Practical Technology

for practical people.

February 22, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Does Anyone Still Think Vista SP1 Was RTM-Ready?

I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I told you so. The RTMed Vista SP1 is anything but ready for prime time.

Microsoft has pinned its hopes for getting businesses to buy into Vista on the release of Vista Service Pack 1. So the company pushed SP1 out the door before it was ready, and now early adopters are discovering that Vista, with or without SP1, still isn’t business-ready.

This comes as no surprise to me. I knew that Vista SP1 was, at best, half-baked when Microsoft announced that Vista was being released to manufacturing Feb. 4 but really wasn’t going to made available, even to TechNet and MSDN members, until mid-March.

Based on recent news, I’m beginning to think that saying Vista SP1 will begin arriving in customers’ hands by mid-March may be optimistic.

More >

February 21, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft Spins Legal Defeat into PR Fool`s Gold

If you didn’t know what was really behind Microsoft’s open standards and source promises, it might sound like Microsoft was making real changes.

You’ve got to give Microsoft credit for gall. They take a crunching defeat at the hands of the European Union court system for trying to conceal information and now that the court has forced them to reveal that same information, Microsoft is all about increasing “the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice for developers, partners, customers and competitors.”

Urgh. Excuse me. I feel a little ill.

One publication’s headline, Microsoft makes boldest move yet embracing open source, shows that you really can fool some of the people some of the time. Listen, Microsoft is doing nothing but trying to turn a complete and total defeat into a PR victory.

All those things Microsoft promises it will do—opening up the APIs for its major programs, documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and extensions, working on document interoperability—they’re all required by the EU decision. In fact, according to the EU, Microsoft didn’t go far enough in its announcement.

More >

February 21, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft Spins Legal Defeat into PR Fool`s Gold

If you didn’t know what was really behind Microsoft’s open standards and source promises, it might sound like Microsoft was making real changes.

You’ve got to give Microsoft credit for gall. They take a crunching defeat at the hands of the European Union court system for trying to conceal information and now that the court has forced them to reveal that same information, Microsoft is all about increasing “the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice for developers, partners, customers and competitors.”

Urgh. Excuse me. I feel a little ill.

One publication’s headline, Microsoft makes boldest move yet embracing open source, shows that you really can fool some of the people some of the time. Listen, Microsoft is doing nothing but trying to turn a complete and total defeat into a PR victory.

All those things Microsoft promises it will do—opening up the APIs for its major programs, documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and extensions, working on document interoperability—they’re all required by the EU decision. In fact, according to the EU, Microsoft didn’t go far enough in its announcement.

According to the European Anti-Trust Commission’s response to Microsoft’s news, Microsoft’s “announcement does not relate to the question of whether or not Microsoft has been complying with EU antitrust rules in this area in the past. The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today’s announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.”

Too bad Microsoft hasn’t lived up to its promises or its legal obligations. The EU Anti-Trust Commission statement goes on: “In January 2008, the Commission initiated two formal antitrust investigations against Microsoft—one relating to interoperability, one relating to tying of separate software products … Today’s announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations.”

And what are those allegations? The same ones Microsoft claims it’s doing so much better with now.

“One of these investigations focuses on the alleged illegal refusal by Microsoft to disclose sufficient interoperability information across a broad range of products, including information related to its Office suite, a number of its server products, and also in relation to the so-called .NET Framework and on the question of whether Microsoft’s new file format Office Open XML, as implemented in Office, is sufficiently interoperable with competitors’ products.”

The EU statement went on: “The second investigation concerns allegations of tying of separate software products, including Internet Explorer, to the Windows PC operating system.”

Ah yes, here we have Microsoft yet again spinning like crazy. The EU is requiring the company to show that it is now obeying the European court, so now Microsoft is saying, ‘Yes, see we’re proud of doing these things (which, oh by the way, you’re requiring us to do anyway).’

But is it even really doing that? Microsoft, for example, has had to open up its network and server protocols. It even came to an agreement with The Samba Group to let Samba, an open-source group, at its network protocol crown jewels.

But now, if you look at the fine print of what Microsoft is promising, you’ll see that Microsoft is only promising not to sue open-source programmers creating non-commercial software. If say, oh I don’t know, Red Hat, Canonical, or Mandriva were to use Samba, Microsoft seems to be saying that it’s business as usual and we just might sue you for patent violations.

I doubt they would. The EU is already hot on their trail. Microsoft also runs the danger of what I like to call patent MADness (Mutually Assured Destruction), but Microsoft loves to keep talking up its open-patent FUD.

One final thought for today: Isn’t it interesting how Microsoft is now all about document interoperability? What’s so special about today? It’s the day before the question of whether Microsoft is open is once more considered by the ISO.

To quote Andrew Updegrove, a partner with the Boston law firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP and a well-known standards expert, from his blog on today’s news: “I expect that there it is no coincidence that this announcement comes just two business days (and only one, for most of the world) before the Ballot Resolution Meeting convenes in Geneva next Monday. This will effectively give those participating in the discussions of Microsoft’s OOXML document format no opportunity to fully understand what Microsoft has actually promised to do, while reaping the maximum public relations benefit.”

You think?

I’d like to think that Microsoft really is willing to work and play well with others with open standards. Really, I would. But if you take a close look at this PR stunt, and that’s all it really is, and then look at Microsoft’s long history of making, and breaking, interoperability promises, well I don’t believe it for a New York minute.

At this point, the only Microsoft promise of peace and cooperation I’m willing to believe would be one drafted by SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) head Eben Moglen and written in Steve Ballmer’s blood. Short of that, as far as I’m concerned, it’s still business as usual for Microsoft.

Or, to make this even clearer, here’s a LOL Cat version, which does a nice job of reflecting my views. For those of you without your Microsoft and open-source leader score cards, from top to bottom, that’s Steve Ballmer, Eric Raymond, Bill Gates and Richard M. Stallman.

A version of this story first appeared in eWEEK.

February 21, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Microsoft Sea Change? Claims to support Open Standards and Interoperability

Microsoft announced on February 21st at a press release to be followed by a 11:30 AM Eastern press conference that it was launching a “broad-reaching changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice for developers, partners, customers and competitors.”

Specifically, Microsoft promises to :enhance connections with third-party products,” by publishing documentation for all its high-volume products’ APIs (application programming interfaces) and communications protocols that are used to connect with other Microsoft products. According to the statement, “Developers do not need to take a license or pay a royalty or other fee to access this information. Open access to this documentation will ensure that third-party developers can connect to Microsoft’s high-volume products just as Microsoft’s other products do.”

What is truly different is that Microsoft will also indicate on its Web site “which protocols are covered by Microsoft patents and will license all of these patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, at low royalty rates. To assist those interested in considering a patent license, Microsoft will make available a list of specific Microsoft patents and patent applications that cover each protocol.” In the past, Microsoft has been secretive on which of its patents actually apply to any given program or protocol.

And, after years of threatening open-source developers with possible legal attacks for never named patents, in its statement, Microsoft claimed that it will now provide “a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.”

The announcement, however, did not include any details on this patent covenant.

More >

February 20, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

Duke Is Investing in a Half-Baked 802.11n Standard

Duke University is spending millions on 802.11n Wi-Fi technology. It’s too bad that 802.11n still isn’t a real standard.

You can never be thin enough, have enough money or a fast-enough wireless connection. That’s why everyone wants 801.11n, vendors are still locked in a standards war, and no one should spend any serious money on an 802.11n deployment.

That’s why I’m not sure why Duke University plans on deploying more than 2,500 Cisco 802.11n APs (access points). Yes, I know why they want it. I want it too. Who wouldn’t want average data throughput performance of nearly 130M bps and about double 802.11g’s range?

The fight over the 802.11n has been going on for almost five years now by my count, and it’s still not done. As is so often the case in standards, two major vendor sides squared off over which group’s approach would become the one true, and, thus money making, standard. At one time, Mitsubishi and Motorola paired together for yet another standard and Qualcomm had its own horse in the race. Fortunately, they bowed out early leaving us with only two competing groups.

On one side was the Task Group ‘n’ synchronization, or TGn Sync. It counted Intel, Atheros Communications, Nortel, Samsung, Sony, Qualcomm, Philips and Panasonic among its supporters. On the other was WWiSE (World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency). Airgo Networks lead this faction. The two sides reached a compromise agreement. In theory that is. The 802.11 Working Group’s Task Group N (TGn) voters still haven’t approved the technology as a standard.

Instead, what we have today is the 802.11n Draft 2 ‘standard.’ This is not a final standard. It’s also not a standard that works between vendors. So, if I come on to the Duke campus with my Apple MacBook Pro, there’s no guarantee that it’s going to work at 1T 802.11n speeds with Duke’s newly installed Cisco Aironet 1250 Series AP-based WLAN (Wireless LAN). Oh, the MacBook, a Dell, a Lenovo, or whatever laptop you happen to have with an 802.11n card, will work. But it will work by falling back to 802.11g.

I’m not sure that at a list price of $1,299 per 1250 unit, I’m really spending my network money well. After all, if I want 802.11g’s theoretical maximum speed of 54M bps, I could buy a decent 802.11g AP, say Cisco’s own Linksys WAP54G Wireless-G Access Point for about $70. Of course, if you want to spend 18 times the price of 802.11g for 802.11g service, don’t let me stop you. You’re the one who will have to explain your decision to the chief financial officer. Good luck with that.

More >

February 18, 2008
by sjvn01
0 comments

BBC Shows come to iTunes Store UK

Usually, it’s the Europeans who are left lagging behind the U.S. when it comes to Apple’s latest offerings. Not this time. The real word doesn’t come out until tomorrow but if you’re in the UK and you open up your iTunes Store, you’ll find that the BBC is now delivering some of its TV shows to Apple TV and video iPod customers.

According to the TUAW (The Unofficial Apple Weblog), the UK Apple iTunes store is already selling episodes of popular BBC television shows. The selection, as of the night of February 18th, Torchwood, Spooks, The Mighty Boosh, Life on Mars, The Catherine Tate Show, Two Pints of Lager, a Packet of Crisps, and Little Britain. Each episode will cost £1.89.

If you’re in the States, you’re out of luck. Darn it.

Continue Reading →