Here are a few responses to Doug's blog entry on the nomenclature associated with cloud computing.
My personal belief is the term 'Cloud' started with SaaS marketing people that probably got the totally unoriginal idea from the Internet commonly being depicted as a cloud on network diagrams. Just like a network involving Internet access and/or VPN connections between sites, you don't care how the ISP(s) get your data from point A to point B -- you just set up a Service Level Agreement (SLA) and pay according to your minimal acceptable downtime and bandwidth. So, that's what SaaS companies want you to do. They don't want you to specify the physical location of the servers or how to care for them -- they just want you to tell them your acceptable service levels and let them worry about where the servers are located and how they are protected, patched, managed, backed up, etc...
However, then you pair SaaS with Virtual Machine technology and then you have SaaS that is quickly scalable to the customer's needs. Company A buys Company B and inherits 500 users. No problem, the SaaS company brings up two more virtual e-mail servers to handle the load. No hardware to procure, no servers to build, no applications to install. Just bring up a base image, configure it and add it to Company A's monthly bill. Same scenario in reverse if Company A sells off a business unit or downsizes by 500 users.
Now, having been in a sizable and highly political corporate environment, I believe some IT upper-level management types see "Cloud Computing" as a win-win, as they can sell it to the CFO as only paying for what services they need, and they get to offload security, maintenance and backups to the SaaS company. On applications moved to the 'Cloud,' they just have to worry about network links and firewall security. Other than that, when things go bad, out comes the SLA and all blame is shifted from the upper echelons of IT to the SaaS company.
As a quick personal side note, I'm not a fan of 'Cloud Computing' simply because of data security. What happens to your private company data when the 'Cloud' vendor chooses to offshore its datacenter because SysAdmins are cheaper overseas and it chooses to do so in a country that only allows a low level of encryption or has laws that allow the country's government to peruse your company's Intellectual Property? Same question when the 'Cloud' vendor fails to provide adequate electronic and/or physical security measures?
So, I don't consider the 'Cloud' to be anything original in name or function, but more of just a repackaging of technologies that have existed longer than most 'Cloud' vendors would like for you to believe. Regardless, 'Cloud' does sound better than, 'Software as a Service combined with Capacity on Demand rolled up in the best CYA package for which you are willing to buy.'
-Craig
When will companies realize that the cloud is not the best solution for everything? My wife needed a prescription filled at a chain drug store. The computer network was down so she had to wait over 24 hours to get her prescription filled. What if it had been something life threatening, then what? With all the failures over the last month would you trust the cloud? Not me. I have my own personal server, and that is the way I intend to keep it for a long time.
-Paul
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 05/16/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
IPv6 has been around for at least a decade. However, despite the fact that IPv4 addresses are getting scarcer than the hair follicles on William Shatner's head, IT is far from ready to make the transition.
Software maker Ipswitch made this discovery in a recent survey that showed only 12 percent of respondents say they are prepared for IPv6. And it really ain't IT's fault. Major vendors such as Cisco have bupkis for IPv6 support.
This may get serious real soon -- after years of warnings, IPv4 addresses truly are in short supply. IT pays vendors big bucks for hardware, software and services, and now is the time for these firms to pay some of it back with a little IPv6 love.
What is your shop doing about Internet addresses? Give all some good advice by writing [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/16/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
In a recent blog entry, Doug asked readers if the world is a better place without WordPerfect. Here's some responses and general thoughts on the software:
Odd question. The use of the present tense 'is' seems to imply that WordPerfect no longer exists. In fact, it's very much alive and well.
Perhaps you meant to say: 'Would the world be a less perfect place without WordPerfect?'
- Wayne
WordPerfect was the original successor to WordStar. As such, it claimed a broad market share and had a clearly superior cross platform product. In the office environment I championed standardization on the use of WordPerfect and had installations running...well...perfectly on DOS, Apple, Unix and Windows. And that was a long time ago and well before Office was released.
Office very quickly overtook WordPerfect in the marketplace. In the early releases, WordPerfect was clearly a superior product, so I was surprised at the rapid success of Office and long suspected that the quick ramp up of sales was due more to Microsoft pressure on channel partners than product superiority.
WordPerfect went through some hard times due to changes in ownership and certainly languished under the ownership of Novell, which neglected the product. I still keep a copy of WordPerfect running, along with Office, OpenOffice and LibreOffice. For the average small- to medium-size business office, these products have approximately equal utility, and I continue to be amazed at the size of the market penetration of Office, especially when you consider the hefty price charged to use it.
-Anonymous
Long ago I was employed at a firm that used WordPerfect. So long ago, in fact, that one of my primary job functions was to make edits on extensive (200+ pages) reports as well as IT and desktop support. It was imperative that I understand WordPerfect backwards and forwards, just as I must know Word now. THE BEST feature that WordPerfect had was 'Reveal Codes.' The editor could see why the text was doing what it was doing. With Word even now the best answer I can give people sometimes is 'because Word thinks that's how it should be' and find a work-around to format the text how the user wants it. I still think longingly for the days when I could actually fix a document. Microsoft still hasn't caught up to WordPerfect on that front!
Is the world a less perfect place without WordPerfect? The short answer, IMO, is yes. Competition always makes for a healthier, more robust marketplace! There is no viable alternative to Office Suite for businesses. Microsoft's 'best' innovation for Office in years has been the Ribbon. Who knows what they would have pushed or inspired to do with real competition? Or what they would have been 'forced' to integrate into their own products (i.e. Reveal Codes) because of demand from consumers?
-Heidi
Used WordPerfect a long time ago -- good basic word processing program.
Word was not much different, along with Apple's ClarisWorks (later becoming AppleWorks) and others (Lotus 1-2-3?) Was glad they had spreadsheet, tables, templates, etc. with an easy-to-understand item menu, submenus and tools.
There were good competition for these kinds of programs. I also feel that Microsoft Works was underappreciated, because it's nice and basic. Glad that one was free.
Now, Microsoft Word is so bloated and menus so complicated that you need to be a computer programmer to figure out the logic.
I have Word 2007 and hate it. There really does need to be some competition for this -- or get Microsoft to clarify the application and make it more user friendly. I wasted more time just looking for the basic buttons of Save, Save As, Print, etc.! I found these things were CHOICES that you have to manually ADD to your window. Stupid.
-Steve
I used WordPerfect exclusively up until around the turn of the century. There were things that I could do with a document in WordPerfect with just a few keystrokes that I just could not do with Word -- no matter what I tried. The ability to view and manipulate the source formatting codes was extremely useful. This was especially true if I was having trouble getting the formatting just right. Those codes were somewhat XML-like (Hmm -- OOXML law suit in the works maybe?).
The switch to Word wasn't because it was better but because everyone else had jumped on the MS bandwagon, and distributing a document required conversion to Word format anyway. Sometimes that export process came up short because, like I said, MS Word just wasn't as capable as WordPerfect. That incompatibility with Word's DOC du jour seemed to get worse as time went by. I was finally forced to adopt MS Word exclusively to avoid extensive 'correction' in the export. I still have a copy at home (don't remember which version) but I haven't re-installed it since I upgraded to Win 7. I think I'll install it tonight and see how it behaves.
-Dana
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 05/13/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
So Fortune magazine, which I used to work for, suddenly discovered that Steve Jobs is a bit of a tyrant. That revelation is no surprise, but the publication's details create a pretty compelling profile to read.
I'd hate to work for Mr. Jobs. My intellect couldn't withstand his assaults, and my years of playing hockey would have me giving him a choice elbows on my way to HR to get my severance.
But this unbelievable passion and control makes Jobs products great. And great Apple products raise the bar for Microsoft, which is why the Zune was pretty good and Windows Phone 7, despite lackluster sales, is even better.
I like the fact that Jobs acts as a dictator. His passion transfers to his customers. I'm just glad I don't work there!
What are your Apple thoughts? Fire up your Mac or PC and shoot me a message at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/13/2011 at 1:18 PM3 comments
If you care about the cloud, I have a newsletter and blog on that very subject. What I really want is to have what I have with Redmond Report -- an online conversation with you all whom educate me and the readers on what is really happening in IT. So check it out and let's get the convo going.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/13/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
There is a zero-day exploit that impacts Google's Chrome browser -- but it is definitely not Google's fault. Says who? Google.
Google is probably right, but blaming Adobe for this hole is bad PR. Microsoft doesn't play it this way, and doesn't slam third parties for such flaws.
OK, here is the skinny and then I'll get back to sarcasm: The flaw lets jerks slide past the Chrome sandbox and basically do whatever they want with your computer. I'm not sure how such a violation is totally Adobe's fault.
And while Microsoft releases monthly patches (and well-publicized explanations), Google disclosed the problem through Twitter. Adding to the misery, the tweets used an acronym I've never heard of. Here is one message from Chris Paoli's fine report: "It's a legit pwn, but if it requires Flash, it's not a Chrome pwn," wrote Chris Evans, Google's information security engineer and tech lead, in a Tweet this morning. "Do Java bugs count as a Chrome pwn too, because we support NPAPI?"
Am I stupid not knowing what ‘pwn' or “NPAPI” mean or is Evans a moron assuming that I do?
Does Google need to grow a pair as Microsoft has, or am I tragically biased? Biased and reasonable responses equally welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/13/2011 at 1:18 PM5 comments
So a decade or more after Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy barnstormed the concept of a network computer, one is finally due to arrive. Google is set to deliver a laptop that relies pretty much exclusively on the Web for apps and data storage.
I'm almost always connected, so maybe this new Chromebook will do the trick. Yet I have several concerns: First, these puppies will cost around 500 smackers, more than an entry-level laptop with generous storage. Then, where are the apps? How much do they cost? Where is my storage and how much does that cost? Finally, Google is pushing for 3G data access. How much is this?
This feels like a move out of the cable companies' playboook. You want TV, which used to be free, you have to pay. And they always find new things to charge you for.
Does Chromebook sounds like a colossal money suck? What say ye? Correspond at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/13/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Google may have been voted to most reputable company in America, but its images don't have such a great image these days. That's because a whole lot of them are fraught with malware. The SANS Internet Storm Center made the discovery, though I'm not sure if it was researchers doing research or researchers checking out photos (that's a joke, SAN researchers!).
The malware tries to trick users into buying fake security software. I love the irony of malware being used to sell anti-malware. I want to meet the guy who invented this scheme -- and punch him in the nose!
About a half million people a day (yes, a day) are directed to these malicious fake anti-malware sites.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/11/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Here are some responses to the news that enterprise upgrades to Windows 7 are slowing down:
Expecting the OEMs of three (presumably obsolete XP) printers to provide the latest drivers for an OS that is two generations ahead of XP is NAÏVE at best. You did clarify that your need to rebuild a Windows 7 system was due to a virus and NOT inherent system degradation over time.
(BTW, how did an IT professional such as yourself let a virus in, anyway?) I have encounter viruses on a handful of Web pages under Windows 7 but I haven't had to rebuild a system due to a virus since before Windows 2000! My AV software has always protected me.
I have been running Windows 7 since RC hit the streets and have seen no system degradation of any kind.
The examples you provide are not common in IT shops who maintain realistic hardware lifecycles (three to five years). Moving beyond five years (or worse -- waiting until something breaks) to replace hardware means you have no money budgeted to fix things when they break. It means that you have no money budgeted to migrate to new hardware or software when you need to. Microsoft announced the 'End of Support' for Windows XP in 2007, when Windows Vista Shipped. They later extended that 'End-of-Support' from 2011 to 2014.
No one running Windows XP today has a legitimate excuse for not making plans to migrate to Windows 7 long before now. In the long run, those folks who keep stalling until an upgrade is no longer a choice -- but instead an absolute necessity, will spend more money and more time to migrate to Windows 7 later than they could possibly spend by having done their homework over the last five year.
It's like the grasshopper and the ants.
-Marc
I use Win7 at home, and I run an XP shop at work. Pros: Windows search is built-in to the start menu, making it almost like a command line...sort of. Cons: Windows search is slow, and doesn't find things all that well. Aero is terrible -- why does anyone need it? User Account Control is awful -- slow, cumbersome and confusing. And it's amazing how BROKEN Windows Explorer is now, both from a visual standpoint (nearly invisible column separators) and a usability standpoint (left nav moves non-intuitively, deleting folders often gives 'in use' messages). And Microsoft even screwed up 'My Documents' even more! And Libraries? The more it tries to make it easier, the more confusing and non-intuitive it makes it. More and more people are saying, 'Gee, my iPhone works great, and is so intuitive, easy-to-use, and trouble-free... Maybe I should switch to Apple for my computer, too!'
-Todd
I'm the IT admin at a small company with 85 clients at three locations, plus some outbound sales people. We started the migration to Win 7 about a year ago and haven't looked back. We have less than 10 XP systems left, which will be retired shortly. The Win 7 experience has been a bit challenging because of 1) unsupported printers and other devices that we had to replace; and 2) apps that wouldn't work in Win 7 at all, or that require lots of coaxing. All in all, the Win 7 experience has been very positive for the users and IT. Systems are reliable, stable and more secure than ever. (The biggest outcry from users has been the move from Office 2003 to 2007/2010, because of the drastic change in user interface).
I can understand the hesitance for companies deeply entrenched in XP to change, especially if XP 'ain't broken.' But the problem with that kind of backwards thinking is that it grows day by day, as does XP's obsolescence. The best way to get IT moving? Take away its XP systems, give it shiny, new Win 7 boxes, and let it figure it out. Seriously, in a week it'll be in love with 7 and looking forward to the day it unplugs the last XP box. At least that's my experience. Yes, some apps will be especially challenging. This is nothing new. From someone who's been at this for the move from DOS to Windows, it's just life in the IT world. You know you're going to do it sooner or later. Do it sooner and benefit from it.
Win 7 aside, in the data center we started moving from Windows Server 2003 to 2008 R2. Also a nice improvement, but the change from x86 to x64 is a chore. By far, the most difficult project of all was the move from Exchange Server 2003 to 2010. Now that it's done, it's running beautifully.
As the lone IT guy at my company, it can be frustrating and daunting to keep up with the constant change in technology. But I can say once we completed, the experience is mostly positive all around.
-Dave
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 05/11/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Recently I reported that Microsoft Windows Phone 7 only tracks your location if you specifically ask it to, and this data isn't stuck in a protected file as Apple and Android phone vendors do.
There is more to the story, at least according to Microsoft testimony given recently to Congress. Microsoft's location tracking system in Windows Phone 7 currently uses a device identifier that can be used to track a specific user's location. Microsoft says that feature will be removed in the next rev to Phone 7 software. Microsoft says that it "recently" stopped using these device identifiers, so it may have stated the situation accurately last week when I wrote my item.
The phones still store location information, relative to a Wi-Fi access point or cell tower, as part of the location service. Microsoft points that this method only tracks approximate locations. However, without the device identifier, individuals can't be specifically tracked, Microsoft claims.
I admit to still being confused due to the fact that one can still opt-in to be tracked, which is done through closeness to a cell tower, Wi-Fi hotspot or the GPS. I guess the difference is that precise locations are not tracked, one must opt in and the device must be identified with the user.
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/11/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Nearly every time I see a TV correspondent reporting from a distant land, he or she is using Skype. The cloud-based phone service is also a favorite of teens, who -- when not texting (e-mail is so passé) -- are busy Skyping. And most of the time they use video calls, since just a voice phone is also passé.
Microsoft wants in on this action, and is ready to pony up some $8.5 billion for Skype and its over 600 million customers.
Microsoft isn't always known for inventing the newest, hottest technology (except for the Xbox), but it can spot a winner as it did with Hotmail and now Skype. While Skype is hot, Ballmer hopes to make it hotter by potentially integrating it with Lync, Messenger, Hotmail, Outlook and Xbox Live.
The Skype buy marks a major departure for Microsoft due to the fact that Apple's iOS and Android have Skype integration -- which Microsoft's Steve Ballmer pledges to continue.
Is Microsoft just buying its way into new markets? Are you a Skype lover or hater? Answers to either welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 05/11/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Here are a few responses to the PlayStation Network outage:
This is one instance in which you should ask Sony why it wanted so much user data. For all we know it could have been an inside job. Will the Feds hold Sony accountable? If not, will any organization like this be held responsible for collecting this information and then losing it?
Sony should be made to pay for its lack in securing the data it collects. I'm certain it has the resources to ensure the security... But apparently it wasn't a priority. Profit usually is. It made money off the information it collected or else why would it need it?
Now with regards to your son's single game going on for hours, be a parent and end the game for him. Pulling the electrical cord should get his attention real quick. Set a time limit and stick to it. If there are no consequences for disobedience, why should the kids change?
-Les
You mentioned that your son has an Xbox. My friend's son has an Xbox with a Kinect, and plays Xbox Live games with a friend who has the same setup. After a recent game, Boy A exited the system and turned off the TV. I don't know what steps he used to exit, but the Kinect does not have a power switch to turn it off. Sometime after the game, the parents of Boy B heard a personal dicussion between the parents of Boy A via the Kinect. Have you heard of this, and what is the best way to disconnect the Xbox? Thanks.
-Anonymous
Readers chime in on their thoughts to the news that TomTom provided user data to the police:
Speed doesn't trap -- it kills! Why can't people wake up to the fact that speeding is breaking the law? Why is it OK to speed? Because everyone does it. Because we can handle it. Because we know what we are doing. Now put kids in the car, watching mom speed -- breaking the law. But everyone does it, so it's OK. And mom hasn't had an accident in the last year. So kid goes to school, is offered some pills, and its OK because everyone does it. Because they can handle it. Because it's just like speeding -- not a big deal! Speeders aren't criminals...or are they?!
-Bruce
TomTom just lost a potential customer. I'm in the market for a new GPS and I won't be shopping the TomTom brand. Although I wouldn't mind sometimes sharing my GPS data with the factory, the company should be forthright with what exactly the plan is to share it, then only keep the data around for a limited time. I've seen other companies get bought -- or worse, go bankrupt -- and the customer data sold to the highest bidder.
I trust Microsoft the most with my data. I may be naive but I can't recall the last time any publication wrote about Microsoft abusing its customer data.
-Tim
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 05/09/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments