When it comes to open source, Microsoft has a balancing act that would be tough for Philippe Petite. Redmond must pacify shareholders by hanging onto commercial licensing, but it can't totally irritate open source-friendly IT pros. If Microsoft is too much of an open source enemy, IT can turn their backs and move to Linux, MySQL and Apache in droves.
Microsoft argues that it's on the right open source track. It believes that open sourcers should respect Microsoft patents, and conversely Microsoft should interoperate with key open tools.
Recently, Microsoft exec Robert Youngjohns took to the podium at the Open Source Business Conference to argue Redmond's case. Youngjohns pointed to support of open file formats and PHP on Windows as examples of the new open source détente.
Posted by Doug Barney on April 03, 20090 comments
On Monday,
Doug asked readers what it would take for them to make the switch to a non-Microsoft OS shop. Here are some of your takes:
It wouldn't take much. We have Ubuntu Live CDs for both 8.04.1 and 8.04.2 that we're playing with. Both easily recognized all the hardware on a year-old Acer notebook -- and they offer a pretty slick experience. As soon as we reorganize the partitioning of the HD, we'll at least start a dual book Vista/Ubuntu setup.
Not that we're very much of a "shop" -- just a two-person home-based nano-publisher, doing it all ourselves.
-Fred
Very good pricing on the product. Free, competent, easily accessible support.
-Anonymous
The answer is more courage than is currently available among the c-level execs, and certainly more resources for their IT personnel. Any change has difficulty meeting a cost-benefit ratio that's strong enough to give those execs the courage to say, "Go for it!" It has always been, "What is the cheapest way we can do this and maintain it?"
As a mobile computing and communication consultant, I see an amazing lack of courage to make smart decisions simply because few people get fired for making no changes. The bottom line is that IT people will always make what appears to be or is defensible as the safest choice, even when it may not be the best or safest option.
-Jim
First, let me say that I am a big fan of Linux. But for us, it would take something that Linux apparently will never have: the ability to run Windows apps the same way that Windows does. We have too many critical programs that we must run that have no Linux counterpart.
The other issue is that Linux still has some problems that Windows doesn't when it comes to installing software and updates. I recently installed the new openSUSE 11.1 and was disappointed by things that didn't work, by how slow the update process is, by how much of a pain it still is to deal with installing some software. I originally planned to run virtual machines on top of the new SUSE install but failed to get either VMware or VirtualBox to install. I was also disappointed that SUSE didn't perform well. It was faster for me to wipe out SUSE, install Windows and then install the virtual server software of my choice -- much faster. Windows performed much better on the same hardware than did SUSE. I had always thought of Windows as a resource hog but clearly this is not true.
-Andre
For the most part, we have moved to an all-Linux shop. The only holdout is our QuickBooks computer because there is no open source equivalent that our accountant recognizes. The ability to run QuickBooks is what is holding most of my clients hostage to Windows.
-Joseph
I already moved to a non-Microsoft OS and it was because of Vista. I have a pretty good powered system and was very disappointed in the performance difference between XP and Vista. I currently run Ubuntu 8.1 as my primary operating system and have XP, Vista and Win 7 running in VirtualBox for the times I need to jump into Windows. I've found that I am able to do 95 percent of what I want to do in Linux and the few times I can't, I use a virtual machine. It's nice not worrying so much about viruses and spyware, but I'll have to say that I haven't experienced the nirvana that others claim to have with never having to reboot, even after updates.
I've always been a Windows guy and have never been one of the MS bashers, but the increasingly onerous WGA problems have caused some of my customers to discuss switching from Windows to Linux or Mac. They are saying that if they are going to have to buy all-new computers to get acceptable performance, retrain their employees on a new OS and MS Office 2007, buy new software, etc., they may as well look at the alternatives. I've had two clients switch to Linux, one is doing a trial on two employees and another is having their software rewritten in a cross-platform language so they have the option of using something other than Windows.
-Matthew
I'd have to say supportability is the key. If a vendor could provide the functionality, security, and enterprise deployment and administration tools that Microsoft provides, I'd consider it. The one question that has silenced every MS basher I've spoken to who has advocated switching from Microsoft products is: "Can I easily deploy (manage, administer, patch, etc.) 1,000 workstations?" The answer is always no, and so they wander off grumbling about MS conspiracies. Microsoft provides a whole host of support and deployment tools so someone is going to have to come up with a similar solution to gain market share.
It was apparent to me that Apple isn't interested in the enterprise market because it could have made huge inroads due to the ongoing Vista fiasco but opted to make humorous commercials instead. And Linux is no threat either, for the same reasons. One has to be an uber-geek to get it to run, and good luck finding support people. At least Vista is sorta like Windows so end users don't have a huge learning curve -- they just spend a lot of time waiting and looking for stuff.
-J.C.
Check in on Friday for more reader letters. In the meantime, submit your own comment below or send an e-mail do [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on April 01, 20090 comments
I've heard all the fear mongering about the Conficker worm. According to some, on April 1 millions of infected PCs will turn into zombies and mindlessly take over the computing universe.
I was around when the year 2000 arrived, and spent the night by my machine ready to post stories on the Web chronicling all the horrors. Turned out to be not so scary.
So far, Conficker looks to be as feeble. I'm halfway through April 1, and my Latitude D520 runs just fine, and no reports of widespread havoc have come out.
Did you take extra precautions to fight off Conficker? Is the real trick that it will come out of hiding April 2? Send your tales to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on April 01, 20090 comments
On Monday we told you about the "Open Cloud Manifesto," a white paper purportedly from the
Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum. Microsoft preempted the release, complaining it was strong-armed into signing it when it had no part in writing it. Redmond declined to sign.
Apparently, sponsors of the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum had no role either, as the group failed to endorse the doc.
Cloud standards are important, but a single white paper apparently written by a renegade cloud activist is not the way to get them.
Posted by Doug Barney on April 01, 20090 comments
The
Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum released a white paper asking that all cloud apps, services and offerings be based on open standards. The paper, with either apologies or kudos to Karl Marx, is named the "Open Cloud Manifesto."
Microsoft shot back, apparently even before the document was released. Microsoft argues that the document is far from egalitarian and is in fact one-sided, allowing a small cadre of vendors to control the means of cloud production and therefore acquire all the das kapital thus created.
So what is the Cloud Computing Interoperability Forum? While it has several sponsors such as IBM, Sun and Cisco, from what I can tell it's largely the work of one man from one vendor. Not sure if it's worth Redmond getting spitting mad over.
Posted by Doug Barney on March 30, 20090 comments
Reports are surfacing that Windows 7 may ship sooner rather than later, good news for OEMs, ISVs, IT...and the HTWE (High-Tech World Economy). A Web page mistakenly put up on TechNet
indicated a May date for the release candidate. This could give an approximate commercial release date well before the end of the year -- meaning it could and should be a merry Windows 7 Christmas!
Posted by Doug Barney on March 30, 20090 comments
Marc shares his own take on Vista's dismal enterprise adoption rates, and what that might mean for future OSes:
About as many in the enterprise adopted Windows 2000 before XP came out as will have adopted Vista by the time that Windows 7 ships. And enterprise adoption always lags well behind consumer adoption. The reasons? First, many enterprise-owned programs were developed in-house, while many others are industry-specific and might be costly to upgrade. It can take months to thoroughly test and upgrade all these applications under the new operating system.
Second, most enterprise customers replace hardware based on three- to five-year lifecycles. Operating system upgrades tend not to happen until at least half of the company workstations have been replaced with new hardware. The fact that service packs are released every 18 months or so may simply be coincidental.
-Marc
Last week, Doug described himself as "more of an old sow than a young buck," prompting one reader to make a very significant correction:
You might want to know that a sow is "an adult female swine." I guess I might as well get used to such city-slicker-style errors as we now have a whole generation of kids who've watched "Barnyard" the movie (which is now a TV servies) where the cows walk upright and both the male and female bovines have udders.
You do know that only female cows have udders?
-Anonymous
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on March 30, 20090 comments
Microsoft hoped that Vista, with its new features and slick new interface, would explode on the market like Little Boy. Instead, this dud is barely ticking. Forrester's latest report states the obvious -- that
enterprises are sticking to XP like grim death while waiting for some Windows 7 relief.
For a normal company, a failure on the scale of Vista would be fatal. But Microsoft's hold on ISVs and OEMs thoroughly protects the Windows monopoly.
What would it take for your shop to move to non-Microsoft desktop operating systems? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on March 30, 20090 comments
Marc thinks the
Vista Capable lawsuit is still much ado over nothing:
I am surprised we are still talking about this! The Vista Capable specs (800MHz, 512MB of RAM) were no more ridiculous than the original Windows 2000/XP specifications (300MHz, 64MB of RAM). Microsoft has a long history of stating MINIMUM specifications which were technically accurate, but deplorable just the same. Should someone have raised a stink in 2000? Probably, but nobody did. Were the Vista Capable specifications misleading? Well, yes! Practically, though, what was the extent of their damages? If you bought a brand-new low-end machine in January 2007, it was equipped with a 3GHz+ Celeron, 512MB of RAM and integrated Aero-capable graphics capability -- and you paid under $400 for the system. At that time, 512MB of RAM cost about $50, so the REAL damages for a buyer of one of those systems was the cost of a RAM upgrade.
If anyone deserves damages regarding the Vista Capable moniker, it was those folks who went out and bought shrink-wrapped Vista code expecting to install Vista on their (circa 2000) 800MHz, 512MB machine. They paid anywhere from $100 to $400 for Vista expecting it to work on LAME hardware. No amount of hardware upgrades would make such a system "acceptable."
-Marc
IE 8 isn't perfect yet, as these readers point out:
I was glad to see the Compatibility View feature in IE 8 but rather quickly found it doesn't work. I have had numerous sites that haven't worked with IE 8 and have tried CV, which still failed to work. The biggest is my Sovereign Banking account which is more or less due to a bug with the Web site, but Compatibility View should still fix it. I get triple-prompted for my log-in on that site with IE 8, which makes viewing my account online with IE 8 a huge security hole.
-Brandon
I installed IE 8 without a problem on Windows XP SP3. However, it wouldn't run. I kept getting a memory error. I searched the Internet for a solution, but couldn't find one. I then opened up the Control Panel and clicked on Internet Options and went through the tabs. I went through the list in the Advanced tab, and when I came to "Enable memory protection to help mitigate online attacks," I unchecked it, clicked Apply, then OK. I retried IE 8 and this time it worked.
I still haven't figured out why having that checked caused a problem.
-Neil
Meanwhile, Windows 7 is still looking promising:
I've been using the Windows 7 beta on a personal notebook, and I am very pleased with it. It's more stable than Vista, seems to be faster and some apps that will run on XP but not on Vista seem to work fine on Windows 7. Hardware compatibility is at least as good as Vista. I have found that MS Office applications frequently die for no good reason in Vista, but not in 7. Nothing I have tried has been less reliable in 7 than in Vista, and several things have run better. At this point, I would not advise anyone to buy a new Vista PC or a Vista upgrade; I would suggest that they wait for Windows 7.
-Anonymous
I am so impressed with Windows 7 that I have loaded it on most everything I can. Being that this is still beta code, I am wondering what the final release will bring. Even as just an end user, I find very few compatibility issues, no lock-ups, and I even see that disk defrag runs on its own schedule! From what I have seen so far, Windows 7 even works better than OS X Leopard. Hell, I am even running Win 7 on my MacBook!
-Mike
Speaking of Windows 7, Gartner recently sent out some mixed signals about the new OS, prompting Doug to ask readers if they trust the opinions of IT research firms. The answer was a resounding "no":
Neither use nor trust them. I believe they are bought and paid for by vendors.
-Anonymous
Every good analyst should know that if you pay the Gartner Group enough, it will say what you want it to. That is what our company found out, anyhow. I would rather read your column and other blogs than trust what they say.
-Kenneth
IT research firms are essentially useless. I have never seen a good example of their research providing useful information, but I have seen several examples of their work being used to support the decision someone has already made. If you look, you can find "research" to support pretty much any position.
I have read many of Gartner's pronouncements over the years, and they seem to fall into one or another of these categories: 1) so obvious that nobody will actually learn anything, 2) essentially meaningless because the writer has hedged so much, and 3) just plain wrong. This is not limited to IT, but I think IT research firms are especially prone to it.
-Anonymous
Maybe I have become jaded in my not-so-old age, but I have come to trust research firms like used car dealers. Avoid them if at all possible, but if not, take everything they say with a grain of salt.
Every time I have asked for one-on-one time with an analyst, I usually get a "handler" and an analyst. I believe the handler reports if the analyst doesn't mention at least three companies (clients, of course) that provide services in the area that you are looking at. Research firms are businesses; they live and die by the revenue they generate. I am not saying that they would be partial, but like with print media, subscriptions alone cannot pay the bills.
-Joe
Tyler shares his thoughts about why the press can sometimes, well, stink:
I blame the degradation of quality within the media on shorter and shorter cycles with editors simply not doing their job. There was a time when editors rode herd on their writers and insisted on quality, second sourcing, fact checking, etc. Now they're just as desperate as the writers to get the story out and pray for a few readers.
Which leads me to the second reason quality is in the crapper: Sturgeon's Law.
-Tyler
But one thing that hasn't degraded in quality is Doug's vivid similes, which regular readers are quite familiar with:
How do you come up with these comparisons that are more colorful than a psychedelic dream sequence?
-Jeff
Watch this space for more reader letters next week! In the meantime, share your own thoughts by commenting below or sending an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on March 27, 20090 comments
I cut my journalistic teeth on MIS and mainframes. As a young buck writing for
Computerworld in 1985, it was all CICS, terminal emulation, spaghetti code and leased big iron. A year or two later, pundits were predicting the death of the mainframe, upon which IBM exercised a Microsoft-esque (big) iron grip.
Twenty-four years later, I'm more of an old sow than a young buck, but the mainframe is as young as ever -- and so are lawsuits over IBM's monopoly. The old mainframe cloners like Amdahl are long gone, turning a mere monopoly into a sheer monopoly. And IBM will do whatever it takes to preserve its market grip.
Platform Solutions built a tool that let commodity servers run mainframe software, and IBM wasn't too happy. It tried to stop Platform, then bought the company so it could shelve the technology that could've changed the fundamental economics of mainframe computing.
Many in the industry are complaining, including a trade organization that counts fellow monopolists Google and Microsoft as members. My guess: IBM's mainframe grip will remain as strong as Google's and Microsoft's.
Posted by Doug Barney on March 27, 20090 comments
Microsoft has more or less conceded Internet search to Google; there's no force powerful enough -- not Yahoo and not MSN Live Search -- that can topple the Google. But enterprise search is another matter, and here Microsoft may at least have a shot, if not an edge.
That's exactly why Redmond bought FAST, a Norwegian search company. It seems that Microsoft will tie the FAST search engine to key server apps, such as SharePoint. This is an open system allowing SharePoint developers to include custom search in their apps.
Posted by Doug Barney on March 27, 20090 comments
There are two reasons mainframes have survived: They handle big apps very well, and there's little benefit to redoing much of this software to run on other architectures. And mainframes, if configured right, are greener than a Tiger Woods dream. The highest-end IBM System z mainframe, for instance, can act as 1,500 separate servers.
I looked into the System z and while it's designed to run Linux VMs, I was told by an expert I trust that there was no architectural reason it couldn't run Windows, as well.
Well, one ISV apparently found a way to make it do so. Mantissa Corp.'s z/VM tool is being prepped, and if it works large shops may be able to save massive amounts of electricity by consolidating Windows servers onto mainframes. That should make two monopolies, IBM and Microsoft, very happy. The electric companies may be less pleased.
Do you still care about mainframes? Big answers to this big iron question can be submitted to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on March 27, 20090 comments