One reader doesn't see the fault in Google's tax situation:
I don't see Google, Microsoft or any other U.S. company as wrong because they try to maximize the return on investment for their shareholders. I also disagree that they are being a "bad corporate citizen" by operating in this manner. Capital will always flow to wherever it gets the greatest return, and trying to prevent it from doing so is tantamount to taking away freedom. We now live in a time with a truly global marketplace, and if the tax structure in the United States isn't competitive with the tax structure elsewhere then freedom must allow individuals and corporations to move to places that are more competitive.
The truth of the matter is that the United States has slowly become less and less business friendly over the past 50-60 years. The U.S. now boasts one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. You mentioned all of the taxes that individuals pay, but you forgot to mention all of the taxes (other than income) that business pay. What about payroll and unemployment insurance taxes? Add to that the thousands and thousands of restrictions and regulations placed on business and we should feel fortunate that Google and others haven't moved their entire business to a different country.
Google and others are behaving in a completely logical fashion. They don't exist to provide a source of funding for the political class -- they exist to provide a return on investment to their shareholders. No country can force individuals and corporations to work hard without keeping the fruits of their labor. This has actually been tried many, many times, and it has a perfect record of failure. The bigger the government, the smaller the people. If we want Google and others to keep their profits in the U.S. then we should lower our corporate income tax rate to make it competitive with the rest of the world.
-Dan
Here's some thoughts on the beta of IE9 by a user:
I use IE9 at home. I don't put beta software on my production network without testing it first. Boy, am I glad I did with this newest version of Internet Explorer. IE9 works OK, but it seems a bit slow when it comes to drawing some of the dynamic images on HTML5 pages. I really miss the progress bar -- when I click on a link I have no idea if IE9 is doing something or not.
-Ray
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 10/27/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
HP's Windows 7 slate is finally out. Originally aimed at a broad market, the $800 slate is now designed for verticals such as health care. This is similar to how mini-notebooks, predecessors to today's netbooks, were sold. The pound-and-a-half device can take input by pen or through gestures.
This could actually be a pretty cool VAR play, as resellers could build custom apps using common Redmond developer tools such as Visual Studio.
Is there a tablet in your future? Send your whys and why nots to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/27/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Microsoft and Symantec fight like cats and canines, especially now that Redmond has gone full bore into the security business. Instead of Symantec protecting Microsoft software, Microsoft wants to protect its own software with its Forefront and Microsoft Security Essentials products.
Even so, a recently released Symantec-sponsored report, based on more than 1,300 respondents from all types of companies, says the move to Windows 7 is relatively trouble free.
Win 7 users are relatively pleased, enjoying greater reliability (I've seen this but it still ain't perfect) and faster speeds (I saw this initially but now FireFox is slowing down for some odd reason).
The initial migration was smooth for nearly 80 percent of respondents, perhaps because many installed new, Win 7-ready apps at the same time.
For me, while initially thrilled with Windows 7, nearly a year in, the OS is starting to show some of the flaky characteristics of its predecessors: slowing down, shutting down for no reason, etc.
Curiously, my biggest problem with Win 7 is the fact that Symantec Endpoint protection often blocks me from sites due to denial of service -- sketchy sites like Hotmail and Redmondmag.com!
What are your Win 7 peeves? Send 'em my way at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/25/2010 at 1:18 PM3 comments
Here's some reader thoughts on Java and its software:
Oracle yesterday sent my Vista system a new Java Console (JC), v. 6.0.22, with which to update prior JCs 6.0.20 and 6.0.21.
I dutifully downloaded and installed it. After restarting Firefox (v. 3.6.10), some Web pages would no longer load, the rendering kept getting hung and the browser window would go blank white, despite the full HTML file having come in.
My solution was to disable the new Java Console 6.0.22 in the "Add-ons" extensions tab. This allowed the newly problematic Web pages to function again.
Is that a known issue?
-Fred
I can't tell you how often we're forced to leave OLD versions of Java on client PCs because the critical "cloud" apps they need break under newer versions of Java. Backwards compatibility? What for? That's a Microsoft marketing term. Who needs it? We're Java, we're cool, and we could care less if every rev or security update breaks mission-critical apps! Besides, haven't we proven we don't have to sell products? Oops, guess that didn't work out so well for us. (Sun, what's Sun?)
-Chris
One reader gives his thoughts on how important Steve Jobs is to Apple:
Sure, Doug, I remember those days (like they were yesterday). The thing is that Steve Jobs has something neither Sculley nor most others have: A vision that borders on marketing genius.
Steve Jobs is a brilliant man but his perspective is narrow. He knows how to bring a consumer product to market -- how to make it look SEXY and how to make everyone want one -- at any price!
Unfortunately for Apple, someday Steve jobs will be gone from the company and I see no vision for what happens to Apple when that marketing genius is no longer running the show.
For whatever reason, no one is being groomed to replace Steve, or for Steve even to mentor. It's bad enough that Steve has no concept of the value of having a strong presence in the enterprise. It's worse when you realize that if Steve Jobs get run over by a bus tomorrow, Apple could quickly become a rudderless ship destined to run itself aground.
-Marc
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 10/25/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
As editorial director of Virtualization Review (yeah, in this company we all have more than one job) I get a lot of press releases about virtualization.
There's server, PC, desktop, application, storage, I/O and network virtualization -- to name just six.
Now there is a new category: virtual strippers that adorn your desktop. That's right, Virtual Girl Desktop promises to spice up your computing life with Jewell, Arianna or 378 other ladies who live on your toolbar and will remind you of appointments and show up when you get bored.
First, there is not a single HR department (maybe with the exception of the Howard Stern show) who would think this is acceptable in the workplace.
Second, while the company claims the software is "certified 100 percent clean," there's no way I'm going to vouch for that. As a result, I won't be providing the site's URL.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/24/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Here's some reader thoughts after Facebook blamed a glitch for private data of users being sold to advertisers:
Glitch, my arse! Seems to me that any social networking company that collects personal data will find the incentive to sell personal data at some point because it appears to be too lucrative of a venture to let pass. Let's face it, they're only in it for the money.
But we can't always blame the Facebooks of the world either. The faulted concept of 'privacy' on social networking sites has been around for long enough to warrant that the users take some level of responsibility for the amount of personal information they divulge to these sites. To give up the farm to these places only yells, "Hey!! I'm naïve! Sell my ID! Oh, and keep the change."
To be honest, I don't quite understand why someone would provide every little bit of personal information to sites like this, even if it isn't a required field. I personally,will grudgingly provide the most minimum information they need to establish an account, make some of it as general as I possibly can and give them some bogus info.
If one felt that their personal information should remain personal, then don't share it in the first place. And for the Facebooks of the world, if someone entrusts you with their personal information, lock it up and make it 'for your eyes only!' There is no reason, other than the lure of fast and free money at the expense of those who trust you, to do anything but that.
-Mark
As much as I like it to share photos with friends and see how people are doing, I have had to block people who play these dumb games or click on links without thinking.
Considering leaving the site altogether (since I am now 98 percent Twitter). Do you see a growing trend of IT folks leaving Bookface? Is it the next Myspace?
-Jenn
Facebook may claim that the sale of private date to marketers is a glitch, but I believe the true issue is Facebook's complete disregard for the privacy of its user's data. This is the primary reason that I will not join Facebook.
-John
The very thought of "Facebook" and "privacy breach" in the same article would be laughable, were it not said so seriously. Facebook started with a simple business model -- the illicit, unethical theft of private information, and subsequent publication of the same. Their business model has never changed -- their chief information thief simply realized that there was more money to be made in selling that information than in publishing it for free. Make no mistake about it, if Facebook could only sell the information that people are willing to publish about themselves, they would go bankrupt and disappear. Why would anyone pay them for information they can get on their own? The only way for Facebook to continue being financially successful is to develop ever more creative ways to trick people into revealing private data, ignore subscribers' desire (whether express or implied) to keep their private data private and sell that data to the highest bidder without wasting time thinking about the ethics involved.
It is a sad commentary on the state of the Internet that Facebook, Google and Apple are at the forefront -- all three companies have business models built, not on providing products, services or value, but rather on the sale of information -- whether that information was obtained ethically and honestly or not.
-Mike
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 10/22/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Halloween marks a milestone for Office 2010. That is day Microsoft ends the Office 2010 beta program --which makes sense since the commercial version has been out since June. If you just have to use a free version, and pirating is not in your blood, there is a two-month trial to check out.
What are your favorite Office 2010 features? Shoot your votes to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/22/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
The great city of New York struck a colossal cloud deal with Microsoft. Under a single license, some 100,000 city workers can use Redmond apps, such as Office, over the cloud. Unlike a lot of license deals, NYC only pays for the apps it actually uses. And since they come from the cloud, it should be easy to track use.
The new deal replaces what used to be 40 different agreements.
Is the cloud a bane or boon for IT? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/22/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
The way the news of Google evading (legally) taxes broke says as much about Google's reputation as it does our broken tax system. The news is that Google funnels profits overseas to countries like Ireland (where corporate taxes are low) and keeps the expenses in the U.S. and other places (where taxes are high), thus avoiding giving billions to Uncle Sam.
While legal (unfortunately), this does not exactly make Google a good U.S. corporate citizen. It also makes a mockery of efforts to reduce corporate taxes. If one is already avoiding taxes, is it hypocritical to complain about the tax rate? You tell me.
My latest point relates to the fact that many companies, including Microsoft, go the Ireland tax-dodge route. So why is Google singled out? Is their approach more egregious, or does it just make for a better headline?
Should these massively profitable companies be able to skip out on taxes, while we pony up with sales, property, federal and sometime state income taxes, along with tolls and a zillion other government fees? Should we all funnel our income through Ireland and claim our expenses in the good old U.S.?
You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/22/2010 at 1:18 PM7 comments
Microsoft may have its own security foibles, but I pointed out recently that it didn't release 81 patches in one cycle like Oracle just did.
Maybe that's what gave Microsoft the confidence to lash out at Java (now part of the Oracle arsenal), claiming there were some six million attacks on Java in the most recent quarter. PDFs, though still a product, were only attacked "thousands" of times over those three months.
In fact, Microsoft spends a lot of time issuing patches for Java problems because so much Java runs on Windows.
How has Java affected your environment? Share your thoughts at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/20/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
After a Linux-backed report cited Linux growth in enterprises, Doug asked readers if their shops are switching:
No, Doug. We are not! We are a large research university and if we, as an IT unit of that university, have learned nothing else, we have learned that the hardware and software you use must be selected for the job at hand. Over time your needs change and your selections change. That is the nature of IT.
Do we have a large investment in Linux? Oh my, yes. Has our mix of platforms changed over time? Yes again. Has that had a negative impact on our investment in Windows Servers? Nope!
Thirty years ago, our large research systems were mainframes based upon CDC KRONOS and our administrative systems were running on IBM MVS mainframes. Smaller-scale computing was done on DEC VAX (VMS) systems. VAX gave way to SunOS. IBM 3270 terminals gave way to IBM PCs and Novell NetWare. Wang word processors gave way to WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3. In the '90s, MS-DOS gave way to Windows. Novell NetWare gave way to Windows Server. Unix Sendmail gave way to Exchange.
In recent years, as AIX, Solaris and HP-UX became large monolithic operating systems, they have been replaced by Linux for its versatility and performance. Workstation-based Unix applications have been ported to Linux, Windows and MacOSX.
In the end, Linux has found its niche in academic research. In this setting Linux is the only realistic choice. Microsoft has to fight tooth and nail to keep Linux out of the academic machine room. In an environment, though, where most users are not Linux savvy, Windows (and to a lesser extent, Macintosh) rules the desktop. While a Linux desktop with Firefox and OpenOffice can meet the bulk of the personal productivity needs of the casual user, the enterprise needs something more. They need shared e-mail, calendar, task and contacts information. They need uniform collaboration tools. And, since the vast majority of end users in the enterprise are familiar with Windows (because they have it at home), in order to switch to Linux, they would need training.
As the enterprise moves to virtualization as a means to reduce the support costs surrounding personal productivity workstations, the Linux solution is still quite limited when compared to the virtualization solutions provided by Citrix, VMware or any number of other vendors.
No matter how much the zealots might like for Linux to be widely adopted for use on the desktop, it won't happen until it is as easy for the end user to acquire, use, and support as Windows or Macintosh are to acquire, use, and support.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
-Marc
I just wanted to let you know that we have and do replace windows servers with Linux servers, specifically Ubuntu and Cent-OS. This isn't because I am a Linux fan boy or that I hate Microsoft. It makes sense for us. We are a small charter school district that couldn't provide the technology to the staff and students that we do if we tried to do it through Microsoft and all the accompanying licensing. For one, we can't afford it. Secondly, the licensing of Microsoft software and the task of maintaining them requires almost a whole other position for an organization our size. It's too cost prohibitive.
I would rather spend the man-hours learning how to make open source and free software work, because even though open source software usually involves a strong learning curve, once we have gotten past it we can use the technology as much as we want without constantly adjusting our licensing subscriptions. For instance, if I want to deploy a Microsoft server for a terminal server, I have to buy the server license, the Cal licenses for how many terminals I will have and the terminal server licensing for how many users/terminals I need to connect. Then if I want to add 30 students in another computer lab I have to go back and up the licensing where it applies. We accomplished the same thing with LTSP-Cluster on Ubuntu servers.
-Matthew
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 10/20/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
You probably heard the news that Ray Ozzie quit Microsoft and will either retire or do something else.
Fact is, that's not altogether surprising. For as brilliant as Ozzie is, he hates the limelight, doesn't give a lot of speeches and doles out interviews like they were bottles of water on a life raft.
And that's a shame because Ray is a great conversationalist. I interviewed him in 2005, right after Microsoft bought Groove. He was open and had great ideas about managing developers. And every time I e-mailed him, he got right back to me. One time he even asked for more feedback from Redmond readers (folks like you) about Microsoft's communication strategy.
It's too bad that more of us in the press didn't get to know Ray. It's too bad that customers didn't have the same experience. If Ray was less publicity shy, the world would have more insight into the inner thinking of those that make Microsoft's next generation of products.
I see a rather nice legacy here, despite the relatively short tenure. Ozzie is the guy who, more than anyone, moved Microsoft to the cloud. Azure is getting good reviews from everyone I talk to who has actually touched it.
Office is also moving effectively to the cloud (more on that in my next item), and most Redmond server apps play in the cloud just fine.
Microsoft announced no plans to replace Ozzie.
Do you see anyone filling Ozzie's shoes? What does this departure mean for Microsoft? Fire up your e-mail and let me know at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/20/2010 at 1:18 PM3 comments