I remember when Symantec was just a pup. I started covering computers in 1984, two years after Symantec started. Back then the company focused on an innovative PC database tool called Q&A.
The big breakthrough came six years later when the company bought Peter Norton Computing and got into security software. That was the beginning a buying spree that saw Symantec snap up Altiris and Veritas, among others.
Now the company hopes to shell out a cool $1.2 billion to buy the authentication and identity pieces of VeriSign. Expect a big battle between Symantec and RSA if this deal gets approved.
What is your take on Symantec? Share your thoughts at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/24/2010 at 1:17 PM5 comments
I recently had a great seafood lunch with Mark Shavlik, founder and CEO of the company that bears his name. Not only is Mark a true technology guru (as aptly profiled in this piece) but he's also one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.
The purpose of our get together was to discuss two new cloud tools -- Opscloud and PatchCloud. PatchCloud replaces server-based patch distribution with cloud-based distribution. Not only is there less to manage, but reportedly the patches can be sent out lightening fast to mass quantities of computers.
OpsCloud takes a similar approach except that it is focused on software management, asset management and the ability to manage ESXi virtual machines.
Are you a Shavlik customer, and if so, why? And does this cloud strategy sound enticing? Answers to both equally welcome at [email protected].
Posted on 05/24/2010 at 1:17 PM0 comments
With the rumor that Microsoft may take their i4i patent case argument to the Supreme Court, here are some of your thoughts on what their next move should be:
Let's recap.
1. Already removed offending code?
2. Lost main lawsuit?
3. Lost appeal case?
4. Fighting fully substantiated Patent Office claim?
5. Looking to waste millions of dollars making wealthy lawyers wealthier?
Oops, sorry about #5 there, just got lost in the moment. Seems their efforts could be better spent and money better invested in coming up with new features or applications to draw in more customers. Or they could make existing customers happier rather that just make wealthy lawyers richer. Must be nice to be able to afford to waste the kind of money they are fixing to give away. Face it -- that money is going to the lawyers, win, lose or draw.
-Ron
You indicate that the i4i patent has been upheld by the USPTO. That being the case, Microsoft would have to argue that:
- Despite two jury trials, they did not violate the i4i patent, or
- The previous award was not justified
Either one is a crapshoot for Microsoft and my guess that that it would cost Microsoft less to just settle with i4i than it would to send their (undoubtedly high-priced) lawyers to DC.
If the i4i patent was still pending, that would be one thing, but the patent office has made it official so I don't see that Microsoft can justify the cost of litigating it further.
-Marc
Put the lawyers to better use -- firing range targets.
-Bill
One reader calls out Doug on his perceived writing laziness:
"Virt?" Is it that much trouble to type those three extra letters for "Virtual?" Please don't start another word shortening piece of nonsense; you're a much better writer than to do that.
-Anonymous
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/21/2010 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Microsoft made a pitch for the small-business telephony market with the Response Point phone system. Apparently not enough customers answered the call as the cord was pulled on Response late last week.
If you think this is Microsoft admitting failure, you'd be wrong. Instead of pushing Response, Microsoft is hoping small business will opt for Office Communications Server (OCS), a richer and more modern offering.
Are you using or evaluating OCS? If so, what do you think? Let us know at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/21/2010 at 1:17 PM4 comments
There is a found flaw in many anti-virus tools that actually provides a perfect entrée for hackers to spread, you guessed it, viruses!
The flaw was found by security concern Matousec, with whom Microsoft is now working with to close the hole. The exposure comes through "hooking," where anti-virus vendors modify the Windows kernel to tie in more tightly.
Access the kernel is the Holy Grail for hackers, and apparently software from Symantec, Trend Micros, McAfee and Sophos all allow this to happen.Some security firms are downplaying the concerns, claiming these attacks are so difficult to pull off as to be a non-issue.
What do you think? Are security firms doing all they can to protect you? Send your answer to my real hopefully unattacked e-mail address of dbarney@redmondmag.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/21/2010 at 1:17 PM2 comments
Remember when Microsoft has about a kazillion different collaboration tools? That was so complicated that customers were stymied, with some opting for a simpler Lotus Notes alternative. In recent years the fog has burned off and the main collaboration product left standing is SharePoint.
Now Microsoft is trying to convince corporate customers to make SharePoint part of an overall system. The latest push involves SharePoint 2010 helping manage files from the upcoming Office Web Apps line.
Here's how it works: You move users to Office Web Apps and they can get their files from anywhere. But instead of trusting the cloud, SharePoint handles the storing and organizing. Not only does this give IT more control, it may be essential for shops ruled by compliance regulations.
Are you a SharePoint fan or foe? Cast your vote at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/21/2010 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Vendors often commission research. Some is suspect and clearly self-serving. Some is self-serving but also clean and true. I think the latter is true for Prism Microsystems. The company just released research arguing that IT, in its rush to virtualize, either doesn't do enough to secure these environments, doesn't have good enough tools to do the job or can't afford to do things right.
Less than a third of the 382 respondents are confident that their virtual systems are safe.
One of the key issues is tracking what users do, what they log and measure who is accessing critical corporate data. In all these cases, a minority of IT pros running virtualized shops conduct these activities.
And yes, Prism is a security firm.
How is security different in a virtual world? Tell me for real at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/19/2010 at 1:17 PM2 comments
Citrix is like the Rodney Dangerfield of virtualization. While Rodney got no respect, Citrix doesn't get enough. That's because industry watchers focus on the server hypervisor providor, such as VMware, Hyper-V and Xen. And Citrix is only doing okay.
But today, the hypervisor doesn't much matter. After all, they are largely free.
The virt market has matured to the point where the battle is over management, new forms of virt and applications. Measured on these counts, Citrix is doing very well and upped the ante in several areas last week at its annual Synergy show.
Here's a quick rundown:
There's a new XenClient. While bare-metal server hypervisor are all the rage, this is reportedly the first bare-metal client hypervisor. Intel even played a role in the hypervisor, making it sure it is optimized for Intel's latest virt-ready chips. HP showed off machines built just for XenClient, making them multiplatform as soon as you fire 'em up.
Citrix is also still serious about server virtualization, and announced XenServer 5.6, with better load balancing, memory management and power savings.
Do you use Citrix? What do you think of the company and its products?
Share the news at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/19/2010 at 1:17 PM1 comments
One reader eulogizes the dearly-departed Sybase:
I remember working on Microsoft SQL Server 4 in 1992 -- it still referenced Sybase in the documentation at that point. It was stable, though, and worked well in our environment. Around the same time, I learned PowerSoft's PowerBuilder which made development against the SQL Server database much easier. PowerBuilder for local apps used the Watcom database engine which was an extremely quick SQL engine. Watcom was acquired by PowerSoft and morphed into SQL Anywhere. Sybase acquired PowerSoft shortly thereafter.
So, all of these products (except MS SQL Server) are owned by Sybase now and by SAP overall. All are really good products, but with most large companies, you are either an SAP shop or an Oracle shop (I won't include the others, no disrespect intended) and usually do not buy tools from the other ERP vendor. I think this will hurt PowerBuilder as it has already seen a decline due to the growth of .NET and Java. I hope SAP is able to re-invigorate the product lines and not just cast off PowerBuilder. SAP has major investments in java and ABAP already.
It is kind of funny to note that Microsoft used PowerBuilder internally. In fact, the "datagridview" in .net 2005 is very similar to the functionality of PowerBuilder's "datawindow" -- only 15 years late.
Joe
With Google and Microsoft squaring off to be your cloud-based document solution, here's what a couple of readers have to say about the situation:
I've just read your article about Google getting stronger. Like many people, I have followed Google for a number of years and always used to joke around and say that one day houses would have Google Thin Clients in them…
I think without Google, we wouldn't have seen the Web version of Microsoft Office or today's updates to Hotmail. I think we have a few very interesting years ahead of us, and working in IT means I'm very excited about what the future holds. It'll be interesting to see what amazing solutions are going to be developed by Google and Microsoft. I think there is room for both of them. Google is most certainly capable of giving Microsoft some much needed competition.
Jonathan
NO, NO, NO. I do not trust either MS or Google (or anyone else) to secure my data in the "cloud." I want my data in my business, backed up on my servers and not available to any hacker who wants to try to snag it.
-Jay
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/19/2010 at 1:17 PM2 comments
Want to get rich fast? Forget the lottery or American Idol. Just get a patent that Microsoft infringes upon!
VirtnetX has such a patent and Microsoft just shelled out a cool $200 million to settle the case. The patent involved Virtual Private Networks (VPN), an area Microsoft is pushing with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. Actually the opposite is true: With this combo you can set up secure private connections without a VPN.
In fact, the offending Microsoft products are generally far older, and include XP, Vista, Windows Server 2003 and Office Communicator.
Microsoft licensed VirtnetX technology, so as Pete Townshend said, "We won't get sued again."
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/19/2010 at 1:17 PM0 comments
While Google would clearly love to replace Office in corporate accounts, the company is also apparently pleased if you use Office and Google together. The latest pitch is for corporations to keep Office and use Google Apps to store files in the cloud. This allows users to get at the files from nearly any device while still using the familiar Office interface.
Microsoft has its own Office cloud strategy, which Google is clearly trying to blunt. Do you trust either to store your personal or work files? Let us all know by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/17/2010 at 1:17 PM5 comments
Sybase is (or was) one interesting company. Founded in 1984, two of the founders, Bob Epstein and Stu Hoffman, quickly became among the most accessible and honest business leaders. SQL Server was brand new, giving Oracle and all the other DBMS players fits.
Then Sybase crafted a deal with Microsoft and Ashton-Tate, a deal finalized behind closed doors at Esther Dyson's PC Forum (I was there, just not behind the doors).
Ashton-Tate quickly fell out as it failed to deliver a truly-SQL compatible version of dBase that would front-end SQL Server.
That left Microsoft with what was essentially a full PC server version of SQL Server. Sybase's thinking, apparently, was databases running on PC-based servers were a small slice of the market. So what's the harm giving one to Redmond?
Things turned out differently as Microsoft used Sybase's own code against it, and Sybase ultimately moved away from the pure DBMS space and deftly maneuvered into data warehousing and mobile tools. The transition went so well that SAP just ponied up nearly $6 billion to buy Sybase. Not too shabby.
Will you miss Sybase, and if so, why? Answers welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/17/2010 at 1:17 PM1 comments