(1 votes, average: 8 out of 10)
Loading ...The Two Open Sources
This last month I have encountered a common misunderstanding pertaining to Linux and open source. Many representatives of corporate entities equate open source, and Linux for that matter, with the dvds you find taped to magazines in your local bookstore.
They’re right. But there’s another open source. That’s the Linux and set of applications that are hardened and delivered as part of an enterprise scale distribution. What’s the difference?
It’s all about supportability. Commercial grade linux and open source have established roadmaps, have comprehensive support infrastructures behind them and are stable releases that are updated on a regular but not rapid interval.
Community distros typically have new releases every six months or so, and often see significant updates each week. We get to see amazing innovation in the community distros but you’d have to be wacky to run your business on them. That’s what commercial grade distros are for.
So please do give Linux and open source a try. Please also recognize that the commercial and community distributions are built with different design goals and different audiences in mind. Both bring you freedom of choice and amazing capability.
Until next time, peace.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(5 votes, average: 9.2 out of 10) Loading ...Software as a Service: My Own Story
I have a great example of using Software as a Service (SAAS) from my own day-to-day experience. One of the complexities that I have faced in doing consulting work has been the coordination between my desktop PC (which is used for most of my industrial-strength analysis and report writing), my laptop (which I travel with), and my Blackberry (which is with me all the time, much to the chagrin of my partner).
For the last few years, I have been using ISPs and getting my mail via POP services. Using an ISP with a POP service has been prone to breakdowns in getting my mail. For several years, I used Plaxo to synchronize between my desktop and laptop with limited success. Plaxo required me to synchronize my contacts, tasks and notes when I was back at the office through cradling my Blackberry. Normally I made changes to my schedule ‘on the fly’ and would not often get back to my office to do the necessary resynchronization between my Blackberry, desktop and laptop. So managing this whole thing was a real pain! Changes have to be done in real time across my desktop and mobile device to ensure reliable control over my activities.
Recently, I spent some time looking at other solutions: Google calendars, IMAP and other services. None of these approaches really meet the bill for me, particularly with the now-basic requirement to have real-time synchronization with my Blackberry, reliability and extreme ease of operation. None of those solutions offered real-time updates between my three work tools.
Well, I’ve finally found a solution that meets the bill in the coordination between my technologies that I use in my far flung and frenetic advisory work – a hosted exchange server.
Microsoft announced recently that it is launching into hosted exchange server services (reference http://www.microsoft.com/online/exchange-online.mspx). Microsoft Exchange Online is a hosted enterprise messaging solution that provides: “…capabilities to your users with a single sign-on, including e-mail, shared calendaring, and contacts. And it works with Active Directory to ensure that information is synchronized between your local and online directories, allowing your IT department to support a mix of hosted services and on-premise software. Additionally, Exchange Online supports business continuity and disaster recovery with cloud-based antivirus and spam filtering and high data center security standards.”
But the service does not offer a connection to my Blackberry. So after looking at this offering, I did not choose the Microsoft service and elected to go through one of their partners who provide services not only for hosted exchange, but also for BES (Blackberry enterprise server) (http://na.blackberry.com/eng/solutions/types/enterprise/ ).
There are a number of excellent service providers that deliver hosted exchange for a very low price with integration with Blackberry and all the security, backup and support needed. In addition, you can use services from these best-of-breed providers for SharePoint and other software services. Suggested vendors include 123Together, Intermedia and Rogers.
I have been very pleased with this switch from the problematic use of a POP3 and the constant hassle of trying to synchronize, many times unsuccessfully, between my own work and personal technology. One of the really great things is that it is a no-hassle solution at a reasonable price! Basic price is $9.95 per month for 500 MB of storage. For a small additional fee, I get full integration with my Blackberry.
This is a real boom for the SME sector. Individuals or small or medium-sized companies, who are contemplating using an exchange server and setting up a BES server should seriously think about using a hosted Exchange solution. It makes working on the fly economically possible.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(3 votes, average: 10 out of 10) Loading ...Feeling the Heat
Predictions are that the IT security situation in Canada will worsen
‘Canadian companies are over-confident and lax when it comes to their IT security. Business leaders aren’t taking it seriously and IT leaders aren’t providing best practices’. This is a recent stunning comment from Vito Mabrucco who is responsible for managing IDC’s U.S. based global consulting. In an uncertain world, there is bound to be an unexpected event or failure that will bring it back to ‘top-of-mind’ status for IT and business executives for 2008. I predict a sudden surge in growth managed security services because the security function can now be outsourced. IDC also sees this potential for growth. (Source: http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=46737&PageMem=2)
Why this hesitancy to evolve security strategy? Why are business leaders not taking security seriously? In Canada, legislation has not yet mandated security as a governance issue, except obliquely through privacy legislation. The same holds true in the US. We have Bill C-198 that has legislated reporting compliance for the private sector and has set the tone for quasi-public organizations in reporting, operational, and financial controls. These rules (except for privacy legislation and some security policies) do not apply to the public sector.
Leaders have not woken up to the fact that their organizations use their systems as the backbone for these reporting and control processes. Any major breaches and damage to their IT operations will taint the integrity of their organizations. Many ill informed executives are building walls around their organizations as an afterthought rather than building security throughout all of their procedures, databases and processing.
Should security be outsourced if not properly done in house or if there is a lack of confidence in IT by senior management? The answer is yes! Boards of Directors, Executives IT leaders and auditors must assess the competence of their teams to be absolutely sure they are effectively managing a rapidly changing landscape of IT security. If they cannot afford or do not have a team that can protect them they need to go outside and hire some real talent to manage their IT security. Managed security service providers are a real answer.
What criteria should be used to select a managed security provider:
- Does the IT security managed services vendor understand your business and all its’ risks?
- Are they ‘on top of their game’ to proactively protect and manage you environment?
- Are they cost effective?
- Can they work with your executives and team?
- Do they have offerings that will fit into all of your environments and be proactive in averting all reasonable treats?
- Do they have a good range of products and services?
- Can they communicate well on what they are doing and what counter measures they are taking?
- Can they lead you and your organization through appropriate transitions and changes to make this effective not just around your systems and process, but embed proper security in all that all you and your organization ode?
- What are their best practices for the security domain?
- How are they evolving on a day-to-day basis to protect the information assets of their client organizations and their vital information assets?
Who are the up and coming managed security providers? The telecommunications carriers are now offering good managed IT security offerings. These are telecommunications companies, like Bell, Telus, Allsteam , SIs, ISPs, ASPs, security software companies like CA, Symantec, HP, IBM, CISCO, the big 4, offshore providers and specialty IT security firms.
IT security is a high stakes game. Zero day threats require immediate action and there must be constant monitoring of the external and internal environments to be sure there are no intrusions. It is now a fact we have to manage our information assets like ‘Fort Knox’. If it is not done properly you could have huge operational, reputation and financial losses.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(4 votes, average: 9.5 out of 10) Loading ...Vista. It’s Better Than You Think
Whoa! The guy who is writing this is Novell Canada’s CTO! He’s an evangelist for the power of Linux and Open Source! Everyone knows that he’s a complete Machead too! How can he, of all people, defend Vista?
Well I hope that serves for introduction and initiation. Let me get to the point. I think the slamming of Vista comes from a certain perspective. Mine is different. First and foremost, I am not a daily Windows user. I use Linux everyday in business and OS X at home. I don’t have a preferred frame of reference for Windows. Recently I built a Windows boot drive for a machine, because a) my company makes software that helps makes the Windows experience better and b) I couldn’t believe that Vista was that bad.
When I step back and look at quality of user experience for the new user with the new computer, I’m actually very impressed. Vista comes up with reasonable speed. I sign in, get a nice Windows like experience, there’s a logo instead of “START” but I can cope with that. I have a usable folder layout, downloads go to the download folder, pictures are in pictures, it’s pretty easy. There’s a decent enough browser, and all the software that I would use on Windows if I were a daily user works fine. I’m a big fan of openoffice.org It runs fine on Vista. GroupWise works. iTunes works.
It may be true that large corporations have not embraced Vista. Yet. The challenge there is the same challenge every OS change incurs. It’s not about the software. It’s about the rollout plan, the investment protection and about the users. I’ve spoken with execs across the Americas and these are the concerns, not about whether the offering is good or not. By delivering Vista on PCs that are going into the home, Microsoft is creating individual user acceptance in advance of corporate acceptance. This is both intelligent and pragmatic.
Vista is sometimes positioned as a transition OS. In my opinion, it isn’t. It will likely be (my opinion - I don’t know this to be a fact) the last of the fully backward compatible versions. I expect, and am speculating, that Windows 7 or whatever Microsoft chooses to call the product will be that transition OS, where the newest functionality is delivered effectively without the baggage of having to be backward compatible. This is hard work and incurs significant resistance even inside the issuing company. I know, because I’ve been there.
In the interim, step back and look at Vista as if you are a new Windows user. You may be pleasantly surprised. And, if not, ping me, I have this really cool Linux alternative… 
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(2 votes, average: 9 out of 10) Loading ...Lies, Damned lies, and IIPA/BSA/etc statistics.
One of the key tools used by lobby groups like the IIPA is statistics to try to “prove” that there is massive harm to them, and which must be remedied in the way they propose. An analysis of their statistics often indicates that their real target is competitors, not copyright infringers.
These studies need to be debunked as they have a large influence on governments who have outsourced this key policy tool to special interest groups. William Patry documents on his BLOG how, lacking any investigative resources of its own, USTR uses figures given to it by IIPA. If you read transcripts from Canadian parliamentary committees studying “counterfeiting and piracy” or Copyright and patents, you will see that Canadian politicians are no better. It is frustrating to know how many amazing economists are working for Industry Canada and other departments, and yet Industry Committee never bothered to consult them when they are studying critical economic policy.
Those debunking these studies are not apologists for copyright infringement. I document how this infringement harms companies like my own more than the members BSA/ESA/etc. I am very interested to stop software copyright infringement, but believe that the policies promoted by the BSA/ESA/etc have an anti-competitive effect and do not reduce software copyright infringement.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(4 votes, average: 10 out of 10) Loading ...Trying to Throw the Brick through the Cloud – Microsoft/Yahoo vs. Google
There has been much press and discussion about the potential merger between Microsoft and Yahoo (the brick) in an attempt to become a formidable force against Google (the cloud). Yahoo management does not want to be taken over and they have recommended rejection of the offer, turning this into a potential hostile takeover. The hostile takeover of Yahoo seems to be somewhat probable based upon market reaction and the premiums offered by Microsoft to Yahoo shareholders. Microsoft certainly has the capability, with its’ multibillion dollar ‘war chest’ for huge acquisitions. I am sure Yahoo will put up quite a fight. There are reports that Yahoo is trying to align with AOL and even Google to fend off the Microsoft bid.
Whether the deal does go through or not, as would be expected, Microsoft is laying plans to integrate Yahoo effectively. The word is out that Microsoft’s executive and product teams are mandated to do the integration/mash-up between Yahoo and Microsoft quickly. The integration will be a challenge because Microsoft and Yahoo have very different styles and very different philosophies. Let’s take a moment to explore just how different they are.
Microsoft invented software for the PC as an engine for empowerment. Microsoft enabled the next step in ‘islands of automation’ beyond the glass house of the datacenters. They went on to dominance of the shrink wrapped products (bricks) selling operating systems and suites. Along the way, Microsoft built a reputation for a style of slow development with security loopholes – something that does not work in the security sensitive and integrity sensitive world. Microsoft admits it was late to see the vision of the PC being really more trivial than the power of the network or ‘cloud’. The cloud is really the power of the network connecting all those PC resources and media together into the collective of the web and more importantly Web 2.0.
Yahoo really defined the meaning of the internet portal as a landing and jumping off place to the web and has built a large following for instant messaging, as has Microsoft. Yahoo has not been able to get unstuck from where it was and is not as innovative or creative as Google. So in fact Google is not a leader in Web 2.0 either. Let’s look at Google for a point of comparison. Google’s philosophy works for the impact on People, not for money. That is one of the reasons why Google is so successful. Google has been able to keep up with the redefined web to stay on the curve. There is a great write up about this at: Google - Our Philosophy ‘Never settle for the best’ - http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html . They have also published “Ten Things Google has found to be true” which are:
1. ‘Focus on the user and all else will follow.
2. It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
3. Fast is better than slow.
4. Democracy on the web works.
5. You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
6. You can make money without doing evil.
7. There’s always more information out there.
8. The need for information crosses all borders.
9. You can be serious without a suit.
10. Great just isn’t good enough.’
This Google mantra is great, but how does it really fit into the enterprise computing world, is this just another security threat or way to defeat the integrity of our information assets?
So what we see is a binary with Microsoft and Yahoo on one side and Google on the other. What about the customer here? It is the CEOs, COOs, CFOs, CIOs and CTOs who are ultimately going to pay the freight for this acquisition. They are going to ask the Microsoft account people, if the deal goes through, ‘what are the new solutions?’
Based on my experience those senior IT people will be asking: ‘How does this fit to my enterprise IT operation?’ How will these merger ‘mash-ups’ fit back into our operations and large complex enterprise databases which we rely on? How does this empower my users and employees, while still integrating into the greater whole of our enterprise safely with integrity? How will Yahoo/Microsoft/Google applications or portals talk to my enterprise platforms? What is empowerment anyway? Is it really a codeword for lax security and impulsive undisciplined behaviour or real breakthrough creativity? Will this end up like herding cats? Does this belong in the enterprise?
If these questions are not answered correctly, Microsoft will be facing a cool reception and that high per share price for the hostile takeover will be a great misstep. The result could be as impactful as throwing a brick though a cloud.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(Rate This Article) Loading ...Copyright is yet another place where Google and Microsoft are competing.
It was interesting to read two articles from CBC earlier this week that had the same website URL except one was dated the 12′th and the other the 13′th. The first had the headline “Canada a top copyright violator, U.S. group says” and the second “Business coalition opposes harsh copyright reform“.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(1 votes, average: 8 out of 10) Loading ...Security in transparency and accountability: Linux kernel root exploit
One of the common things you will hear me say is that the most interesting aspects of software can only be understood when using a political science, law or other social science lens rather than a physics or other natural science lens. My experience with the recent kernel bug known as CVE-2008-0600 is offered as an example.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(3 votes, average: 8.67 out of 10) Loading ...Does Virtualization Equal ‘Bullet Proof’?
Virtualization has been available to the IT world for more than four decades, yet it has still not really taken off in the multi system environment. Many vendors are pushing this approach to deploying ‘flexible technology’, yet it still has not emerged beyond the ‘glass house’ of the data centers or server closets. IBM invented this technology 40 years ago and Microsoft is pushing this ‘old wine in new bottles’ with their ‘Dynamic IT’ moniker. The Microsoft approach is laid out in “Harnessing the Power of Virtualization for Dynamic IT”, January 21, 2008 by Bob Muglia, Senior Vice President, Server and Tools Business, Microsoft Corporation at http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2008/01-21virtualization.mspx. Still this technology has not taken off for the enterprise. What are the reasons for this deployment stalemate? Some of the reasons and aspects of deploying these virtual technologies are:
- Complexity: This technology is too complex for IT architects, development or operations professionals to understand. They are used to developing systems that provide tangible functionality in a tangible way in environments that can be measured and managed. There are not many adequate tools to manage virtual and physical environments together.
- Security: Whenever anyone says the environments are very flexible and unconstrained, I know there is going to be a security and control problems. Today, it is so difficult to keep the ‘hatches batten down’ against security, compliance or confidentiality breaches in tightly controlled rigid environments. All the senior IT executives that I work with are under the ‘Sword of Damocles’ to keep their organizations safe and sound. Why would they want to move to this still to be proven technology that can potentially move their computing from the mainframes and servers to across their networks to all the desktops in their organization? Don’t you think there will be some ramifications if a major chunk of confidential client data gets mixed into some ones instant messaging or email stream?
- Unified Communications: A large part of this technology relies on unified communication systems. These are most often managed by telecoms without the full integration, and bandwidth and hardening required for industrial strength IT operations and consolidation of all the virtual resources across the organization. This represents a huge loss of control for IT.
While is true that there is great promise for virtualization, its’ time is still not quite here, except for data centre rationalization, storage farms and server consolidation. The dream of running all resources in a ‘big basket’ is not ready for prime time.
Again there is much promise in this technology that will make IT more cost efficient, responsive and flexible… More work is required to assure the IT buyer that this technology is very robust and secure. The underlying complexity and security management issues require better unified management, security and control technologies systems to make virtualization ‘bullet proof’. Enterprise customers really need something that can be taken for granted to make it feasible to run across their large operations.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg IT | Furl | Google | magnolia | StumbleIT | Wink | Yahoo! Technorati
(1 votes, average: 10 out of 10) Loading ...Tech talk envelops verticals
During an interview with Professor Jim Bookbinder of the University of Waterloo last week, we got to talking about just how effectively technology matters have pushed their way into trade banter within various vertical markets.
Take the logistics market, which Professor Bookbinder devotes much of his research to. Where before the discussion was usually around “trucks and inventories and better deliveries”, today it’s all about new software.
The professor cautioned that the people charged with getting goods from point A to point B shouldn’t lose sight of the core objectives involved with their tasks and should remind themselves that technology is simply a means to that end. From my conversations with folks in other industries, this absorption in technology matters is not limited to the logistics space; a dicey preoccupation with tech tools is occuring in many industries.
Bookbinder believes that eventually things will balance out again and technology will assume a more realistic slice of the discussion. And I have to believe he’s right, for the companies that use IT to thrive will be the ones that already get the concept of tech/core balance. Many of the ones who don’t will either go away or not have enough market share to set industry standards.
