Letters to Redmond

July Reader Letters: Server Success with WS-MAN

• By Readers of Redmond magazine
• 07/01/2012

In a recent IT Decision Maker Blog post, "Windows Server 2012: IT Pros Will Need WS-MAN Remoting Skills (and Not Just for PowerShell)" (May 14, 2012), Don Jones says it's time for IT pros to focus on the Windows PowerShell Remoting protocol WS-MAN. Readers respond:

Love the points mentioned here. Anyone who has had to battle with (or perform implementations as) the infrastructure team at a company for RPC ports totally can getbehind the following excerpt of Jones' column: "Don't think of WS-MAN as another protocol to deal with -- think of it as enabling fewer protocols, as it starts to phase out Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs) and the other scattershot protocols that Windows has relied upon for years."

Yes, there are registry hacks and such you can use to reduce the massive port ranges required for RPC-related services but, honestly, it's long past time to just get past using the protocol altogether.

Zach Lober
Posted online

I work for a Fortune 25 company and I'm struggling to convince my Windows Server Build team to enable Windows PowerShell Remoting when building a server (it's been futile so far). It's good to know that Windows 2012 is doing this by default.

Karthik
Twin Cities, Minn.

I feel it's a bad thing Microsoft is moving away from the GUI to scripting. Scripting has its place, but so does the GUI.

Anonymous
Posted online

Naming Nuisances
In his June Barney's Rubble column ("Name Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes"), Doug Barney lamented the many, changing names of Microsoft products. He asked readers for their thoughts on Microsoft naming conventions:

The name changes and packaging changes (Ultimate? Professional? Enterprise?) are difficult to deal with in a large organization where purchasing and administration groups want absolute lists of approved software items. When the names and versions and editions keep changing, it turns into a bureaucratic headache to keep everyone on the same page. This may not be a problem in smaller organizations, but mine is very large.

Bob

I agree with Barney. I'm sick and tired of Microsoft changing the names of the successors to its applications. I'm a Microsoft guy all the way, but it's getting to the point where I'm hoping some new company will rise up and take the market away from it. I'm not crazy about Steve Ballmer's legacy and initiative to bring everything into the cloud, either. I hope it backfires on him. I actually miss Bill Gates' legacy, which was just Windows.

Kevin Compateso

Barney needs to get over the Microsoft naming thing. As long as we know what Microsoft means, it doesn't really matter what the company calls its products. Also, if Microsoft picks a decent development nickname (a big "if" for Microsoft, I know), we might continue to use it after release, like we're doing with Google Ice Cream Sandwich. Does anyone actually remember what that version number is? Who cares, and that's the point.

Tony Sheehan
Cairns, Queensland, Australia

Partner Decisions
In her June 2012 column ("Are Two Underdogs Better than One?"), Mary Jo Foley suggests that Microsoft has paired with underdog companies in markets such as smartphones, tablets and slates -- areas in which Microsoft itself is also an underdog. A reader comments on these underdog alliances:

I happen to love the Barnes & Noble (B&N) Nook line and bought the Nook Color when it first came out. I have a large investment in Nook and e-books, and want to see B&N succeed where Borders failed. Amazon has a lot of money behind Kindle and Kindle Fire, but it can't dominate the market itself.

I'm glad to see Microsoft put some money behind B&N to help speed up Nook development (running Windows 8 instead of Android) or at least a Nook app for Windows 8.

Darren Baker
Seattle, Wash.