Windows 10, A Mandatory update?

So if you're reading this there's a good chance you've already read my rant about Microsoft's clandestine little plan to shove Windows 10 down your throat whether you want it or not. 

It came in the form of an "Important" patch (KB3035583) with a fairly innocuous description that gives no indication of its true intent.

"Update enables additional capabilities for Windows Update notifications..."

Now some of you out there think I'm making much ado about nothing.  I'm told, " People want it, it's no big deal. "

Hey, I want it too but when I get a patch that that tries to automatically install itself and gives no indication as to its true intent, I get suspicious.

Maybe I've just been around this business too long but if there's anything I've learned in 20+ years of being a server jockey it's that you never take anything Microsoft says on face value.

It's a company that's built their business on ambiguity and misdirection.

I've said for years that Microsoft wants your toaster and with Windows 10 they may finally get it. 

That's fine, so long as you know what you're buying into and right now we most undeniably don't.

Which is why I have a new rant directed simultaneously at Microsoft and a certain Windows podcast produced Weekly on a network named after a gentrified term for a moron (TWIT).

This week said podcast (Windows Weekly) was primarily focused on the impending release of Windows 10.  In it we found that Microsoft had for the most part reiterated the obvious and essentially told us nothing new.

Except...

We found out that whether you're a business customer or a lowly consumer, Windows 10 was going to update itself whether you liked it or not.

With Windows 10 Microsoft seeks to put the days of a la' carte updates behind them.  Meaning if Microsoft wants to force a nag screen onto your desktop to promote the latest version of Office or Skype, you are, in the words of Mary Jo Foley, "Going to take it and like it.

Now I've noticed that Skype keeps showing up as an "Important" update over the past 3 months on all my Windows 7 machines. 

Thing is, I only use Skype on one of them and then it's very sparingly.  I don't like Skype, I don't like its constant nagging and I sure as hell don't like Microsoft goading me into installing it when I don't want it!

With Microsoft's new update directives, however, Skype would be considered a new "feature."

That goes for enterprise customers too by the way.  It's just like it sounds guys.  Microsoft has seen fit to take the burden of desktop management off your hands.  I wonder if they'll take the support calls too...

You enterprise guys do get some reprieve, however.  You can choose to "delay" updates for short period of time but if you don't allow those "feature updates" to deploy you run the risk of losing security updates for your entire business.

In their grand plan, to paraphrase Mary Jo Foley, Microsoft is seeking to eliminate third party desktop management and essentially control the desktop build regardless of the needs of your enterprise.

Like Manage Engine instead of System Management Server?  Too bad, it's all or nothing baby...

If you're not quite an "Enterprise" customer then Microsoft lumps you in with all those other "consumers"  Meaning you don't get the option to delay your updates.  No a la' carte either.

It also means that if Microsoft happens to roll out an update that blue screens half the Windows PC's on the planet you have no recourse. 

I'm thinking there's going to be a whole lot of business continuation insurance policies sold in the next year.

Am I blowing things out of proportion?  I don't think so for two reasons. 

1. It's happened before.  Actually it's a fairly regular occurrence but the smart IT pro knows better than to just blindly allow updates to install without at least reviewing the descriptions.  That option disappears for consumer versions of Windows 10 (and largely for Enterprise as well)                                                            
2. This could be disastrous for small businesses who rely on applications that may not be 100% compatible with a given update.  I don't want to hear about how stupid people keep using old software either.  It's not always their choice and it shouldn't be Microsoft's either.

Mary Jo Foley attempted to explain the new update strategy by claiming that some security updates could be dependent on other non-security updates.  Potentially causing issues if the current update model was allowed to continue.

This is where my rant about Windows Weekly starts...

By what stretch of the imagination should a SECURITY  update ever be tied to a FEATURE update?  By their very nature security updates are meant to address an existing security vulnerability not support new features or deal with compatibility issues. 

That's why even Microsoft classifies them.   You see, it's done that way because all those silly IT managers have this bad habit of wanting to know what the hell an update is going to do to their user base BEFORE it gets deployed. 

It's an example of Microsoft marketing speak.  It comes from the same people who describe an update that adds a  nag screen and background downloader as "additional update capabilities."

I have to wonder what color the sky is in a tech journalist's world...

It is this fundamental disconnect with the way that IT works that's put me at odds with tech journalists like Paul Thurrott (who still thinks Windows Vista was ok) and Mary Jo Foley.

For god's sake, the woman covers enterprise computing!  Is she just reading the sales brochures??  How could she not understand that taking away control of update deployments from IT departments is a VERY real problem.

Look, I get it.

Until recently, Thurrott and Foley were on the outs with Microsoft.  A condition that only recently changed around the time of Satjay Nadella taking the helm.

Since then I've noticed a far less critical point of view on Windows Weekly.  It's understandable if they don't want to jeopardize their newfound access but really now.

If you can't be objective then don't cover the topic.  That's what good journalists do.  Further, I don't want to hear anybody's ruminations on how enterprise IT works who's never had to do it for a living.  Report what you find but keep your admonitions to yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Windows 10 will be a better Windows OS but to ignore the price it's going to exact is just naive. 

Ignore me if you want, just don't come crying if Microsoft decides that your 5000 seat enterprise should be using Lync for all its messaging some sad Monday morning.

Eyes open kids...

The Case against Open Source

Every now and then I'm up pretty early on a Wednesday morning and if my Squeezbox radio happens to be on I'm probably going to hear at least part of Randal Schwartz's weekly window into all things Open Source, Floss Weekly.

Randal's a nice enough guy and if we're honest one of a scarce few real geeks left on TWIT...

So I listen for awhile.  That is, up until the content ends and the propaganda starts...

The premise of Open Source is sound enough.  It's community driven often filling a need that's either not being adequately addressed by more traditional offerings or breaks new ground.  It also gives budding tech types somewhere to try out their ideas without fear of running afoul of someone else's copyright.  Of course it also has the frequent advantage of being free of charge in hopes of continuing development and maximizing distribution.

It's how Linux, Apache Web Server and Wordpress came to be. 

Considering much of what you see on the web depends on at least one of those open source projects there's a strong case for community driven alternatives.

Which would normally be the end of the story but for the past few years where a number of projects have been taking aim at the enterprise.  Everything from telephony to CRM is in the mix.

Which is fine so long as you've got support for them.

And there's the rub....

In the landscape of current technology solutions you really have two options.  You can pay a lot of money now for somebody else's pre-packaged whatever or try an Open Source alternative and pay someone to make it work later.

That is the dichotomy of so-called "Open" and "closed source" projects. 

Open source sprang from the belief that software development should not be a dark art kept in bowels of some mega corporation who controls its every permutation.  Anyone who's dealt with botched Microsoft updates bringing their business to a standstill can identify with that.

The Microsoft's of the world may be more user friendly and better supported but they're by no means perfect.  

Customization is limited and new features often only come with a new version which starts a whole new round of checkbook bleeding.

That's supposedly one of the advantages of Open Source.  Being community driven, changes happen more quickly and development is more responsive to the user base.  But what is perceived as a strength becomes a weakness when you realize that the word "community" can easily be replaced by "mob rule."

Just because updates come along more frequently doesn't mean the problem you're having gets resolved or the feature you want will show up. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say and if your problem isn't at the top of the community's list of priorities you're pretty much out of luck.

There's also the possibility that an update actually makes a problem worse or breaks unrelated services.  Something very common especially in the Linux world.

Of course you could always try to fix it yourself. There's plenty of White Papers, community forums and support avenues available.  Or at least that's the sales pitch.

The real story is that White papers, those tomes of wisdom, are written by developers... for developers.   If you don't speak the language they're little more than insomnia cures.  Ever read a phone book?  It's like that.

Riveting...

Community forums?  Those are fun too.  Populated by the equally afflicted and rarely served.  You may get lucky and get an answer but most of the time it's just a lot of wailing followed up by arrogant guru types belittling hapless victims for not reading the white paper more closely.

So much for the "community"

How about support directly from the development team? 

See above...

Even if there are thousands of contributors to a project, development usually ends up being controlled by a select few.  Infighting is frequent and is the primary reason you see so many variants of the same core project.  It splinters the community and makes support even more difficult.

Established projects aren't immune from the chaos and code rot either. Take the example of the popular open source web hosting control panel Zpanel.  Zpanel is a free alternative to the commercial Cpanel product offering a similar experience for far less cost (as in free).  

Unfortunately, it hasn't been updated in a year and much of the functionality is broken leaving users flailing while the "official" support team remains silent.

It's gotten so bad that the dev team actually shut down the public support forum shortly after a user reported a security issue to them which even when proven was subsequently denied.  In short a promising stable project has become broken due to ego and neglect.  A post-mortem that's all too common.

Still, If you want to sign up with Zpanel's official maintainer, Hostwinds, you may get some support, if you pay for it.  They call it "Premium" support and require a paid Hostwinds account.

Let's also remember that Open Source devotees often cite superior security of their wares.  That can be true but only so long as somebody's paying attention.  Apache has had numerous security flaws for example so too has OpenSSL and lest we forget the granddaddy of them all a BASH shell vulnerability that went unchecked for 20 years.  Yes, technically BASH isn't Open Source but its code is and it's maintained the same way.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with paying for support.  It's been the foundation of many Independent consultants for years. 

What is wrong is foisting an unstable product on a hapless user base and then charging them to fix your own mistakes.  

Even Microsoft will refund a support charge if they find out it's their problem.

In the case of Zpanel their only response to the charge is that it's a product created on their own free time and thus isn't a priority.

So much for pushing the state of the art...

Read the next excerpt I took straight from Opensource.com, a leading Open Source publication...

Doesn't "open source" just mean something is free of charge?

No. This is a common misconception about what "open source" implies. Programmers can charge money for the open source software they create or to which they contribute. But because most open source licenses require them to release their source code when they sell software to others, many open source software programmers find that charging users money for software services and support (rather than for the software itself) is more lucrative. This way, their software remains free of charge and they make money helping others install, use, and troubleshoot it.

In other words, if you expect the same kind of experience you get from closed sources you're going to pay for it either in time or money.  Nothing is free.

There's a common quip when describing the "Free" nature of Open Source.  They say it's "Free" as in speech not "Free Beer."

Cute but oversimplified.

In a world built on consumerism, free speech doesn't hold a candle to free beer.   Besides, If you accept the Open Source view of freedom then "free speech" ends up unintelligible gibberish.

Which coincidentally is a lot like your support options.

There are just far too many projects out there that are the very antithesis of usability unless you're the type that likes to write Apache modules for fun.  Many are bleeding edge offering promise but in any other realm they'd be considered an "Alpha" release.

Do they really want me to put my neck on the line for an ideology?

I'll put it this way.  If you're ok with rolling out a "Developer Preview" of the Windows operating system (aka: Beta) to your entire enterprise then you're probably ok trusting that same enterprise to poorly supported open source software.

There's a history in Open Source that goes beyond just sticking it to the establishment.  It hearkens back the days when computer guys had all the answers.

Open source is where the gurus go.  You can trace its roots to the custom applications that literally held business hostage in the early days of enterprise computing.  Back then business wanted computerization but there were very few who knew how to make it work.  There were no Microsoft's just hardware and a few people that knew how to press the right buttons and work the magic.  Those people held the keys to the kingdom tightly.

The inroads of Windows and Mac operating systems in the early 90's eliminated the need for such exalted wizardry.  Any bright kid with a couple of exam cram books could run an enterprise.  The wizard gurus were none too pleased to see their grip on power loosening.

Ok so that's a bit melodramatic but there was definitely a lot of ego bruising going on when the PDP-11's got kicked to the curb.  I'm in danger of flying off on a tangent that sounds like something found in a Tolkien trilogy so I'll just wrap up this thought with this. 

There's a reason there's so much bile hurled at the likes of Microsoft by the Open Source community.  Contrary to the marketing, It's not about some David vs. Goliath battle.  It's simpler than that.  It really comes down to ego and wanting back the days when the Uber Geek held all the cards.

Control the Information and you control the world. 

They eschew anything "packaged" instead touting the virtue of getting one's hands dirty.  To hell with those "lazy" users wanting everything "handed" to them.  Every child should know C-Sharp by the age of 3!

They don't get it.  They just can't understand why everyone doesn't want to be a part-time software engineer.  Which is the root of the attitude and the reason why Open Source tends to have a narcissistic vibe even while proclaiming the democracy of a community.

If the masses will not be turned they will be ruled...

Phew!

Who knew it was so political!

It's not all bad, however, and there are good ideas and good projects out there but there's no guarantee they'll stay that way.  Projects can start out with lofty aspirations but most are just some poor Joe looking to fix his own issues.  Once the problem is solved the project is abandoned.  

As such, the world of Open Source is a wonderful laboratory but little more.  A place to try new approaches and work out the bugs but not to trust an entire enterprise to unless someone has taken it to the next level as in the example of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL. )

Even then a competent talent pool to administer it will be much shallower than its competition and more expensive since it's still a niche skill set.

The bottom line is this.  No business should be held hostage by what is all too often the product of a hobbyist's whim who got inspiration from an Internet forum.  

Yes there are serious Open Source initiatives out there but most of them aren't ready for prime time and if their devs are honest with themselves, never will be. 

Open source is great for advancing the art but artists make bad businessmen.  

A new perspective on old Operating systems

I see a lot of uproar over Operating systems lately. 

Not the normal Windows versus Mac versus Linux fare.  No, the wailing starts around the time an older version is no longer supported meaning no further updates are produced for it and every request for help is met with the maddening phrase...

"Upgrade to the newer version."

Now truth be told, we rarely hear anyone complaining much about the abandonment of an old version of Mac OSX or a Linux distribution.  Devotees of those platforms are usually breathlessly awaiting the next release. 

It's usually the Windows world that complains the most and with good reason.  Their customer base is always wary of a new Microsoft release especially if it follows a successful predecessor.  That's because success is usually followed by failure.  A short review of recent history bears that out..

• Windows 2003/Windows XP - Stable, easy to manage and user friendly at least after the first service packs.
• Windows Vista - I don't care what Paul Thurott says, it was/is slow and almost completely unusable before service pack 2.  Microsoft's "my way or the highway" stance didn't help it gain many fans either.  It's the reason why Windows XP only recently entered obsolescence.
• Windows 7 - Everything Vista should have been and for many the worthy successor to XP.
• Windows 8 - A sign of things to come in interface design but a bit too much too soon.  Great for tablets but lousy on anything without a touch screen. 

So the trend is evident.  Expect the release of a successful Microsoft product to be immediately followed by a failure. 

Perhaps a change of perspective is needed here.

Operating systems are just "products" and products have a shelf life.  That means after a certain amount of time they go "bad."

So I'm proposing we think of operating systems in the same way we think about cars. 

When you buy a new car you can expect that for at least 5 years you're going to have full support from the factory that made it.  Any little thing that goes wrong will be quickly and cheerfully rectified and you can bet that all the latest features will be there for the taking.

Now moving past that 5 year mark we're getting into the realm of "mature" products.  You may still have a warranty but you're going to find that if the sun visor falls off it's going to be fixed but it's probably going to be on your dime.  If the engine blows up, however, it'll probably be covered.  Don't expect any feature updates from the factory though.  They've moved on to this year's model which more likely than not isn't much different than yours so there's no real compelling reason to "upgrade."

Once we get to 10 years you now own an old car.  You're probably not visiting the dealer to get it repaired anymore mostly because it's too expensive.  If you hold on to it you've either got a trusted mechanic close to home or you've suddenly taken an interest in automotives.

Over 10 years and the words "End of Life" start showing up.  At this point you're into legacy status and the factory could care less about your car.  If you really like the car you'll find all sorts of "aftermarket" parts and services to keep it running.  Chances are the factory and dealer won't be able to do much for you at this point. 

I think the model works pretty well for operating systems too.  At some point you have to accept that nothing is forever.  A 12 year old operating system is like a 12 year old car.  Obsolete, poorly supported by its maker and dependent on an "aftermarket" to support it.  There's nothing wrong with the aftermarket so long as they have good standing but it's a roll of the dice.  Also know that just as an old car may not have the safety features or fuel efficiency of a new model, an old OS may not be as secure or perform as well as a newer one.

So run Windows XP or MAC OSX Tiger if you want, just know that from now on you're going to be on your own.

Windows 8, finally a flop?

Article first published as Windows 8, Finally a Flop? on Technorati.

"We can call it now, Windows 8 is a flop" Said the unofficial "President of the Internet" Leo Laporte on his Sunday This Week in Tech podcast.

 

Citing the generally frigid reception by consumers to the latest Windows operating system, most pundits will point to the radical change to a touch centric interface.  The question that hasn't been asked is: is it really a case of outright rejection of the Windows 8 Modern (Metro) interface or just bad timing.

It's no secret that sales of Desktop PC's have been declining over the past few years and the rise of portable devices like the IPAD and the Smartphone have largely been responsible for it. 

After all, if you just need to get your email and do some web browsing even the cheapest tablet will do. It's also no coincidence that most tablets also happen to occupy the same price point as entry level PC's with the added convenience of portability.

So it's no mystery that Microsoft went all in on an interface that favored touch.  As much as the pundits may hate to admit it, the days of the desktop are numbered.  The popularity of tablets has shown that.  Still, is it reasonable to expect anyone to compose a novel on an  IPAD or an ASUS tablet?  Of course not but that's a temporary condition. 

What's surprising is that the tech pundits, those champions of all things new and techie don't see it.  Forgive me if I sound like a futurist but I don't think it's a stretch that gestures, predictive keyboards and voice will be the primary input devices by the end of the next decade. 

That's the future Microsoft was betting on.  Unfortunately, OEM's weren't exactly on  board with Windows 8's new interface and released hardware that couldn't leverage the touch based UI. 

Corporations, long the bulk of Windows sales, had deferred upgrade cycles and many had only recently deployed Windows 7.  To corporate IT departments there was no compelling reason to put their users through another round of upgrades so soon.  Doubly so when you consider the learning curve of the Windows 8 UI without a touch screen.  Pairing Windows 8 and traditional PC hardware was just never going to fly in cubicleland.

If you want to say Windows 8 is a flop you'd be justified to blame it on the new UI but not because it's necessarily a bad design.  OEM's had been warning Microsoft since the spring of 2012 that they wouldn't have hardware ready to take advantage of the new touch UI.  When October came around most chose to release hardware meant for Windows 7.  That resulted in making Windows  8 seem more cumbersome than revolutionary and virtually guaranteed its failure.

 The Band-Aid solution  from many OEM's was to  graft a third party extension that returned the Start Menu to the Windows 8 desktop.  If that's not an option for you the open source Classic Shell and Stardock's Start8 can offer the same functionality.  None of these options are supported by Microsoft by the way.

You can also blame Microsoft for muddying the message. 

If you want to see the purest representation of what Microsoft was after with Windows 8 look no further than the Surface RT.  Trouble is, RT isn't Windows 8.  RT has more in common with Windows phone than Windows 8 but to consumers it looks the same. 

That leaves them confused and ultimately frustrated when they find out they can't run Windows applications on something that looks like Windows.  Worse, Microsoft has done little to correct the bad perception.  Even amongst howls to either bring back the beloved "Start Menu" or allow booting directly to the desktop instead of into the tiles (as was possible in the consumer preview) Microsoft has turned a deaf ear.

Until now, that is.  There's a rumor that the next update to Windows 8 due in August and called Windows Blue (or Windows 8.1) may allow booting directly to the desktop and see the return of the Start Button (but not the Start Menu).  At this point, however, it's still just rumor. 

In the end if Windows 8 has failed it had little to do with the operating system itself.  This was not another Vista as many blogs decried in the months leading up to the launch of Windows 8.   in fact most pundits  now admit that it's actually a faster and more secure OS than its predecessor.  Rather it seems to have more to do with OEM's resistant to change and a mixed message from Microsoft.

Perhaps Windows 8 will only find vindication through the lens of history.

Is technology really getting more affordable? That depends on who's saying it...

Article originally published on Technorati as "Is Technology Really Getting more Affordable?"

This is a time of year when everyone has a list.  Best of, Worst of, Predictions for and the like.  Seems we have a preoccupation with looking where we've been while trying to guess where we're going.  At the beginning of 2011 most technically inclined folks were preoccupied with the next Iphone and Net Neutrality.  Now we're debating SOPA/PIPA and whether 2012 will finally bring an Android tablet to rival the IPAD. 

Oh yeah, and maybe we'll get a new version of Windows that will realize Microsoft's hopes to rival Apple's omnipresence on a myriad of devices...

That's all fine and good but one thing that hasn't changed is the push to make our data portable via "The Cloud"  and the costs associated to get it there.  With maturity and broader acceptance (read that volume) we usually enjoy better service at reduce costs.  That doesn't seem to be the case, however.

I'm a frequent viewer of Leo Laporte's Twit.TV video podcasts.  In fact I watch them more frequently than regular television.  I'm sure I'm not alone in my viewing habits.  It's an excellent source for tracking technology trends and news where you prefer a more relaxed but still professional presentation.

Still, as I watch I sometimes feel a sense of incredulity at what the hosts consider an acceptable price  when discussing products and services.  For example, Ford is a sponsor of a number of Twit.Tv podcasts with Twit produced commercial spots interwoven in their shows.  On one the 2012 Ford Focus is featured.  Economy, styling, and of course technology are featured in the spots with Ford's Sync technology being the centerpiece.  Sync can apparently integrate with the features and services on your Smartphone and make them available via voice control without distracting you from driving.

I have no issue with Ford or Twit's celebration of a technology.  What I take some issue with is what is considered affordable.  In one commercial Leo claims the Focus with Sync is affordable.  I went on Ford's website and built a similar vehicle with features equivalent to the example in the commercial.  When I was done I was looking at a $24,000 subcompact with a 4 cylinder engine. 

I personally don't find $24,000 for an entry level car line to be affordable regardless of whether it integrates with Pandora .  If you want the all electric version be prepared to shell out #39,500 for a base model.  That's not affordable either.

I'm not picking on Twit, however.  They're just  part of a larger community with a passion for new technology to the exclusion of all else.  It seems that technology companies are trying to redefine what affordable is whether or not it has any basis in reality.  Can the latest Smartphone make you more productive?  Perhaps, but is it worth the $200 price and 2 year commitment at a ridiculous monthly rate? 

Is it worth $300 for an operating system for your computer whose only purpose is to provide an environment for even more expensive software suites?   Probably not but we've been conditioned to accept the ridiculous as necessary.  Our personal fortunes may be waning but Apple, AT&T and Microsoft are doing just fine thank you.

I'm not against technology or progress but I'm stalwartly opposed to their marketing being promoted as the basis for my personal economy.  Market forces can dictate what a fair price is but they seem to be getting ignored with the latest technology trends.  Just as a box of fruit loops at $50 with a one year contract isn't justifiable or even sane;  Costs of $120 or more for  monthly cell phone bills aren't either for what you get. 

Technology features prominently in our future and promises to change the very concepts of work and play.  I applaud the liberation it's already brought to those who couldn't flourish without it.  But the price we pay needs to be dictated by those who use it, not someone's marketing department. 

I'd just like to see tech journalism push for real affordability instead of the perception of it.