A random blogger recently made a rather 
stunning 
  prediction: That Xen is as good as dead. His logic? Citrix, which bought 
  Xen, is so wedded to Microsoft that it will kill Xen in favor of Hyper-V. 
I interviewed Citrix chief Mark Templeton for the premiere issue of Virtualization 
  Review magazine (you can check out the article here). 
  The interview came just as Microsoft and Citrix were announcing a multiyear 
  cooperation agreement over virtualization. The deal calls for both companies 
  to support each others' hypervisors, Hyper-V and Xen, and work on interoperability. 
I asked Templeton how he can support Microsoft's Hyper-V and still give his 
  full weight to Xen. It's a delicate balancing act, but Templeton explained that 
  he would leave it up to customers. He also made it clear that he wouldn't be 
  at all shy about pushing Hyper-V.
That is the kind of talk that got Brian Madden, the blogger, speculating that 
  Xen was ultimately dead.
Virtualization Review Editor Keith Ward took on the issue in his 
  own blog.
My take? Citrix and Microsoft have had complementary and competitive products 
  in the thin client space for years. And Xen, more than anything, is an open 
  source tool that helps Citrix build relationships with the likes of Sun, IBM 
  and Novell. I don't think it's going anywhere.
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 10, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    We've been talking a lot about Microsoft's challenges in Web services. This 
  is an area we explore in our recent 
Redmond 
  magazine cover story where we conclude that on the enterprise side, Microsoft 
  has done a fine job turning server-bound tools like Exchange into software services. 
  We saw less progress on the consumer side -- the space where Google happily 
  resides. 
Part of Microsoft's strategy is called Software Plus Services. The idea is 
  to take regular old hard drive applications and enhance them with a few Web 
  goodies. This is the exact approach taken by Equipt, 
  formerly called Project Albany. 
Aimed largely at consumers, customers get a license to a low-end version of 
  Office for three machines and Web-based security including antivirus through 
  OneCare. Microsoft is also tossing in a bunch of Office Live services which, 
  as far as I can tell, are already 
  free.
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    With Steve Ballmer's 
continued 
  push to overthrow the Yahoo board, Doug asked readers yesterday whether 
  buying Yahoo is even a good idea. Here's what some of you had to say:
   Should Ballmer buy Yahoo? Simple answer: NO!
    -Anonymous
  This makes no sense at all. You have an open source culture in one company 
    and one of the most proprietary cultures in another. Also, the DOJ should 
    can this deal as being bad for consumers -- one less chat system out there. 
    For as bad as "Yahell" is claimed to be, it has features no one 
    else has; it just doesn't leverage them via advertising very well. Then you 
    also have overlap in the online ad industry. 
  This should not be allowed -- period.
    -Bruce
  When I bought my 100 shares of Yahoo five or six years ago and saw it 
    split two for one a year or so later, I thought I had boarded the gravy train. 
    I've seen nothing since. So what have I got to look forward to? Maybe it would 
    be nice to exchange my Yahoo for MS. I'd be willing if they offered -- just 
    to have something different now.
    -Steve
And readers share their thoughts on what would make IE 8 more 
  secure than its predecessors:
   IE 8 would be several LARGE steps in the right direction if all support 
    for iFrames, ActiveX controls and Java were withdrawn, and if JavaScripts 
    were allowed only for browser-related actions rather than for system activity. 
    Certainly, those are my default Internet settings in IE 6, which I override 
    only for Internet banking and for editing my GooglePages.
    -Fred
  IE 8 intregration? No! I really think that anything that has the potential 
    for compromising the system should not be tightly integrated into the OS, 
    EVER. Browsers are the attack point of choice these days, so why would you 
    want something you know is going to be a serious security problem to be tightly 
    integrated with your OS?
   The only reason -- and one of the reasons Microsoft has overpowered the 
    competition -- is the features and ease of use to be gained by that integration. 
    Microsoft's previous approach was to focus on features and ease of use even 
    if it meant that security had to be compromised, and look where that got it. 
    It is really exciting when a design flaw in IE allows another program, e.g., 
    Safari, to compromise your system and open it up to attack...NOT!
    -Anonymous
  I gave up on Internet Explorer during the IE 6 era, when Firefox came 
    along. To get me to go back to IE for anything other than Windows Update, 
    it would have to be as easy to use as Firefox is. I really doubt that Microsoft 
    can make anything that easy anymore. Vista was enough for me to realize that 
    it has really lost sight of what the users are trying to do. Most of my home 
    computing now is done through Linux and I am really now looking at a Mac.
   Just for the record, I am one of the legion of "Mort" programmers 
    who have worked with Microsoft products for years. Still, I find Office 7 
    a major pain to work with and Vista a disaster. Good luck, MS. You'll need 
    it.
    -Angus
  We have applications that run fine in IE 6 but break under IE 7. I shudder 
    to think what additional problems we might run into under IE 8.
    -Thomas
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Diane Greene, whose name is synonymous with VMware, is 
out 
  of a job, replaced by Microsoft vet Peter Maritz.
VMware founder Greene has been a good friend of the Redmond Media Group. Editor 
  Ed Scannell interviewed Greene twice in recent months, once for a cover 
  story in Redmond magazine and again for a cover 
  story in Virtualization Review.
VMware is riding high, but has some huge challenges. Its biggest issue: pricing. 
  Right now, VMware is more full-featured than Hyper-V, but also far more expensive.
The Rhodesian-born Maritz is a bit of an inside pick. His cloud computing company, 
  Pi Corp., was recently acquired by VMware owner EMC, and it was Joe Tucci, EMC 
  chief and VMware chairman of the board, who made the announcement of Greene's 
  departure (er, dismissal).
I interacted a fair amount with Maritz during his 14 years at Microsoft. He 
  always came across as intensely bright and intensely competitive. The tough-as-nails 
  Maritz also got into hot water during the antitrust prosecution of Microsoft 
  after reportedly threatening to "cut off Netscape's air supply," something 
  Microsoft effectively did. 
Now Maritz is on the other side, defending VMware against Hyper-V which is 
  essentially bundled with an OS. Will Microsoft cut off Maritz's air supply? 
  Will there be a détente? Will Microsoft buy VMware? Your answers welcome 
  at [email protected].
Our best wishes go out to Diane who did an amazing job and was always kind 
  to our group of magazines.
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Microsoft last week added a new element to its already sprawling array of licensing 
  options. 
Select 
  Plus Volume Licensing is a new wrinkle for the Select program. 
The key features? There's one ID for the entire company and, by unifying buying, 
  it should make it easier to earn discounts.
This sounds like a good thing, but as with anything involving licensing, the 
  devil is in the details, and the details are the devil. The problem is there 
  are too many details. 
I spent months studying Microsoft licensing and learned enough to write two 
  cover stories, one on Software 
  Assurance and another on negotiating 
  with Microsoft. But I felt I never completely got it -- and that may be 
  part of the plan. The complexity makes it harder for customers, who need it 
  all explained -- and by whom? Microsoft? 
There is help. First, Scott Braden is the man when it comes to licensing. The 
  only man who can almost make it sound simple, he taught me 90 percent of what 
  I know on the subject. Scott's company, Microsoft Secrets, was acquired and 
  is now part of (NET)net; here's 
  its Web site.
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 09, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Microsoft isn't a company known for giving up easily -- and in the case of 
  Yahoo, it's still stubbornly gunning for a deal. 
You probably recall that after Ballmer’s $40 billion-plus bid was rejected, 
  Microsoft gave up the chase, only to see Carl Icahn start to buy 
  up shares, manipulate 
  the board, try 
  to get the deal done with Microsoft, and then cash in on the premium Microsoft 
  would have to pay.
Seems like Ballmer is now fine 
  with that approach, and is himself pushing for the Yahoo board to be largely 
  overthrown so he can buy all or a part of the company.
I still think it’s a bad deal...but then again, Ballmer is worth $15 
  billion and I’m just an underpaid journalist. 
Now imagine this scenario: Ballmer and Icahn end up replacing the Yahoo board, 
  but then Microsoft doesn’t even buy the company. Imagine the fallout. 
Should Ballmer buy Yahoo? Your erudite answers welcome at [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Hopefully you all had a relaxing long holiday weekend, but now it's back to 
  the grind. And today 
is 
  patching time again as Microsoft plans to roll out four fixes. 
Fortunately, they're all only "important," which is far less serious 
  than "critical."
SQL Server is getting protection against elevation-of-privilege attacks, and 
  Microsoft continues to plug remote code execution flaws.
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Microsoft has long known it had a security problem with Internet Explorer, and 
  it has struggled mightily to fix it. The company now argues that IE 8, now in 
  beta, will be 
far 
  more secure than any of its predecessors. 
Chief among the protections are a way to stop cross-site scripting exploits, 
  and safer surfing of social networking Web sites. There are also ways to keep 
  hackers from jumping from an individual PC to the entire network. 
What can Microsoft do to make IE safer? Should it remain a part of the OS and 
  thus near-impossible to remove? Send your thoughts to [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Readers chime in on a grab-bag of topics -- the 
Hyper-V 
  debate that isn't, the pros and cons of cloud computing, and Bill Gates' 
  
post-retirement 
  plans:
   Here's what has been annoying me about this Hyper-V versus VMware "debate": 
    There's nothing to debate! People are approaching this as though Microsoft 
    should be eviscerated for coming out with a 1.0 product -- how dare they! 
    You mean Hyper-V version 1.0 doesn't match up feature-for-feature with ESX, 
    a product that VMware has been working on for years? Well, that's no surprise, 
    and I'm a bit astounded that people are acting so vehemently about this.
   I for one am excited about Hyper-V. It's apparently targeted precisely 
    at a shop my size. We have about 12 servers and around four or five of them 
    are ready to be replaced so, for me, Hyper-V looks a lot more attractive than 
    spending thousands on ESX features I don't need. We may someday need a more 
    robust product, fine, but for the time being, I think Hyper-V is going to 
    be just what the doctor ordered. So I wish people would get off their soapboxes 
    and use whichever product suits them and leave everyone else alone to do the 
    same thing.
    -Greg
  There is no choice in the browser wars! There are too many sites and devices 
    on the Internet that do not play well with any browser but Internet Explorer. 
    Our corporate HR Web site will not even let a user log in with a browser other 
    that Internet Explorer.
   Firefox is my default browser at home. It's fast, clean and functional. 
    I use it for everything except the corporate stuff (and my Web cam). I have 
    never been hijacked or seen a drive-by download using it. But I have been 
    asked to clean more than my share of computers when the users (running IE), 
    despite having AV and anti-spyware software installed, get stuck with a useless 
    machine due to Internet pop-ups and browser hijacking.
    -Tom
  I love cloud computing for my own business and I am sure that others who 
    try will, too. But there is a downside: Customisation is real tricky. So yes, 
    I agree, the clouds are approaching fast, but once in the cloud, your business 
    better fit the model or you are not going to be able to fine-tune your business 
    model at all, wasting any savings that you might make.
    -Garry
  Perhaps I simply have a firm grasp of the obvious reason Billy Boy allegedly 
    "retired": He is taking over the programming aspect of Microsoft 
    once again, where he started, to be sure the next OS is not the embarrassment 
    that Vista is, and will continue to be. Vista is to Windows 7 what Windows 
    ME was to Windows XP -- simply a test product at the consumer's expense. After 
    all, the stock price of Microsoft has dropped and he is no longer the wealthiest 
    man on this planet. Ouch!
    -R.M.
Finally, reader Chris took 
  offense at the "Nick Hogan-induced coma" line in a recent Redmond 
  Report, and most of you agreed with him -- but that doesn't mean the Hogans 
  got off scot-free:
   I have to agree with Chris. Your choice of that reference was in poor 
    taste. No other analogy came to mind?
    -Mercury
  Regarding your Hogan controversy, I agree that it is offensive to refer 
    to the victim's condition as some fun, pop-culture reference. I understand 
    and share your disdain for the Hogans but think you displayed it in the wrong 
    fashion.
    -Peter
  The whole Hogan tirade was in the wrong venue. Get a new frame of reference. 
    Subscribe to Google Good News.
    -Gordon
  Clever, but yes, it was in poor taste, because while Nick Hogan and Hulk 
    Hogan are indeed the dirtbags you proclaim them to be, the young man in the 
    coma is not. Cut him a little slack for not hearing of Bill Gates' retirement 
    due to his current circumstances.
    -Phil
  Surely your reader was referring to the victim when he cried foul, and 
    not in support of a douchebag like Nick Hogan. Anyone that has watched Hulk 
    Hogan over the decades knows that he's always been a douche. His latest antics 
    are nothing new. I can't believe anyone would be upset because you pointed 
    out the foul behavior of one of these sociopaths.
    -Gerry
  As for Hulk Hogan wearing his do-rag to court, I can only say that every 
    true Texan knows a gentleman never wears his hat indoors. Even legendary Texan 
    and Houston Oilers coach Bum Phillips never wore his Stetson inside the Astrodome 
    because it was indoors. Then again, who would ever expect a professional wrestler 
    to be a gentleman?
    -Dave
  I agree with you. The Hogan family does not deserve admiration, respect 
    or attention in any way, shape or form. Anyone who jumps to their defense 
    has been watching too many reality shows!
    -Eric
  Yep, Nick...and his dirtbag dad. Typical liberals -- they don't give a 
    sh*t about anyone but themselves and believe they can do no wrong even when 
    they do.
    -Lloyd
What do you think? Share your thoughts by commenting below or send an e-mail 
  to [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 08, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    I don't use Internet Explorer even though it's still installed on my computer 
  (this thing is dang impossible to take off!). I switched years ago to Firefox 
  before IE 7 came out with tabs, and because Firefox is arguably the safer browser. 
  Plus, it's just cooler -- like an iPod versus a Zune. 
But was that the right choice? Well, according to a new 
  report, it was dead-on. IE is more vulnerable. 
One problem is that despite the well-publicized Patch Tuesdays and automated 
  tools like Windows Update, IE users patch their browsers less than other users. 
  The report also argues that it takes Microsoft too long to find a flaw and write 
  a patch. 
What makes the results just a wee bit suspect? The research was done by IBM 
  and Google. Hmm. 
What's your favorite browser and why? Tell us all by writing [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    Yesterday, 
  I started an item about Bill Gates by saying, "Unless you were living in 
  a bio-dome or were in a Nick Hogan-induced coma, you must have heard that Bill 
  Gates retired last week."
Redmond Report reader Chris took offense and had this to say: 
  "Bad taste, Mr. Barney. I could see that coming from a young staff 
    writer, but not from an editor in chief."
I wrote Chris back to point out that Nick Hogan isn't worth our admiration. 
  Here's that message:
  "Chris,
  Take a look at these two links: 1 
    and 2. 
    Nick Hogan essentially killed his friend, then he and his dad bad-mouthed 
    the victim and plotted to make money from the accident.
   Hulk Hogan showed disrespect to the court by not removing his do-rag 
    even when testifying. Nick Hogan is a dirt bag." 
Agree? Disagree? Sound off by writing me at [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments
          
	
 
            
                
                
 
    
    
	
    On Monday, Doug 
posted 
  a letter from reader Mark who was less than enthusiastic about Hyper-V. 
  Here are some more of your thoughts on the Microsoft hypervisor:
   Sounds like he has a axe to grind. Hyper-V demonstrates a much more mature 
    software product than the pre 1.0 that the reviewer exclaims. I have found 
    Hyper-V to be an extremely stable and flexible product with a full Windows 
    2008 install or with a Server Core, the latter being much more locked down 
    and hacker-safe.
   In the next year or two, this product will have "world-class" 
    written all over it.
    -Howard 
  The issue at hand is that everyone (including Microsoft) is comparing 
    this product to VMware ESX. Just because they strip the Start menu out of 
    the OS to make Server Core, doesn't mean this is a bare-bones hypervisor. 
    It's merely an evolution of Virtual Server allowing deeper penetration into 
    VMware-entrenched territory. Now with the use of clustering, you can perform 
    cold migrations and have the ability to use a ridiculous amount of processors 
    in a VM.
   There are other more glaring problems than killing a host through the 
    parent partition -- like not being able to over-commit the level of RAM or 
    iSCSI-only support. Hyper-V is a good ESX 1.0 competitor but no one will take 
    it seriously until you get those two limitations straightened out, along with 
    Live Migration.
    -Lee
  I have been using Hyper-V for about two months with few problems except 
    for the following:
  
    -  NO support for wireless adapters. Yes, you may argue that there is 
      no place for wireless in a server environment, but what about us developers 
      who emulate the complete client system on our laptops? I have been told 
      that the reason is that Microsoft can not clone the MAC address of the wireless 
      -- but it worked with Virtual PC!
-  Still no USB support.
 As to running out of resources on the root/parent machine, that has never 
    been a problem. I have configured it as core and not used the core machine 
    for anything (other than Hyper-V). Bottom line, I think it is a good product 
    and will become even better when Exchange 2007 is certified to run on Hyper-V.
    -Tim
  VMware Enterprise has many very cool features that Hyper-V lacks, but 
    the reality is that Hyper-V is version 1 and really cheap to buy and use! 
    For a test environment, it works great and is easy to use and set up. Heck, 
    VMware now gives some of its products away for free in reaction to/anticipation 
    of Microsoft's entry to the virtualization market.
   The writing is on the wall for VMware. By the time Hyper-V is in rev 
    3 or 4, it will be able to support enterprise virtualization very well. Why 
    pay 5K a processor for VMware Enterprise when you can get it much cheaper 
    in Windows? Why hire a VMware OS expert when anyone that can admin Windows 
    can admin Hyper-V?
    -Chris
  I'm planning to try Hyper-V as a small computer science experiment so 
    that I can run Vista and XP in parallel. Toward this end, I built a new machine. 
    I've installed Vista Ultimate on this machine while waiting for the Hyper-V 
    RTM and discovered that it does a good job of supporting the hardware the 
    Vista analyzer said wouldn't be supported (Epson Perfection 1650 scanner and 
    ATI HDTV Wonder). But even so, I want to continue with my experiment to see 
    what happens and possibly write up my experience for the benefit of others. 
    This is going to be a budget project; I got Vista Ultimate and a one-year 
    Windows 2008 trial from Microsoft for free. Now my wait for Hyper-V is over 
    and I'm ready to start. 
   But where to start? This is the purpose of this e-mail. Do I have to 
    build a new system from scratch, starting with Win08, reinstall Vista, etc.? 
    Or can I "import" an existing installation of Vista and install 
    a new version of XP? And what do I do with the downloadable images Microsoft 
    provides? Should I use a core Win08 60-day trial and just extend it three 
    more times as Microsoft suggests? Then can I update that install with my one-year 
    trial product key? Can I extend my one-year trial three times? Does virtualization 
    share peripheral hardware (i.e., NICs) or do I really need to have two machines 
    worth of hardware on one motherboard? It doesn't seem likely that two OSes 
    can share the same MAC/IP address, I must admit, but that would be quite a 
    problem if I wanted to run 12 OSes as "astute reader Mark" desires 
    to do. 
   Keep the info coming. I'm indeed about as giddy as Mark suggests but 
    I'm not going to let his comments spoil my buzz. I can see from his comments 
    why an actual server administrator might be a bit less than over-enthused 
    by Hyper-V 1.0. If I can get just XP Pro and Vista Ultimate to coexist, I'll 
    be one happy camper.
    -Eric 
And after Doug's 
  announcement that he's once again manning the Redmond Report column full-time, 
  Gordon wanted to get just one thing straight:
   Not THIS 
    purple dinosaur?!
    -Gordon
Join the fray! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
 
	
Posted by Doug Barney on July 02, 20080 comments