Michael Desmond is editor in chief of
Redmond
Developer News, our magazine for corporate development managers (we
also own
Visual
Studio Magazine).
Last week, Mr. Desmond tackled
an issue we've been talking about here: whether Microsoft can move from
a maker of packaged software to a services company. And like this here Redmond
Report, the real insight came from readers.
In Desmond's case, several developers made a strong case for why Microsoft
will have trouble adapting to cloud computing. They had me convinced -- until
a reader who goes by "smehaffie" argued that Microsoft can sit back
and watch this whole area evolve while it quietly crafts a killer cloud solution.
Desmond isn't buying smehaffie's argument, but I might be!
Posted by Doug Barney on July 16, 20080 comments
Citrix this week announced "
Project
Kensho" (which is a Zen term referring to one's initial enlightenment),
a set of tools that should make your choice of hypervisor, as Dr. Evil might
say, "inconsequential."
Kensho tools take advantage of Open Virtual Format (OVF), a standard that lets
IT and application makers build virtual machines that run independent of the
hypervisor. This way, a VM could be easily moved from VMware to Xen to Hyper-V.
Here's how Simon Crosby, Citrix CTO, described Kensho in a recent
blog:
"Kensho will allow application vendors and IT users to produce virtual
appliances once as 'golden application templates,' independent of the virtualization
platform used to deploy them -- and is a clear demonstration of how Citrix
will add value to Hyper-V."
Another advantage of Kensho? It will eventually let Microsoft System Center
VMM manage other hypervisors such as XenServer. Microsoft has got to love that.
With this kind of interop, does the hypervisor even matter? What do you think,
and what is your favorite virtual tool? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 16, 20080 comments
\Alanis Morrissette made the word "ironic" famous in her song "Isn't
It Ironic?" Well, Microsoft may be the black fly in Google and Yahoo's
chardonnay as Redmond is trying to get the U.S. Congress to put the kibosh on
the Google/Yahoo ad deal. According to Microsoft, the deal would
create
a monopoly in Web ads, as the duo would control some 90 percent of the market.
Here's the ironic(al) part. Microsoft has been trying to buy Yahoo and ultimately
wants to corner that same market. And what kind of share does Microsoft have
in desktop operating systems, productivity suites and browsers? Isn't that ironic,
don't you think?
What do you think? Shoot your thoughts, ironic or not, to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 16, 20080 comments
SQL Server 2008 is nearly here, and it's still 2008! Microsoft says the software
will
be released to manufacturing by the end of September, and then out to customers
a short time later.
I poke fun, but on the server side Microsoft has been hitting its dates pretty dang well. Hyper-V was even early.
We took a look at the database tool, formerly code-named "Katmai" (which is a volcano in Alaska), and found SQL Server 2008 to have tighter integration with Visual Studio, and more ways to deal with alternative types of data, such as music and video clips.
We also took a peek at SQL Server 2008's admin features, finding that its new admin framework can have a big, positive impact on performance.
Posted by Doug Barney on July 15, 20080 comments
This spring, Microsoft's Office Open XML file format was approved as an ISO standard. But not all were pleased. Several countries -- Venezuela, Brazil, India and South Africa -- all objected and filed appeals. Now an
ISO document has emerged that points to those appeals falling on deaf (or at least disinterested) ears.
When it comes to standards, Microsoft is darned if it does, and danged is it doesn't. For years Microsoft has been bashed for not doing enough to support existing standards, and even less to offer its own technologies to standards bodies. So when Microsoft offers its Office file formats, the critics complain that the process was flawed. I'm glad to that ISO appears to be making the right choice here.
What would you want to see done with the file format? Is Microsoft doing a
good job supporting standards? Shoot your ideas to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 15, 20080 comments
You would think that when billions of dollars are at stake, the stake holders would all have their stories straight. But Yahoo and Microsoft have
very different versions of what led to the offer Microsoft made to acquire Yahoo's search business.
The offer was made on Friday and fairly promptly rejected by the Yahoo-ites. This surprised Microsoft, which claims that the chairman of the Yahoo board, Roy Bostock, solicited the offer. After receiving the offer that Bostock allegedly asked for, called Microsoft's behavior "erratic and unpredictable."
Say what you will about the folks in Redmond, I've never seen them all erratic and unpredictable. In fact, every time I've seen the company act erratic, it was part of a greater plan.
What is your sense of Microsoft's behavior, especially since Gates has steadily
given up power? Your thoughts welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 15, 20080 comments
A few months back when we wrote our cover story about
Microsoft possibly buying Yahoo, we knew it would be a long slog and the deal may never happen. We wrote the story anyway, analyzing what
would happen
if Microsoft bought Yahoo.
The on-again, off-again deal is still on-or-off, but one thing we know for sure is that Microsoft is changing the terms. In an offer made this weekend -- which Yahoo rejected -- instead of paying $33 billion for the whole kit and kaboodle (that would be a good name for an Internet company, instead of Googling, you could Kaboodle), Ballmer now wants just the search part -- for $1 billion. You mean to tell me that Yahoo search is only 1/33 of the value of the entire company? Of course, Ballmer promised some future payments and would even loan Yahoo a billion or two at 5 percent interest.
If such a deal were to happen, the rest of Yahoo would go to Carl Icahn, who has messed up a company or two in his time (such as TWA), as he tends to rip out all the parts of value. Lately, though, Icahn has been putting wobbly companies back on solid footing -- a nice change of pace.
Yahoo, for its part, seems confused. There are reports that it wants to go back to the $33 billion offer that is off the table. At the same time, some Yahoo-ians are accusing Microsoft of meddling, trying to create a new Yahoo board (for a company Microsoft doesn't own) and break up Yahoo (which it is also clearly trying to do).
Google CEO Eric Schmidt is solidly in Yahoo's corner. Schmidt, who is cutting an ad deal with Yahoo, said he believes Yahoo should remain independent. I get the feeling Schmidt doesn't want any more competition from Microsoft.
Posted by Doug Barney on July 14, 20080 comments
ZoneAlarm users who thought they were doing a good thing by patching their Windows DNS servers got a bit of a surprise -- the DNS fix
locked ZoneAlarm out of the Internet, making it impossible for the CheckPoint security software to properly do its job.
If you have this problem, head to http://www.checkpoint.com for a fix.
Meanwhile experts say this problem should not deter you from using the DNS patch, as it helps thwart spoofing attacks.
Posted by Doug Barney on July 14, 20080 comments
From our previous item, it's clear just how important it is to patch, regardless of occasional conflicts. But many using Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) recently found that the server update service
can't update their servers. Microsoft has already fixed the software that is itself designed to fix software.
My guess is that the rush to fix problems is creating flawed patches and conflicts with other bits of software. What say you? Is the speed or the stability of a patch more important? Send your answers to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 14, 20080 comments
Yesterday,
we talked about Diane Greene's departure as the head of VMware. I suspected
intrigue and it seems I was correct.
Our
reporting is now showing a rift between the independent-minded Greene and
EMC execs, who actually own the company.
We don't have all the details, but a sticking point appears to be just how
separate VMware should be from the EMC mother ship. Greene seemed to want total
freedom, while EMC was looking for a bit more oversight.
It will be interesting to see what changes happen now. Will there be more integration
between EMC storage and VMware? Will the branding change at all? And if EMC
takes more control, will it damage the relationship with Microsoft?
If you have any answers, or just more questions, send 'em to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 10, 20080 comments
Confused about
Microsoft
licensing? You're not alone. Robert is, too -- and he thinks that's all
part of the plan:
I agree with your conclusion: Microsoft's volume licensing is complex
and made so intentionally. While I've attended several MS workshops on licensing,
in the end I find myself asking the Microsoft salesperson what I should purchase
after explaining my needs. The move to sell he software disks separate from
the license has always elicited a raised eyebrow from my clients and invariably
generates an ambience of distrust of the corporation's marketing division.
My target community has always been the non-profit sector. While discounts
are available to this market, that does not change the situation.
-Robert
Count Hans as one of those who think Microsoft would be better off trying to
improve itself than
buying up Yahoo:
I think Ballmer should be more concerned about his company (Microsoft)
producing bug-free, high-quality products rather than trying to bully his
way into another company. In my opinion, Ballmer, Icahn, et al should pursue
other ventures such as may be currently on the drawing board at MS.
-Hans
Readers chime in on Internet
Explorer security, and why it is the way it is:
Until IE is severed from the OS, it will never be more than a convenient
gateway for malicious coders into the core OS.
-D.
There's a good reason why IE was built into the operating system: help
files, which are fundamentally hypertext. Before HTML became popular, help
files (.HLP) were often produced using a set of Word macros (or you needed
some other way to make some weird markup in an .RTF file). A .HLP file was
hard to produce and check, so a lot of applications shipped without online
documentation.
When HTML became popular, it became much easier to make hypertext files,
and MS suddenly found lots of people using and making them. When it introduced
the newer compiled HTML help files (CHM), the developers could use their choice
of HTML editor and have all the links checked, eliminating many problems with
the old .HLP files. Third-party developers could reasonably make online help
-- even if they rarely do. But in order to use HTML as your online help format,
you need to make sure there's an HTML reader, and that it works as expected.
So you almost need to embed some sort of HTML reader into the OS.
-Greg
And finally, at least two of you weren't offended by that Nick
Hogan reference:
I will keep this short and simple. I understand political correctness;
don't offend people. But where do you draw the line? Did anyone die as a result
of your joke? No. I laughed and enjoyed it. Tell an apple what it is: an apple.
-D.W.
I agree with you 100 percent. Chris needs to learn that the truth may
be painful, especially if you are a fan of crap TV and bullsh*t celebrities.
They are scum.
-Alfred
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 10, 20080 comments
If you're a news junkie, you probably know all about the
memo
from Microsoft VP Bill Veghte. But news reports don't have the good, old Barney
attitude and analysis. The memo was a lesson in both candor and obfuscation.
Here's what I picked up:
Bill says Vista is basically awesome, and that we should all move to it as
quickly as possible. He also says that some customers may experience
compatibility problems. "Some" and "may"? This is the very
definition of understatement. The memo skips over Blue Screens and doggish performance.
He does concede that there may be apps you need that won't run on Vista, and
here customers can downgrade to XP. Here's the rub: If you buy a new computer
and want to use XP, you have to buy the more expensive versions of Vista --
either Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. Lower-income families and companies
are stuck with Blue Screens and doggish performance. On the corporate side,
if you have a volume agreement, you have the privilege of sticking with XP.
Then Bill gives some advice on moving to Vista (taking upgrade advice from
Microsoft is like getting liposuction advice from a plastic surgeon: the answer
is always yes). He argues that with service pack 1 and more drivers and app
upgrades, the time is right to move to Vista.
Bill then gives a glimpse of Windows 7. Actually, he says two things about
it that are actually interesting. First, he says Microsoft plans to ship Windows
7 in about a year-and-a-half. Given that it's not in wide testing, I'm more
skeptical than a Zimbabwean voter.
Second -- and this is the first such official proclamation -- Veghte stated
that Windows 7 is based on Vista. For those avoiding Vista and waiting for Windows
7, this means you're simply avoiding Vista to wait for the next version of Vista.
It's also the case that Microsoft is betting its OS future on a good, old-fashioned
fat client.
Is that your future? Let us all know by writing to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on July 10, 20080 comments