What makes Windows 10 so bad?

Windows 10 is both the most advanced and most controversial operating system ever released.  Its focus on unifying the Windows experience across a myriad of devices is laudable but the premise of its launch is suspect.

While proponents and shills of Microsoft's latest SALES platform treat such observations as the ravings of the tin foil hat crowd, a cooler head finds legitimate issues with Satya Nadella's strategy for the platform.  

Ask yourself the following questions....

Can anyone trust an operating system that constantly monitors your habits for no other purpose than to sell you something?

Is it OK to force an operating system upgrade that you don't want? 

Let me show you why I can't take Windows 10 seriously in the video below...

Windows 10: Free or Freemium?

Hurrah!

Finally, Microsoft has come to their senses and Windows will be free from now to evermore...

Kinda...

Ok, so the bottom line is this.   The way we'll get a new version of Windows will forever be changed once Windows 10 launches this summer.  From now on Windows should cost you nothing more than a bit of time and a slight hit on your bandwidth cap.

Maybe...

Sometime in the near future you're going to find a very large update in your monthly batch of Windows patches.  It will be Windows 10 and it's coming free of charge to anyone with Windows 7 and above. 

Better yet, it's been suggested that Microsoft doesn't even care if you've got a pirated version.  Could this possibly mean the scourge of "Microsoft Genuine Advantage" will finally be ending?  That would be nice but considering the huge investment Microsoft has put into licensing technologies it's hard to believe that they'd completely abandon them.

Originally, Microsoft claimed that upgrades to 10 would come free to users of all "consumer" versions of Windows 7 and above except for Enterprise versions (labeled Enterprise or Enterprise N.)  That means everything from Windows "Home" to "Ultimate" should be eligible.  In case you don't know, "Enterprise" versions are only available via a volume license agreement offering the rough equivalent of a stripped down  "Pro" version.

What we don't know is if that word "consumer" is just an adjective or a label.  For one thing, will you suddenly find your "Professional" version downgraded to some anemic "Home" version of 10 that can barely browse a web page or will you get the equivalent to what you have now?

If, for example, I suddenly can't connect to my home NAS box or my small office's domain services then we're going to have a serious problem.  I don't say this often but it's true nonetheless.  I'd rather install Linux on an end user's work PC than any combination of the words "Windows" and "Home."

It seems to me there's a hole in Microsoft's strategy in the way its segregating the "enterprise" and "consumer" versions of Windows.  Most small to mid-sized businesses are not running "enterprise" versions meaning whatever it is they are running is considered a "consumer" version.

If Windows 10 is going to be free to "consumers" then what's to stop the next round of hardware upgrades in someone's "enterprise" (as in Fortune 500) just being a bunch of Dell's with free versions of Windows 10 Pro? 

I don't believe Microsoft is going to let that happen since they still make the bulk of their money off corporate volume licensing programs and Windows is a big part of that.

Which makes the use of the word "consumer" suspicious.  Are we going to again fork Windows versions much like the days before Windows XP so that Enterprise grade tools like SCCM can no longer manage a "consumer" version?  Not likely unless the enterprise is getting left out of the whole "unified desktop" thing.

Right now I can push an SCCM package to Windows (7 or 8) Pro and Ultimate.  If I try to do the same to  our theoretical "home" version of Windows 10 I'd have to believe it would fail.   In short, a crippled version of 10 would be little more than a refresh of the much hated Windows Starter Edition. 

With current available information, I don't see how Microsoft could protect the corporate honey pot any other way. That is, unless they really do believe that they can get by on Office 365 license revenues or they're going to be like Red Hat Enterprise Linux and charge for "premium" support.

Regardless of whatever conspiracies are floating around my head, the goal is obvious.  Where Windows 8 was Microsoft's initial attempt to push the idea of "one OS to rule them all."  This next iteration is meant to finally bring that goal to fruition on any device.  The best way to do that is to literally give it away and make your money off services and support. 

While still being closed source, giving away Windows is a very Linux way of getting an operating system into the hands of users.  However, that begs the question of whether the giveaway is really just another revenue stream.  Even Linux can cost you dearly if you can't find the answer in a support forum.

Let's also remember that Microsoft is about making money not social change.

Back in the 90's there was a PC maker called Free-PC who built their business by literally giving away computers. They did that by encapsulating the entire user experience in a horrific advertising shell (or Hell) that you couldn't escape.  You were forced to look at ads, participate in surveys and consent to have your every action monitored.

What price freedom indeed.  Thankfully that model died as quickly as the low grade hardware in those machines.  The question is, much like free apps on smartphones could we find something similar in the form of spontaneous ads or diminished functionality unless we subscribe to "premium" functionality?

So as consumers we have to ask ourselves if "free" is worth a diminished experience if that's indeed what Windows 10 turns out to be.  Unfortunately, we won't know till the OS is launched.  Yes, there are millions of preview builds out there right now but that doesn't really mean much.  Preview builds are generally unrestricted versions analogous to a "Pro" or "Ultimate" retail product. 

Meaning we really don't know what we're going to get for free and Microsoft is apparently content to  keep us all guessing.

Of course all of this grows out of a history of bad faith with Microsoft.  From legitimate copies of Windows being bricked by an update or Genuine Advantage running amok, it's hard to take anything the company says at face value. 

But we are in the age of subscriptions aren't we.  Paying for an operating system is akin to buying a new car and being charged an extra $500 for the ignition key.  Making money off platforms goes against all marketing principles.  

Nobody buys products anymore, they buy an experience.  It's why people pay twice as much for an Iphone when its hardware is frequently inferior to even the cheapest Android phone.

Most normal people could care less about how advanced your operating system is.  They're far more interested in what kind of software can run on it.  If you're proprietary, like Microsoft, you'd rather sell 100 Office 365 licenses than 1000 copies of Windows.  Mostly because you'll sell the Office licenses faster and be back in a year when it's time to "renew."  Nobody is going to pay to renew an OS.  In fact it's amazing that anyone ever paid upwards of $200 for an operating system in the first place.

In a freemium world a "free" OS is de rigeur.  The question is how far does that philosophy seep into Windows 10.

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.  

FIX your BASH already! Correcting the BASH shellshock vulnerability

By now you've heard that just about every 'Nix box on the planet is vulnerable to a flaw in the BASH shell that allows code insertion regardless of your level of access.  Worse, it's been that way for 25 years!

Ok, so that's a problem but what's the solution?

It's actually pretty simple...

First you test, then you patch, then you test again.  I've provided some command line snippets you can use on your Red Hat or Debian based Linux distros.  The testing command is almost universal the patch commands are more system specific.  Regardless, you need to get this done ASAP as less than 24 hours after its discovery there were already active bots scanning the net looking to exploit the vulnerability.

The command snippets you need are below as well as a video showing the update process.  The following link had the most complete information I've found if you want to know more.

https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-protect-your-server-against-the-shellshock-bash-vulnerability

You've got what you need, now go to it!



()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Testing command (at a shell prompt or terminal session)

env VAR='() { :;}; echo Bash is vulnerable!' bash -c "echo Bash Test"


Bash updates:

Debian/Ubuntu-

sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install --only-upgrade bash

CentOS/Red Hat

sudo yum update bash

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.

Web hosting for cheap on a virtual machine

The thing you have to remember about working in IT is that no two projects are ever alike.  Even if you're being asked to do the same thing for 10 different people you're still going to be surprised.  Sometimes even on the same project.

So it was with my latest foray into virtualization on the cheap.  The client could barely afford to pay me let alone invest thousands in licensing fees.  So we had to get creative without sacrificing stability. 

That can be a tall order especially when everything you're using is Open Source. 

Now I have my issues with the way the Open Source community does things but a good product is a good product regardless of who made it.

Of course, "good" is a relative term. 

It's always a trade off.  A bit of pain to save a lot of money is fair but too much pain can cost more than if you'd just went with a commercial option.  And I do mean "commercial" because I still firmly believe that any product that relies on a fractured support community or high priced "experts" to make a product work is just this side of an amateur effort. 

Not that all open source products are that way, however.  

Some communities are better than others and if they put together a solid package with "readable" documentation then I'm all for it.  If we're just stroking somebody's ego so they can get a guest spot on Floss Weekly I'll take a pass every time.

I put CentOS, the open source version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and Z-panel, the open source clone of C-panel squarely in the "good" category.

Together they offered a cost effective and relatively stable platform for web hosting.  Add in a virtual platform for them to live on and you've got a web host that could fit on a keychain.  Not bad...

Instead of bore you with 4000 words of text describing my latest open source virtualization adventure I've created a video that takes you from creating the virtual machine to administering your new web host. 

As you're watching you may miss a few of the links in the video.  I've provided them below.

https://www.centos.org/

http://www.zpanelcp.com/

Zpanel Docs page

Z-panel install tips
Zpanel important paths
Zpanel password reset

CLI-nging ON

Imagine if you had to do the following  just to start your car every morning...

1.    Pull the choke adjacent to the right fender while engaging the crank lever under the radiator at the front of the car, slowly turning it a quarter-turn clockwise to prime the carburetor with fuel.

2.     Get into the car. Insert the ignition key, turning the setting to either magneto or battery. Adjust the timing stalk upward to retard the timing, move the throttle stalk downward slightly for an idle setting, and pull back on the hand brake, which also places the car in neutral.

3.     Return to the front of the car. Use your left hand to crank the lever (if the engine backfires and the lever swings counterclockwise, the left arm is less likely to be broken). Give it a vigorous half-crank, and the engine should start.

Chances are, your great grandparents were very familiar with the procedure if they owned a Model T.  Mind you, all that bother just starts the car, you haven't even tried to drive anywhere yet.  A complicated procedure to be sure but it beat shoe leather, barely.

Times changed and eventually somebody figured out how to take all those manual processes and mechanically automate them.  Soon, starting your car was just a turn of a key and driving it was more about where you wanted to go than how to control a mass of cantankerous machinery.  It also made the act of driving more accessible to more people.

That's called progress....

So as I stare at my open PowerShell window with a line of gobbledygook that to my dismay is my only means of finding out how much space my email users are hogging I have to wonder...

[PS] C:\>Get-MailboxDatabase "Mailbox Database 1" | Get-MailboxStatistics | Sort totalitemsize -desc | Export-CSV C:\mailboxes.csv

What's up with this command line stuff? 

Go into just about any forum or social media discussion even remotely related to IT and the flame wars will start with the mere mention of the command line.

"Go play with Windows if you want to click buttons"

countered with...

"You know, nobody uses punch cards anymore"

On and on ad infinitum. 

I had just such an exchange the other day with an open source devotee.  He was one of those grizzled admin types who clings to the mantra that nothing real happens in IT without a CLI (Command Line Interface)

He went on and on about his numerous accomplishments with his mastery of cursor and alphabet.  He also bemoaned the lack of functionality in all those "buttons."

It brought me back to the story a friend told me of an old CPA who refused to use a computer with Windows on it because all those kinds of OS's were just "Game" machines.

Anyway, apparently support for his favorite open source R&D project was callously left out of the latest VMWARE Vsphere client.  There was no doubt that to him such an omission doomed VMWare's GUI.

I was quick to point out that the Vshpere client is the preferred method (or the Web client for 5.5) to manage VMWare.  Actually, it's one of the more complete GUI management interfaces available and there aren't a lot of "buttons" to it.

He didn't think so...

To my mind, if it isn't officially supported then you take your lumps and have no right to complain.  But it's pointless to argue with someone like that.  As far as I was concerned he could just go back to his cave...

So it should be no surprise that I hate the command line but only because it's frequently a requirement instead of an option and to me that's all kinds of wrong.  A throwback to carrying around a crank to start your car and the Charleston.

But I have to admit that my console loving friend does have a point.  Far too often Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) let us down.  They only contain the bare minimum of functionality often forcing you to stare into the inky blackness of a console.

 After 30 years of interface development why is it that CLI's are still so prevalent even in operating systems called "Windows?"  Why, for instance, do I have to execute scripts to select multiples of anything instead of just selecting what I want as a group and clicking "OK"

What my troglodytic friend doesn't seem to understand with all his mastery of the blinking cursor is that he's being forced to do more work than he needs to.  System Administration is frequently bogged down by syntax.  I shouldn't need to be a closet code monkey just to efficiently manage an enterprise.

Microsoft, the entity that made the whole concept of a GUI interface acceptable to most of the corporate world seems to be at odds with its own history. (BTW, Yes I know MAC was first with GUI's)

With every new version of windows it seems simple functions are being relegated to scripts and command lines.  Only the most rudimentary controls are left behind.  Spend any time managing Windows Server 2008 or 2012 and it starts to feel like you've entered some twisted Twilight Zone version of Linux.

I'm not saying the command line should be abolished.  Just like you occasionally need to roll up your sleeves and get a little dirty to get your car started in the morning; there's times you need to drop to that nasty old CLI.

That's ok, I have a right to get a little dirty if I need to BUT it shouldn't be a requirement.  That's my problem with the CLI. 

There's an assumption among the CLI elitists that if you're not comfortable with the command line then you must not know what you're doing.

I can assure you, I know exactly what I'm doing.  I'd just rather do it than get bogged down in a layer of abstraction to get to it. 

Yes, I said it, the CLI is an abstraction almost to the point of a DIStraction.  Even more so than a GUI, the convoluted syntax and cryptic commands do more to separate you from the task at hand than any click ever could.

Is your DNS server more secure and better optimized than mine because you configured it with your arsenal of scripts?  Or is it really an indication of a lazy GUI development team that's given you inadequate tools.

Microsoft introduced the concept of a modular GUI interface called the MMC (Microsoft Management Console) back in the NT 4 days.  It was designed to be customizable and more flexible than the standalone applets that accompanied every service.  It was a step in the right direction but unfortunately began the trend of minimizing GUI functionality by neutering the available commands within the MMC applets.

I submit that both the GUI and CLI devotees are right.  I should never have to go to a command line or call up a script to perform management functions.  I should, however, have a robust CLI that doesn't require me to understand the intricacies of of the Microsoft Foundation Classes.  Interfaces should be complete or at least offer the option to be that way regardless of their presentation.. 

What's wrong about the CLI guys is all the arrogance.  So what if you can dash out 30 line scripts from memory or poke holes through VMWARE to support the latest R&D cloud project. 

Don't assume that because I choose not to waste my time on hand cranked cars to get where I'm going that I don't know how to get there. 

I just expect...no...I demand better and at this stage in the game it's just developer laziness that I don't have it.

VMWare 5.5, Vconverter and VSphere Client tips

Let's face it, when you think virtual servers, Microsoft isn't the first name to jump into your head.  VMWare shows up a whole lot more than Hyper-V and chances are if you're in a large enough organization it's the one you've got to manage.

The latest incarnation is version 5.5 which is primarily an answer to a laundry list of bugs that started with the 5.0 platform. 

For most people, the first time they get to play with virtualization is in a sandbox like VirtualBox or VMWare Workstation.  But what if you want to go beyond just taking Ubuntu out for a spin on your Windows desktop?

That's where ESX comes in and even in a large deployment you're going to find out that your most important tools are deceptively simple.  That being the VSphere Client and VConverter.

The whole concept of Virtualization revolves around the Host.  It's the container (hardware) that all your virtual machines live on.  While VMWare's VCenter suite has a number of tools and features to help you manage the virtual enterprise nothing really ever strays that far from those two tools.  Know them and you've got a handle on 80% of what VMWare is all about.

The VSphere client is your portal into managing a single VMWare host and while you can learn a lot by creating a Virtual Machine from scratch on it most people take a shortcut.  That shortcut is provided by VConverter which lets you take an image of your physical PC and migrate it to and ESX Host.  It's called Physical to Virtual Migration or P2V for short.

As VMWare has matured so have the tools.  VConverter now allows you to use backups from programs like Acronis True Image and Symantec to create a new virtual machine.  It also allows the import of Microsoft Virtual PC and HYPER-V images and a few other formats as well.  In fact, VConverter is so versatile that its VM's can often be used in other virtualization platforms like VirtualBox. 

That's the good but of course there's always a few bad apples in the bunch.  The most annoying of which is the fact that VConverter still needs Windows.   Speaking of windows, migrating a Windows installation often requires having full administrative privileges on the machine running VConverter as well as the disabling of UAC (User Account Control) on the Windows P2V target.  Those aren't exactly best security practices in my book.

That there isn't a native Linux version of the VConverter utility only exacerbates nagging problems with migrating Linux deployments to the VMWare platform.   

That doesn't mean you can't move Linux PC's to ESX or even Workstation.  The option is there, it just doesn't always work and requires a lot of configuration of the Linux host just to find out it doesn't.

Still, getting familiar with the tools is a worthwhile endeavor and can only add to your arsenal of IT skills. 

It's said a picture is worth a 1000 words so a video should be worth at least twice that, so I've provided one below...

Enjoy!

9 comes after 8 and that's Windows' new name

Leo Laporte may have officially proclaimed the death of Windows 8 last year but Microsoft made it official this week.  The operating system previously known as "Threshold" has a real name, "Windows 9" and a real release target, April 2015.

According to Paul Thurrott, Windows 9 is meant to be everything Windows 8 wasn't.  For one thing, the desktop will regain its prominence as will the Start Menu.  Metro 2.0, as it's called, will be somewhat deprecated as more of a windowed app instead of a GUI mandate.

The bones have been rolled and the Shaman was right, Windows 8 couldn't succeed in spite of its futuristic aspirations.  It's not that Windows 8 is a flawed operating system, it's not and its performance and security underpinnings are second to none in the Windows world.  But that GUI...That collection of pulsating tiles that consumers were forced to swipe away just to get to their email spelled doom for the Windows known as 8.

Metro isn't a bad idea and I still hold firm to the belief that one day we'll see a workforce happily swiping, typing and talking to their monitors as easily as they send a text message now.  I get it Microsoft.  You were trying to push the concept of a Kiosk operating system that was not only visually attractive but with all those annoying menu bits out of the way. 

Microsoft saw how consumers eschewed scrolling down menus and tiny keyboards on their smart devices for simple taps and swipes.  The proof still exists with the success of Apple and Android devices while Blackberry languishes for all but the most faithful.

But it didn't translate well to the office.  With a stated 25 million copies sold with most of those likely pre-installs on new PC's (whose sales numbers were already suffering,)  Windows 8 just wasn't going to fly with the bean counters.

Incompatibility with legacy applications, an interface inconsistent with current workflows and no real justification to move from windows 7.  When you consider that many businesses are still just in the throes of moving off of XP, the  picture becomes clear.

Windows 8 was an operating system ahead of its time if not its market.  Consumers may be used to scratching and tapping away at their smart devices but not their PC's.  They still expect that "legacy" experience and that translates to corporate America as well. 

That's why 8 failed, If the Fortune 1000 isn't buying it, you just have to call a Microsoft operating system dead. 

Windows 9 is a pullback from the brink.  Still, in the long run the great experiment will cost them little.  There was no upstart, no competition waiting in the wings to unseat the giant from its throne.  Apple? the enterprise is more nuisance than market to them.  Expect OSX to disappear into an API for IOS within the next 10 years.  Linux?  If corporate customers won't tolerate a tightly integrated kiosk experience they won't stomach the wild West of an open source operating system either. 

At this point the best thing Microsoft could do to advance Windows is to split the development  between consumer and business releases again.  If you want one interface across all "consumer" devices then by all means do it.  Let it grace the likes of phones, tablets and yes, consumer PC's.  Just don't try to force it down corporate America's throat.

People don't like to be forced to do anything.  They need time to get used to it.  Windows 95 brought the desktop to the next step in its evolution.  It was more about clicks than menus and command lines.  Consumers got used to that and were soon demanding the same from their business PC's.  Thus came Windows 2000 which was really just windows NT with a facelift and some beefier networking bits. 

It was all about the interface and customers both corporate and consumer asked for it.  

That's the key, consumers have to feel like it's their choice.  If they want to be told what's good for them they'll buy an IPAD.