bernie

After Friday's mixed bag of responses, these readers share their defense of the Office ribbon:

After getting used to the differences, I love the ribbon. I configure it the way I want it, then double-click to hide it until I need it again.
-Elgin

If Apple had come up with this first, Microsoft would have been seen as copying instead of innovating on their own.

There's nothing wrong with the ribbon that a couple of hours of use won't fix. And for those that really can't stand it, you're only a few keystrokes away from an Internet search for "Office 2007 classic menu."
-Anonymous

I didn't notice anyone mentioning why Microsoft came up with the ribbon interface. It seems that when Microsoft was asking customers what they wanted to see in the next version of Office, 80 percent of what was being asked for was already present! Microsoft realized that instead of adding more features, it had to have a better way to find what was already there. Instead of having to know where something was, clicking down menus, submenus and below, most of the features in Office 2007 are directly visible from the tab. If you aren't sure where to find something, hover your mouse over the ribbon and roll the scroll wheel to view everything with ease.

For me it works, and it seems it works for about half of the population. I have a suspicion that it works best for right-brained folks. My recommendation to everyone who has a problem with the ribbon is to stop resisting and try to adapt. It really takes less mouse clicks once you get the hang of it. And it isn't going away as Microsoft is going to use it more and more.
-Bruce

And finally, Qadar leaves us with a tip:

Did you know you could install Ubuntu Linux 8.10 desktop version as an application on top of XP? (I am not sure about Vista.) It shows up as a dual-boot with XP. You can also uninstall as application from XP. It is very interesting. If you haven't tried, check it out and let your readers know. People like me who do not know anything about Linux can benefit from it.
-Qadar

Check back on Friday for more reader letters, including your thoughts on Microsoft security. Meanwhile, share your thoughts by writing a comment below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 22, 20090 comments

Office 2007 Gains Native OpenDoc/PDF

Posted by Doug Barney on April 20, 20090 comments

Mailbag: Thoughts on Patches, Windows 7 Upgrades, More

Regarding patches, at some point, it could be that Windows might just end up the most secure. When everyone is taking shots, Windows will either die from the wounds, or strengthen the armor. But who knows?
-Andrew

I would love to help nab some of the malware promoters, or at least divert some of their energies. But running a honeypot properly takes a bunch of time and energy, both of which are in short supply in most IT shops.
-Robert

Here are more of your thoughts on upgrading to Windows 7 from XP:

This whole XP ugprade in the enterprise thing is ridiculous! If an enterprise is moving to Windows 7, there's no way it's going to do individual upgrades on thousands of PCs. Every large company that I've worked at uses images. They'll dump a new working Windows 7 image on the existing hardware if that's the route they're going, or they'll just phase Windows 7 in with the hardware replacements over time. I've had some experience with companies in the 100,000-plus desktop range. Problems with a desktop? Step 1: reimage it.

Other thoughts: Why would you want to carry over all the junk that accumulated in your XP box over the years when you try to "upgrade" the OS to Win 7? For how many years have the "experts" been telling us to do clean installs? Why upgrade to Win 7 if you've got a working system?
-Anonymous

Many of your readers are complaining that they will not be able to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP. This is causing them to move to Mac. There are many reasons to move to Mac -- but this is not one of them. OS X didn't work on older Macs. Older Mac software didn't work on OS X. Where was the uproar about this? Weren't there enough users to care about the problem? What will they say when Apple does this again? Mac makes an excellent machine and it is very stable because they control the entire process. This prevents users from using incompatible hardware and software. That is the biggest advantage to using a Mac. It is not enough to make me overpay for the privilege.

I supply computer support for Windows, Linux and Macs. There are not many people who support Macs and if my clients' experiences with Mac tech support are an indication, even they don't do a very good job. I saw a blog from one arrogant Mac user that said, "I can use my Mac to do anything you can do on your PC and I'll do it better." He is wrong. There is not as much software or hardware available for Macs as there is for PCs. Further, I can do anything on my PC that he can do on his Mac. I can do it just as well -- and it will cost me much less to do it.
-Earl

And Bill calls out a couple of readers for their criticism of Microsoft:

I normally don't let commenters get under my skin, but the constant bashing of Vista/Windows 7 has finally made me snap. First of all, to Jeff talking about the implementation rate: I'm the IT director for a small business. I haven't upgraded operating systems in a long time; it just makes sense to do a full install. With Windows Deployment Services (free) and the Microsoft Deployment Toolkit (also free), I am able to install a full OS, including driver injection, in 60 minutes. In addition, I can deploy apps through GPO or as part of the MDT, and let their user profile propogate. It takes me an hour to install a full system! Why would I upgrade?

Secondly, David has me confused: Microsoft doesn't just "push" updates. Of course, if you set your machine to automatically download and install then reboot, it will. Three or four clicks and you can just have them download and notify for installation (no reboot required). For that matter, use Group Policies (part of the Active Directory that he apparently despises) to set it for you. Also, I'm curious as to what RAID controller he was using; I have never seen one that doesn't continue rebuilding after a reboot. For that matter, Windows itself will work through reboots (if using Disk Management to create your array, but that is servers only). Additionally, the fact that it was taking three days to rebuild an array tells me that he wasn't using best practices, anyway. The comment about AD is confusing and technically inaccurate. Active Directory is a huge asset to any IT person -- I can't imagine NOT centrally managing all of my users, groups, permissions, etc.

I just don't get so-called "IT pros" who don't do the basics and then blame Microsoft (often spelled with a childish $ instead of an "s") when their poor planning is really at fault. It seems that most of the negative comments come from users who don't really understand basic networking. It can bring job security to blame Microsoft -- but it certainly isn't honest.
-Bill

More letters coming on Wednesday. Meanwhile, join the fray! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 20, 20090 comments

Oracle Predicts Sun Sale

At first blush, I just didn't see a fit. Buying Sun turns Oracle into an altogether different company, one focused on server and storage hardware, operating systems, and infrastructure and development software.

But does that really matter? Is, perhaps, the attitude and culture of the buyer more important? And here there's an interesting match. Sun has always been aggressive and since few of its products are me-too, it needs a charged-up company to push them. Who better than Larry Ellison? I kinda like this deal! Tell me where I'm right or wrong at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 20, 20090 comments

Microsoft Continues Commercial Security Software Push

I wasn't a fan of Microsoft's client security play. I felt Microsoft was simply copying the pioneering work of companies like Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro and Sunbelt.

Fortunately, Microsoft is pushing a more comprehensive strategy in the form of "Stirling," a suite of tools that protects clients and servers, and handles identity management and compliance. As Microsoft has built a large suite of IT products, it makes sense for it to have a broad suite of security tools. Stirling will be out next year.

Would you trust a Microsoft security suite? Have you used Forefront, and if so, how would you grade it? "A"s, "B"s, "C"s, "D"s and "F"s can be forwarded to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 20, 20090 comments

2010: An Exchange Odyssey

IE haters will love the fact that the Web client is now fully compatible with Safari and Firefox. I use Firefox and never had a problem with the Web client.

For archiving, PST files -- which confused even the smartest end users -- have been replaced by an "integrated archive." I'd upgrade for just this one feature alone!

Posted by Doug Barney on April 17, 20090 comments

Mailbag: Ribbon Yeas/Nays, More

You said, "The new Office 2007 interface is more confusing than a conversation with Paula Abdul." At first. But I'm starting to like the changing icons based on context of the tabs. It makes more sense, but it is way different than in the past.

I'll give Microsoft credit. They are trying to come out with a better approach, rather than wait for someone else to come up with it. Many companies would just let the product turn into a cash cow and eventually die.
-Andrew

Regarding the Office 2007 ribbon -- OMG, I can never find anything on the thing. The few users that I have tried installing it for begged me to switch them back, and these were the users that normally like change and trying new things. As long as you don't actually want to do anything requiring actually finding anything buried in the ribbon, it is fine.
-Tom

I have used Office 2007 for quite some time now. I use Access, Word, Excel and Outlook on a regular basis. At first, I didn't like the ribbon menus at all but it was probably because I was so familiar with the old toolbars and menu style that when I started using the new ribbon, I couldn't find where everything was.

With time and learning, I now like the ribbon style and know where to find things. I don't think it is better but different and requires some relearning so people don't want to leave their comfort zone.
-Duane

I have worked with Office 2007 since the beta and now have become so used to it that when I am faced with Office 2003, I really have to think. It was hard at first before Microsoft introduced the interactive command reference guides. Now if you need to know where something lives, just download the guides. You'll soon get used to it and remember. Hell, I was even tempted to try OpenOffice, but that was going to be just the same sort of learning curve, and if you used Excel to any degree of sophistication, forget it.

OK, so learning the new menu system wasn't easy. We always look for the negative: Oh, but where do I find this? And where do I find that? Oh, poor me. Go to a country which drives on the other side of the road; you'll hate it just as much, but in the end you learn to accept the change. Move on, get over it, forget the past. Accept change and you learn something new. If you resist, you'll just get left behind or run over by the truck coming the other way.
-Dave

The Office 2007 UI is only usable if you know where things were under the old 2003 menus, because you can then find them under similar menus -- but you have to have memorised the menu commands (sad that I am). The command groupings don't make sense and don't provide the features our users want grouped together. It wouldn't be so bad if it were totally customisable, but even then rolling out customisations to all our users will be difficult.

Bottom line this is not new and improved, and the old is not old and inferior. The old UI is comfortable, clear, well-understood and already trained and supported. Change for changes sake is of no use to us. And if Microsoft thinks we can be forced to change, it's wrong.
-Anonymous

I believe the ribbon is an interesting user interface trip. Might not be perfect, but I prefer it to the other more confusing old interface, which I am not able to work with again. The logic put into the interface is suitable for most of the people I know and can be easily explained in 15 minutes to users via phone. Users seem to be more independent and need little to be explained.

Now, of course this is not entirely true with people who know the older interfaces and do not want to migrate, because they might know some shortcuts, and use Office more on a gesture-driven manner. But once you explain to them the logic (sometimes it's quite difficult to break old paradigms), they are able to move freely.
-Izcoatl

I don't like the ribbon and I resent software that requires me to waste time relearning an interface. The ribbon is very ironic. Microsoft worked hard to standardize application menus -- File on the left with open, save, save as, Help on the right. And they're the ones ruining the consistent Windows application interface.

I had a hard enough time as it was teaching my mother how to use a computer. The one thing I had going for me was saying, "Once you learn one application, you've learned 25 percent of all of them due to consistent menus, icon usage..."
-Anonymous

As for the ribbon, it takes quite a while to overcome the years of training and usage of the old-style menu, but I'm finally there. To be honest, it is only marginally better overall than the previous iterations, and as such will take many years of use to make up for the productivity lost in the transition. Why they didn't make the old UI available as a user installation or configuration option is beyond me.

Change for the sake of significant improvement is good. Change for the sake of change -- to provide a slick, new UI, or as a marketing gimmick -- is yet another form of the asinine in practice.
-John

I don't like the ribbon.
-Rick

But most readers agree that free XP and Office 2003 support shouldn't have ended this week:

Free support should not end until at least five years after the product is pulled from the market. Ending support and sales at the same time is so counter to good customer service as to qualify as asinine. In fact, since both products can still be purchased -- from Microsoft, no less -- and in the case of XP, still being produced and sold on current and future systems, even asinine doesn't describe the massive stupidity behind the move.
-John

XP Home is still selling, and apparently selling well, on many different netbook models. To (the generally clueless) home consumers, Microsoft not supporting XP makes no sense and will annoy a lot of new netbook buyers as soon as they need to call support. (Corporate users should be OK, because they aren't so clueless. And in their case, if something doesn't work, it's often just cheaper and easier to just replace or rebuild the system.)

My take: XP should be generally supported at least until six to nine months after Windows 7 ships and is in general availability. Which means probably around July or so next year. Microsoft has relented on these dates before and should do so again. Microsoft should grin and bear it to keep its customers happy.
-Matt

I'm not sure what the answer to ending mainstream support is, but I don't think it is time yet. We have three machines running Vista out of 100-plus running XP, and I still have more issues with the three than with the other 100-plus combined.
-Tom

As for when to end free support, I don't know. MS might be getting too greedy with its monopoly. I've switched to OpenOffice at home and the "community" does pretty good at support. OpenOffice isn't there yet, but it's close.
-Rick

A manufacturer I used to work for had a policy that the product was supported for seven years after the last date that product was sold by the manufacturer. That always sounded fair to me. I think Microsoft is dropping support for Office 2003 and Windows XP way too soon. I like you thoughts that the new product be a reasonable replacement for the old, but that is not always possible.
-John

Once again Microsoft is doing what it must to force consumers to buy their products. Microsoft does not care about inconveniences to the average computer user; Microsoft cares about Microsoft's bottom line. Who wants to have to totally relearn everything? Windows Vista and Office 2007 may be 'better' (whatever that means), but many of us may never know.
-Paul

And John, who above shared his thoughts about XP/Office support ending and the Office ribbon (both asinine, in his opinion), leaves us with one more gripe:

And while I'm bending your ear regarding the asinine, let's whittle on the wooden-headed morons that decided it would be a good idea to continue taking full-year subscriptions on OneCare when the product is going to cease to exist in a matter of months.

I renewed a business license for the product last month and was charged the full-year subscription rate, even though they'll be killing it off in a couple more months. Charging a full year's subscription fees for a product that's going away in a quarter of that time is, you got it, asinine.
-John

More reader letters to come on Monday, including a few on XP-to-Windows 7 upgrade paths, security and more. Meanwhile, leave your comments below or send an e-mail to [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 17, 20090 comments

Bots Won't Stop

This is why botnets are on the rise, at least according to Symantec, with attacks increasing almost a third last year.

Symantec also argues that botnet authors are getting sneakier and more obnoxious, and their attacks "are much more silent but much more deadly." And we all know how nauseating that can be.

Posted by Doug Barney on April 17, 20090 comments

Microsoft Branding Is All About 2010

Microsoft product names can be confusing, and when you get used to one, Microsoft is liable to change it on you. It also has names like Word, Project and Windows Server that actually describe function. Then it has names that don't mean a thing but are just meant to sound cool, like Zune and Vista.

Next year a tiny bit of this confusion will go away as key products all get the 2010 tag. And as part of its new naming scheme, Microsoft is renaming Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) as just Microsoft SharePoint Server. Be still, my heart!

Posted by Doug Barney on April 17, 20090 comments

XP and Office Support Saga

If Vista and Office 2007 were easy transitions, I'd cut Microsoft some slack. But Vista is a known nuisance and the new Office 2007 interface is more confusing than a conversation with Paula Abdul. My quick take? If the software can be installed and work properly on existing hardware, not utterly confuse the customer, and has a reasonable upgrade price, then phasing out free support is justified. Neither Vista nor Office 2007 seem to suit this rather simple criteria.

When is the right time to end free support, and who out there likes the ribbon? Answers to either question equally welcome at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 15, 20091 comments

IE an Intranet Attack Vector?

Regardless of the extra measures, IE 8 and earlier versions have one big flaw, at least according to one security firm: There are four core security settings and the one for internal networks, intranets, is too lax. This could allow scumbag loser hacker creeps to creep into your network and have their way. The saving grace? The hackers need some detail on how your intranet interface looks.

I wouldn't mind more of us using honeypots to lure these hackers in, solid forensics to find out who they are, and law enforcement to nab 'em. Even better, how about a few Navy Seals? Should more be done to identify hackers and would you implement technology that helps? Calm, rational and off-your-rocker commentary welcome at [email protected].

Posted by Doug Barney on April 15, 20090 comments