I've been spending a lot of time thinking about IE 9, as I just finished the January cover story for Redmond on the IE 9 beta. Actually you, the "Redmond Report" reader, really wrote it. The story is what we call a "Reader Review." Instead of me or some lab rat putting the software through the paces, I reached out to IT pros for a real-world view. Usually about a dozen of you volunteer to help, and for that you have my undying gratitude.
With IE 9, Microsoft will be changing it up when it comes to privacy. IE 8 offered what's called InPrivate browsing, which leaves no trace of where you've gone on the 'Net and what you've done, perfect for a criminal, philanderer, or teen. Oh, and those of us that simply desire privacy like it as well.
IE 9 furthers the privacy push with a new feature that blocks third-party advertisers from tracking your moves, thus targeting you with ad after stinkin' ad.
According to Microsoft, Tracking Protection, which must be explicitly activated, will go beyond cookie blocking. It depends on community efforts to create tracking protection lists -- kind of like creating antivirus signatures based on real-world viruses or building blacklists of known rogue Web sites. Tracking Protection will work off lists created by third parties.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/10/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Ever since Bill Gates started giving away the bulk of his billions, his press has been decidedly positive. It got even better when Warren Buffett joined up, basically doubling the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's resources.
The idea of billionaires giving away billions got rolling with media tycoon Ted Turner, who challenged the then-employed Microsoft CEO Gates to start sharing the wealth with those in need. Many scoffed when Bill said he was too busy to give his money away properly but to trust him, and once he retired a good 90 percent of his many bucks would be given away.
Bill has made good on his promise and created a new model for philanthropy. Instead of just tossing money at existing charities, or building hospitals and libraries which serve the public as much as the giver's vanity, Gates carefully researches unmet needs. That's why Bill doesn't give as much for cancer research, which has a lot of support (of course, it's never enough), focusing instead on neglected needs, such as malaria in the third world.
A bunch of other billionaires just pledged to give away at least half their wealth, and the list includes a handful of tech titans:
AOL founder Steve Case (who was kind enough to take my totally unsolicited phone call years ago when I called out of the blue to ask about Microsoft) and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg are two notable tech givers.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/10/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Amazon had a head start when it got into the cloud biz. It already had a massive server farm, along with e-commerce technology and other infrastructure. All it had to do was open all this up to other enterprises.
Saleforce.com is taking a similar tack. Its cloud CRM software is based on a database, which can be used for more than CRM. Salesforce.com is now positioning that database for general-purpose use, and the company says you can use multiple languages to build DBMS apps.
We should take this seriously -- Salesforce.com chief Marc Benioff cut his teeth at Oracle!
Does a Saleforce.com cloud database appeal to you, or do you fear subscription pricing and lack of control? Let us know at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/09/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Microsoft has been pushing hard in the communications/telephony field with Microsoft Office Communications Server. This can replace a PBX, but perhaps more commonly is used to integrate Web and teleconferencing, instant messaging and presence.
Do you use this tool? If so, I'd love to talk to you about what you like and dislike for an upcoming feature story.
Shoot me a note at [email protected] and I'll be in touch.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/09/2010 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Here's a batch of reader responses to Google's StreetView:
NO! I'm not a fan of StreetView, and I take issue with the following statement from you:
"...the service where Google vans photograph the outside of our domiciles (they would surely go inside if they could)"
In my case, they effectively did!
My front window is only a few feet from the street, so the interior of my lounge is on view to all. Google's cameras looked into my house as they passed. I consider this to intrude on my privacy. Why should it be up to me to draw the curtains if I don't wish for some to photograph the interior of my house?
-Pete
Pertaining to your comments about StreetView, personally, I think you're being an idiot.
As you cite no basis for your initial statement, I'll take it as a typical "everyone must think like me" argument. In the United States, anyone, whether or not they work for Google, has a right to make photographs or videos from public property.
So you're worried that Google is going to photograph the inside of your house too?
Maybe you're worried that the next step is thermal imagery (from the street, where it's legal to do so) is going to reveal secrets about the goings on inside your domain?
Or that cameras in space are going to show off your back yard (whups, they already do... Google Earth, right?)
The fact is that this simple technology already exists to allow outsiders to observe what is going on inside your home (i.e., they can look through windows).
If you have something to hide, then this might be something to worry about.
I suggest wrapping your house in tinfoil.
-r
Unless you are paranoid or have something to hide there is nothing wrong with StreetView.
-Alan
I like StreetView. I am a tech guy and a privacy guy, and I don't have a problem with it. There is nothing that can be seen from the outside of my house that I am worried about anyone seeing. After all, my neighbors and anyone that walks or drives down the street can see it. It's also nice to see a real picture of a place you are planning to drive to so you know what you're looking for when driving down the street. Try taking a virtual walk around the Coliseum in Rome and tell me that isn't pretty cool that you can.
-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 12/09/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
While it's still too early to tell if Microsoft's newest phone OS is a failure or success, here's some of your thoughts:
The submerged part of the Win Phone 7 iceberg may be the deal available for software development tools. Too cheap to pay over $1,000 for Visual Studio 2010? No problem. Download it for free from the Win Phone 7 Web site. Visual Studio 2010 is arguably the best proprietary software development platform and there are a LOT of developers out there who know how to use it. We will see if this advantage helps Microsoft overcome the five-year head start the other smartphone competitors have. Obviously developers are having no trouble developing iPhone and Android apps so this may not be enough of an advantage. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I now have the perfect way to upgrade to the latest and greatest version of Visual Studio. My chances of purchasing a Win Phone 7 are greater as a result.
-Eric
I am an application developer that already knows Silverlight. The tools for creating apps on the device already way outpace what the competition has, so my hope is the number and quality of apps will get better over time.
Microsoft needs to be patient and jump ship in two years if the platform is not top dog. This could take three to five years to really catch on.
Sent from my Windows Phone.
-Anonymous
Well, it ain't your Windows Mobile 6.5, that's for sure... ;-)
The user experience, for those unfamiliar with its predecessor, is really good. But for those of us that bought the very first Windows phones and have stayed with the platform through thick and thin, this is really a change!
First the technical issues: AT&T is advising its (few) customers that SD memory cards can't be added to the phones yet because Microsoft just advised that the OS won't initialize or use them. A software fix is on the way. Also, turning the various connections (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and sound) on and off for meetings is anything but an in-and-out experience. Also, there's no such thing as "etiquette mode," unlike 6.5, which allowed you to simply place the phone face-down on a surface and the phone silenced itself.
What really haven't been covered in the media are Microsoft's two really big bets with Phone 7: The first is that synchronization really, really provides most of us with our first (and only) reason to install and use Zune. If Microsoft can make the case that Phone 7 is the best mobile client for corporate Exchange installations, the increased use and traffic through Zune will be astonishing.
The second bet is less all-in but is definitely all-inclusive. Unlike 6.5 which synchronized documents and spreadsheets with the desktop, Phone 7 only syncs with live.com and SharePoint sites. This is a huge push to cement and leverage its advantage in SharePoint and tie it to Exchange through the Phone 7.
These are really the strategic bets Microsoft made with Phone 7 -- all the whoopla about the interface notwithstanding. The media has been paying so much attention to the Great and Magnificent Wizard of Oz that these critical strategies (and what they mean for the enterprise) have gone as unnoticed as the old man behind the curtain pulling all those levers.
-Richard
I just bought an HTC HD7 and a new account with T-Mobile. I've been an iPhone 3G and 3GS user for a long time. iPhone 4 wasn't really worth it to upgrade, and I'm a long time Microsoft supporter so WP7 got my vote. I'm keeping two devices for now, but will see how it goes before moving permanently to one. So far though, phone good, T-mobile -- not so much.
-Chris
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 12/08/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Yesterday marked the anniversary of Pearl Harbor (the event... not the movie with Ben Affleck).
Today is the 30th anniversary of John
Lennon's death. I remember it well. I was in college in Vermont, and Dec. 9 was my birthday. Having no money, I pointed out to any and all that it was my birthday, hoping they might take me out for a beer. News traveled slower in those pre-Internet days, and all my friends were too broken up to celebrate my birth. Thanks a lot Mark David Chapman!
Where were you when you heard of Lennon's passing and how did it compare to the deaths of other celebrities and people of power? Share at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/08/2010 at 1:18 PM7 comments
Google is touting the first-ever ChromeOS laptopper. Google apparently learned a lesson about pre-announcing products -- the laptop isn't due till next summer. Samsung and Acer are the first two OEMs.
(The term Chrome is a bit confusing -- Google uses the same name for
its browser and operating system.)
The machines could have just as easily been designed by Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy, the two proponents of the hard-drive-free Network Computer. Like the NC, Chrome laptops rely on the Internet. The apps and your data rest in the cloud.
That can be cool (so long as you are connected), but I wonder how vendors will charge for apps and storage. Rather than a one-time fee, we could be made to pay on and on. Samsung and Acer are the first two OEMs.
Would you use a disk-free PC? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/08/2010 at 1:18 PM7 comments
If you are reading this, I assume you are already in some form of IT. But just because you specialize in one area doesn't mean you are wedded to it for life. In fact, with outsourcing and the cloud, it pays to be nimble. Better nimble than out of work.
In that spirit I give you details on next year's hottest IT careers: U.S. News & World Report lists network architects, with an average salary of $73,250 (if you are making less, go bug your boss) as the top IT career, followed by software engineer, systems analyst and, in a surprise to me, help desk.
Are you thinking of switching specialties for a few more bucks? If so, shoot me a note at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/08/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Here's some more of your e-mails on the acquisition of Novell by Attachmate:
You "glossed over" the most interesting (and perhaps most 'damning') move Novell made, and that involved Unix System V Release 4 (SVR4). AT&T owned outright all Unix source code. For reasons not fully understood by me, Unix fell under copyright (not patent protection).
For AT&T, Unix was a "cash cow" -- they "took a cut" from the sale of every Unix license sold anywhere in the world (regardless of "flavor" -- BSD, AIX, NeXTstep, Ultrix, Irix, HP-UX, Solaris, SunOS, etc.).
AT&T had been a federally regulated monopoly since the Communication Act of 1956. Unlike most monopolies, profits were regulated, not rates -- leaving innovation entirely up to AT&T. By the early 1980s, the United States had the best telephone system in the world -- but the world was changing and the absence of competition was stifling innovation.
AT&T divested itself of its subsidiaries under a consent decree as a part of the Communications Act of 1984. But that wasn't enough. In order to branch out into broader, non-Telco, areas, AT&T needed to divest itself of control over Unix.
Novell's buying the Unix Systems Laboratories "cash cow" might have been a smart move had they not turned around and sold off perpetual licenses to all the big players in order to recoup their investment on as short a timeframe as possible.
Sun Microsystems was the first to buy in. Then again, Sun had "partnered" with AT&T to developed SVR4 in the first place so their rights to SVR4 were already extensive.
By the time Novell had sold off perpetual licenses to all the big players, the value of the intellectual property of Unix had diminished to almost nothing. By selling off the last of it to Caldera/SCO, there was nothing left for SCO to sell because all the vendors that mattered already owned perpetual licenses.
Novell WAS smart enough though to retain their rights to the original SVR4 source code. With this in hand, Novell is pretty much free to do as it pleases with whatever intellectual property still remains in that SVR4 codebase.
Since their acquisition of Sun Microsystems, the only other player with similar rights may well be Oracle -- but they seem entirely uninterested in leveraging their Solaris assets.
Whether Novell's having played their Unix cards differently would have made a difference with regards to the success of Linux is irrelevant today. Similarly, were Unix originally protected by patent law instead of copyright law, Linux might not even exist today. It certainly would not be a Unix "clone."
-Marc
I may be wrong, but as I remember, it was Ray Noorda that had the obsession with Microsoft. After he retired, Novell seemed to come to terms with Microsoft. Ray couldn't stay retired, though, and started Caldera.
As I recall, Caldera bought the Santa Cruz Operation, a respectable Unix reseller, and changed the name of the combined company to SCO.
-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 12/06/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I'm going to try and stay out of the politics of the latest WikiLeaks release of a quarter million government documents, some embarrassing, some revealing, and some just plain dull. I honestly don't have a firm opinion. I think we should know what our government is up to, but there's lots of info that is protected for a reason. (Please weigh in by writing [email protected]. Don't cc: the government -- they can get a copy if they want!)
Anyway, Amazon was a WikiLeaks host, and turned off access to the site after the new docs were posted. Now Amazon is explaining why it did so. Conspiracy buffs thought the Amazonians bowed to government pressure. Amazon says nyet, that this content is not in keeping with its terms of service.
There are two issues here: Amazon requires that posters truly own the content. Whether WikiLeaks owns the content it did not create is a bit of question. Than again, did Daniel Elsberg own The Pentagon Papers?
The more pertinent point is Amazon will not host content that causes harm to others. While a tough thing to judge. Releasing 250,000 confidential documents has to hurt someone.
The Internet can do both bad and amazing things. Which did it do in this case? Put on your pundit cap and send opinions to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/06/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
Microsoft hates to lose, so it no surprise the company is complaining about Google's recent federal government win.
Here's the skinny: The General Services Administration (GSA) gave a contract to Unisys to build a Google Apps-based collaboration platform.
The original RFP required all the data to stay in U.S. data centers (Google hosts some of its data in overseas centers), but was changed, paving the way for the Unisys/Google win.
Microsoft is none too pleased. While the deal is worth just south of $7 million (chump change for our friends in Redmond), there are the matters or honor and PR -- both of which are now in Google's favor.
Microsoft argues that its solution keeps all the info of the good old US of A – and is protected by qualified and vetted administrators.
The GSA, after some study (and surely some lobbying), now believes that security is not based on data location but how well the provider actually secures the data.
What say you, wise Redmond Report reader? Can data be secure when it seems so far out of reach? You're the expert so opine at [email protected] (and yes, I did bite a few of Bill O'Reilly's rhymes in this last graph).
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/06/2010 at 1:18 PM3 comments