- Why FOSS is still so unusable
- "Workstation" 2008 - four months later
- A FOSS manifesto: We don't need no stinkin' users!
- A classic NT/Windows 7 gem from the blogosphere
- The mythical "Vista application"
- Handicapping the Windows 7 alternatives
- Desktop Windows: Is it time to "cut and run?"
- Microsoft trashes Windows XP
- It's a bumper crop of VM goodness!
- Hyper-V's Achilles' heel
August 12, 2008 | Comments: (0)
I love lampooning the FOSS community. These self-righteous cyber-hippies are almost always good for a blog entry or two per month. And because many of them can’t resist airing their own community's dirty laundry, I have no shortage of story ideas to choose from.
This time around, it's Matthew Paul Thomas -- a long-time critic of FOSS user interfaces in general, and Linux in particular - lamenting the lack of usability in FOSS projects. In his blog, Mr. Thomas lays out his 15 reasons why FOSS projects end up looking and working like crap, with poorly designed and/or confusing UIs that too often feel like cheap knock-offs of commercial products.
Some of the issues he cites are social in nature. Many FOSS developers are simply lazy, ignoring feedback and leaving minor glitches uncorrected for years. Others resist change, or worse still, pass the buck by inviting those making the suggestions to "patch it themselves" (the classic FOSS "source code shuffle"). And still others try to appease everyone by rolling in every requested feature or contribution until the project collapses under its own weight.
Other issues are systemic. Popular FOSS projects often breed the kind of "too many cooks in the kitchen" interfaces that baffle seasoned UI designers. Many times, a FOSS developer will dodge the issue of proper UI function by simply dumping parameters into an endless series of configuration dialogs and properties pages, with no thought as to how these options are organized or related to one another. This sort of haphazard UI sprawl is often exacerbated by the FOSS "release early, release often" mantra, with poor design choices early in the development process carried forward because nobody wants to waste time going back to fix the things that work poorly yet aren't technically broken.
Of course, the irony here is that Mr. Thomas' post is actually a follow-up to a similar diatribe he published six years ago. In his current missive he seems concerned by how many of the same issues that plagued the Linux/FOSS environment at the turn of the century still persist in today's more "polished" distributions. And although he makes some insightful suggestions on how the FOSS community can address each of his 15 reasons, he fails to acknowledge the biggest culprit of them all:
Arrogance.
As I noted in an earlier post, many FOSS developers don't try to make their products more usable or accessible because, frankly, they don't care if anyone ever uses them. To them, FOSS is all about the journey –- producing a finished deliverable, or even having a concrete goal for a project, is optional. In fact, if you don't have something to contribute to the project, they'd rather you simply disappeared and left them alone to continue on their endless quest to write even more pointless code.
So in the end, it's not the community as a whole that's the problem. It's the purists, the zealots, the anarchist Stallman-wannabes that sink the FOSS boat. And without some unifying force to rein in the crazies and get the rest of the community on the same page –- UI and otherwise –- it's hard to see how the FOSS movement will ever deliver anything of lasting value to the larger IT community.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on August 12, 2008 03:00 AM
July 15, 2008 | Comments: (0)
"Workstation" 2008 - four months later
It's been a little over four months since I made the switch to Windows "Workstation" 2008 as my primary OS environment. Previously, I had struggled to make the generally sluggish and disappointing Windows Vista perform adequately as a Visual Studio development platform. However, the layers of DRM baggage and consumer-centric fluff made life under Vista unbearable –- to the point where I even dabbled with Linux for a while as a possible replacement.
When I finally tried Windows Server 2008 it was like a revelation. This was how a "power user" Windows was supposed to behave: Lean, efficient, and highly reliable. Since then, I've been sailing along nicely under my "Workstation" 2008 configuration, and I've picked up some tips and pointers along the way that I think are worth sharing.
- If you're looking for information on converting Server 2008 to "Workstation" 2008, check out www.win2008workstation.com. A kind of clearinghouse for "Workstation" 2008 tips and techniques, this blogs- and forum-oriented site provides a comprehensive guide to configuring the OS, enabling missing desktop features, and generally making Server 2008 livable as a workstation environment. The site's author has even documented the entire conversion process in a handy PDF file that you can download for free from the site.
- If you're not in the mood to "RTFM," grab a copy of the free Windows 2008 Workstation Converter utility from site regular "sawo." Providing an easy-to-use, automated interface to the majority of changes outlined in the aforementioned conversion PDF guide, this tool makes it easy to quickly convert a fresh Server 2008 install without hacking the registry or manually installing/enabling lots of services and features. I only wish it had been around when I did my own conversion back in March. A must-have for anyone dabbling with a Server 2008-based desktop.
- While most applications install just fine under "Worsktation" 2008, you will occasionally encounter a product that objects to being installed onto a "server" version of Windows. Typically, these products come in both desktop- and server-specific flavors, with the latter being the more comprehensive –- and thus expensive -– solution. In some cases, the OS detection logic is hard-coded into the installation process. In others, it's simply that the vendor has configured a specific set of LaunchCondition variables in one or more MSI files. For this latter scenario, you can use the free Orca MSI editor utility to delete the LaunchCondition entries and free up the MSI so that it installs on any Windows version. Check out the special sub-section on the www.win2008workstation.com site for more information.
Overall, I'm genuinely pleased with "Workstation" 2008. With previous versions, I've found that I needed to do a fresh install of Windows every 2-3 months to regain performance lost to Registry bloat, code creep, etc. This hasn't been the case with "Workstation" 2008. For the first time in recent memory, I have no desire to tinker with my Windows installation. "Workstation" 2008 has turned my Dell notebook into a well-oiled machine, one that never gets sluggish and that I rarely have to reboot. Here's to hoping Microsoft is paying attention and incorporates the lessons and experiences of its guerrilla "Workstation" 2008 fans when tuning Windows 7.
Related articles
Death match: Windows Vista versus XP
Product review: Windows Server 2008 is the host with the most, and the perfect guest
Posted by Randall Kennedy on July 15, 2008 03:00 AM
July 08, 2008 | Comments: (0)
A FOSS manifesto: We don't need no stinkin' users!
They make it so easy! Just when I think I've run out of story ideas for lampooning the FOSS movement, along comes some idiot with a taste for shoe leather to reenergize my rant engine.
This time around it's Jason Harris, a developer in the KDE community. Mr. Harris' beef is with users: He thinks KDE doesn't need any. In fact, if you're not contributing something to KDE -- code, bug reports, man pages -- he could care less whether or not you use KDE. And if you complain about KDE -- its bugs, features, or development direction -- you're lumped in with the "poisonous minority" who "gnash their teeth."
To people like Mr. Harris, creating FOSS isn't a means to an end -- it is the end. The cycle of code/debug/test/code-some-more is perpetual. It's why projects like WINE take over a decade to complete. And it's why Linux continues to flop on the desktop.
When developers stop caring about end-users -- or worse still, begin to think of them as an unwelcome annoyance -- a platform is doomed.
Witness the KDE 4 debacle, a classic case of developers losing touch with their user base. What the community wanted was a better KDE 3.5. What they got was a completely new windowing system with all sorts of bizarro abstract UI concepts and lots of missing functionality ("What do you mean I can't resize the windows?").
KDE's faithful argue that there are good reasons for the changes -- that the lazy, freeloading users should just shut up and let the developers work. Never mind that initial KDE 4 builds left even veteran users baffled. The development team knows best. Noncontributors should keep their "poisonous" rants to themselves.
The irony here is that KDE 4 actually incorporates some interesting ideas. The attempt to shift away from the traditional disk/folder/file hierarchy is laudable, and the rich filtering features -- though buggy -- show real potential. Even the new UI's name -- "Plasma" -- is cool (though I'm still not sold on the whole "Plasmoid" nomenclature).
Unfortunately, it looks like KDE 4 is falling victim to the same phenomenon that undermines virtually all FOSS projects: A group of developers loses touch with their users and mistake the journey (writing the code) for the destination (actually releasing something useful).
Say what you will about the evils of commercial software development, but at least we have a tangible goal in mind from day one: Ship something! And, preferably, something users will actually want/buy!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on July 8, 2008 03:00 AM
July 01, 2008 | Comments: (0)
A classic NT/Windows 7 gem from the blogosphere
One of the best parts of blogging is the opportunity to interact with readers. Through the comments mechanism attached to virtually every blogging platform, both fans of a blog and its detractors have an opportunity to voice their opinions. And sometimes, the contents of a blog site’s comments section surpasses – in terms of intrinsic value – the original posting.
Case in point: The recent rant by Mahmoud Al-Qudsi over at NeoSmart.net. In his posting, Mr. Al-Qudsi is attempting to discredit the anonymous author of the mysterious “Shipping 7” blog, a person who claims to be a Microsoft insider working on the next version of Windows. After blathering on for several paragraphs about what he believed were amateur “mistakes” in one of the “Shipping 7” author’s web postings – and how this should discredit the blog as a source of insider info – one of Mr. Al-Qudsi’s own readers (username “AnthonyTP”) takes him out behind the proverbial “woodshed” for a quick lesson on Windows history and architecture. What follows is one of the most concise, accurate and informative defenses of the Windows NT architecture I’ve ever read:
NT is NOT like *nix kernels or even other MACH variants like OS X. There is a large element of simplicity to its complexity when it is broken down.
The basic NT kernel and design is also very modular, so by comparing it to the Linux kernel is going to get you into trouble.
NT is a hybrid kernel that took a fairly elegant approach to kernel design, especially for the early 90s, as it was a new conceptual kernel of the time, taking some existing kernel architectu[r]al models and some of the best kernel theories that had not been implemented before.
For example NT has some MACH conceptual ideas and lightweight kernel API set for performance, but then hands this off to increasing levels of APIs co[m]plexity. This gave NT the ability to be very lightweight at the core, but have extended functionality that didn't weigh the core kernel down.
NT's HAL for example was under 64KB, and even on Vista is still 256KB(slightly larger in Vista x64), which for modern hardware is still extremely small. Going from the HAL to the lower kernel and API layers is still very small, especially compared to other OS kernel models in use today. This is how and why the MS Embedded OSes (XP/Vista) can and do work so well, as NT was simply broken apart as needed for the Embedded versions to make them very light (As in used in a router light).
The essential design of the NT kernel is both object based and a client/server model. This is not normal, or something that you will find in any other consumer level OS out there.
What the client/server model of the kernel of NT allows is the light core kernel with limited APIs secondary NT APIs and then subsystems for the actual OS clients that run on top of it. This is why even Win32/Win64 is just a subsystem that sits on NT, and can be ripped off of NT at anytime, as MS has demo[n]strated for YEARS.
The client/server kernel design of NT is also how MS can and does include a BSD or V5 UNIX subsystem for Vista, as the UNIX subsystem is just another OS sitting on the NT kernel client/server model. The UNIX sub[s]ystem in Vista is equal to Win32/64, as they are both sitting on the NT kernel in the same way. Win32/64 only has preference as it is the the default OS subsystem. By both Win32/64 sub[s]ystem and the UNIX subsystem running together on top of NT, they both get the drivers and benefits of the NT layered kernel, but also can cross communicate via the NT kernel, and all of this happens with no emulation layers.
For people truly interested in the NT design, source code of the NT kernel can be obtained from Microsoft for academic purposes, just search www.microsoft.com and be a teacher of some sort.
This gives academic minded people access to and a greater understanding the NT architecture from the HAL to the API layers and subsystems that run on it.
Based on the NT design, I would have to correct you in asserting that ripping out EXT3 from Linux would be as hard as adding in Reiser as a comparison. NT and Linux kernels are VERY different in this regard. Take the recent Linux arguments about the HardLocks code that is giving Linux trouble with multi-processor granularity.
Changes to the older hardlock mechanism in Linux requires a substa[n[tial amount of work and tricks to bypass, and is why things are not going so well. With an NT design, something like this is API wrapped at a low level, and changing the mechanism would be rather simple, not require someone to sift through 9000 lines of code to change the setting.
Another example would be Vista, and Microsoft adding on a Video driver model. (Not just new drivers, but a new model of how they are handled from the kernel as well.) This was easier on NT than it would be on a Linux or even OS X kernel design because of the NT design. This is also how Microsoft was able to add in the new WDDM while still allowing the XP drivers(XPDM) to operatate on Vista if needed. That alone would be a nightmare situation for both driver and kernel level feature support if this was tried on Linux or OS X.
The WDDM not only splits the video driver to a shared kernel/user level model, but it works with the NT kernel of Vista to things no other consumer currently can do. Features like transparent GPU RAM vir[t]ualization, an OS level scheduler for the GPU, creating a pre-emptive state of GPU multitasking controlled by the OS (WDDM), and even multi-GPU processor support that works with the GPU multitasker. The WDDM in Vista allows several 3D applications on screen at the same time, and gives them all extra VRAM than what is available on the GPU hardware, and because the OS handles the multi-tasking, no applicati[o]n can steal the GPU to halt responsiveness, but yet even with demanding games running at the same time, they only lose a few FPS running side by side compared to them running exclusively full screen.
So you can see that dropping in the WDDM to Vista was a good achievement in that it works as transparently as it does, but this would not have been possible if it weren't for the NT achitecture that allows for massive kernel level conceptual changes by adding in new API kernel level constructs that layer on the lightweight lower level NT kernel APIs.
After taking a bit of this in, you can maybe get a glimpse of the simplicity and the complexity of the NT architecture and why the MinWin used at the demo[n]stration that started a lot of this, is no different than the internal MinWin that Microsoft has used and showcased internally for years. It is nothing more than the NT kernel at the basic level with select API layers used, which is something that can be fairly easily done with NT. And yes technically the NT kernel can be fairly small when you remove the upper level kernel level API interfaces and especially the subsystems like Win32/64 that sit on top of them.
This is why when people call for Microsoft to write NT from scratch, many OS engineers/theorists like myself scratch our heads at the level of understanding. Rewrite Win32, sure why not, rewrite NT, a sadly bad idea. NT is more advanced and useful than what people give MS credit for, especially if lightweight, extensible, fast, and modular are your design goals for a kernel.
Also a thing of note, you call BSD a kernel, it technically is a set of APIs, an 'interface' to a kernel not an actual kernel, and on OS X would be the API wrappers around the modified MACH system calls, not the OS X kernel.
Like I said, powerful stuff. Personally, I knew (or at least suspected) much of this already – after working with, and developing for, a platform on a daily basis for over 15 years, you tend to pick-up things. Still, it was nice to see the case for NT’s internal sophistication/purity so eloquently presented by someone with the technical chops to pull it all together (sort of like a poor man’s Mark Russinovich, only less confrontational towards Linux).
It also reinforces my belief that Microsoft blew it with Vista by burying what is still a technically sophisticated, state-of-the-art OS under a mountain of consumer-focused crap. As an original NT purist (I literally wrote the book on “Migrating to Windows NT” back in 1993 – look it up), I’ve bemoaned each new concession to the Windows 9x/Me team holdovers, from win32k.sys in Windows NT 4.0 to the god-awful “Luna” UI theme in XP. For people like me, Vista is an abomination – what happens when big decisions are left in the hands of the “crayons and construction paper” crowd.
Oh well, at least we still have Server 2008...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on July 1, 2008 11:59 PM
June 24, 2008 | Comments: (0)
The mythical "Vista application"
I love analysts. Whether it's predicting tomorrow's next big thing or sounding the death knell for yesterday's industry pacesetter, analysts never run out of new ways to get it wrong.
Case in point: Windows Vista and the "app gap." According to Evans Data Corporation (EDC), less than 10 percent of developers are writing for Microsoft's current state of the art. The majority (49 percent) are still writing for XP, while a small, but growing, contingent (13 percent) are focusing on Linux. Meanwhile, the myriad major media outlets continue to decry the lack of new Vista applications. "It's the OS that nobody wants," they say, and developers are "reacting accordingly."
Of course, they're wrong. Again.
You see, there's no such thing as a Vista application. Just like there's no such thing as an XP application. Or a Windows 2000 application. Developers who write for Windows rarely target a specific version. Rather, they select a particular API framework -- for example, MFC/ATL or .Net -- and proceed from there. Whether or not the resulting application runs on a given Windows version depends on what, if any, version-specific API extensions the developer employs in their project.
For the majority of application types, this is a nonissue: They use the generic API functions, which allows them to run across any version of Windows that supports that framework. And since Microsoft does a good job of back-porting new frameworks to its legacy OS platforms, developers are rarely faced with a choice between rich API functionality or a broad installed base (the notable exception being video game developers, for whom leveraging DirectX 10 means committing to Vista).
So the entire Vista "app gap" argument is a bit of a straw man. The real question should be: Why aren't developers leveraging the various iterations of the .Net framework? As anyone who follows Microsoft's development road map will attest, most of the company's cutting-edge API evolution is taking place within .Net. In fact, when the "experts" talk about new programmatic resources in Vista -- Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), Windows Communication Foundation (WCF), and so on -- they're really talking about the .Net framework 3.0. And since .Net 3.0 is available on down-level platforms (such as Windows XP), the argument circles back around to a question of .Net acceptance among developers -- and why they have (so far) shunned it.
The answer is twofold: First, developers don't like to target APIs that aren't broadly available across the installed base. Despite Microsoft's aggressive support of down-level versions, there's still a big difference between "available" and "available after downloading 20MB-plus of complex libraries and having them installed across various parts of your system." The fact of the matter is that .Net doesn't ship as part of Windows XP, and that means that developers need to convince users to first install the required version of the .Net framework before they can install a piece of software -- not always an easy sell, especially in the locked-down world of enterprise IT.
As the first OS to ship with the .Net framework installed by default, Vista was supposed to encourage development of .Net 3.0 applications. However, since it also supports legacy Win32, COM, ATL, MFC, and down-level .Net framework applications, there's no real shortage of Vista programs. In fact, unless you've just got to have that latest and greatest WPF/WCF framework functionality, there's little to motivate you, the developer, to make the jump to .Net 3.0, or even 2.0. Assuming you don't bump into the User Account Control (UAC) mechanism, your "legacy" Windows application probably looks and works great under Vista as is. I know, because that was the case with my own code: A few tweaks to accommodate UAC (mostly shifting some temporary files away from newly protect directory structures) and my applications and services were running like champs under Vista -- just like they do under Windows XP, Server 2003, and Windows 2000. Why fix it when it ain't broke?
The second reason developers have shunned .Net is that it's slow. Many common functions simply take longer under .Net, forcing developers to choose between API sophistication and raw performance. Not surprisingly, most developers choose the latter, as I was once forced to do when I discovered that the .Net equivalent of Performance Data Helper (PDH) was all but unusable for real-time sampling of Windows performance counter data. As a result, I'm forced to maintain an aging (circa 1997) Visual Studio 6 code base while waiting for Microsoft to finally streamline .Net to a point where it's a viable alternative. It's an old story and far too common among Windows developers.
Bottom Line: When analysts (and their media accomplices) decry the lack of "Vista applications" they merely trumpet their own ignorance.
I'm guessing it's a Mac thing: So many of my contemporaries have been caught up in the reality distortion field that the idea of a link between API functionality and OS version has become an accepted part of the conventional wisdom. It's an honest mistake, equating Apple's archaic patchwork of version dependencies to Microsoft's imperfect, but far more flexible, API sprawl.
Too much fruit will do that to you.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 24, 2008 03:00 AM
June 17, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Handicapping the Windows 7 alternatives
It's been an interesting couple of weeks on the desktop OS front. Microsoft's big reveal regarding Windows 7 and its Vista heritage sent many of my blogospheric contemporaries scrambling to justify their myriad off-base predictions. Having anticipated this outcome weeks ago, I was free to ponder an even more radical set of possibilities -- specifically, which of the current crop of Unix-based OS is best positioned to knock off Windows 7 come late 2009.
Note the timeframe qualifier above. I'm not interested in what's available today. Rather, I'm looking 12 to 18 months out in an effort to divine what kind of competitive landscape Windows 7 will be born into. As Microsoft churns away at its typical, glacial development pace, emerging challengers, such as Ubuntu and OpenSolaris, continue to evolve. How far they get during those intervening months will determine what percentage of those coveted XP fence-sitters finally choose to abandon Windows altogether.
Ubuntu: Once the poster child for Windows-to-Linux defectors, Ubuntu has lost some of its coolness factor. Consecutive lackluster releases, plus a "pass the buck" mentality toward lingering kernel issues, have tarnished Canonical's once unassailable reputation. Add to this Mr. Shuttleworth's obsession with the emerging ultra-low-cost PC segment and you have a recipe for disaster.
There's still time for the company to come to its senses -- to take responsibility for more than just the packaging of its distro. With two or three major releases between now and Windows 7's earliest, most optimistic delivery target, Canonical has an opportunity to shore up its position as desktop Linux torch bearer by dumping Gnome, embracing KDE 4.x, and doing whatever it takes to improve reliability across a greater range of hardware configurations. Do that, and it might have a shot at securing some of the more open-minded XP defectors.
OpenSolaris: A true dark horse candidate, OpenSolaris has the pedigree to be a real challenger to Windows, at least in the enterprise. Sporting a clean, battle-hardened kernel architecture, OpenSolaris is what Linux wants to be when it grows up: mature, robust, and confident. Unfortunately, all of the FOSS folks are too busy playing with their GNU tinker toy to be bothered with supporting a platform that may or may not be compatible with their "free as in air" ideology.
And this means that OpenSolaris remains a few revisions behind the times, as evidenced by the down-level iterations of Gnome and related utilities in the 2008.5 release. Still, if Sun ever decides to get serious about OpenSolaris, it could make a run at the title.
The Solaris-derived foundation is solid. What it needs is expanded device support and a concerted effort to port the best of FOSS to its currently anemic repositories. As Microsoft continues tripping over its own consumer/media aspirations with each new Windows release, the time may soon be ripe for the reemergence of a more "responsible" solutions from the Unix standard bearer.
Mac OS X (or XI): Lately, it seems as if Apple can do no wrong. The iPhone is a hit, its laptops are trendsetters, and OS X is held up as the perfect marriage of form and function.
Yet, despite all this success, the company continues to cut itself off at the knees by refusing to license OS X outside of its own hardware. I'm convinced this is partly out of fear; Apple knows that if/when it releases OS X to the masses, it'll have to support it on the same hodge-podge hardware environment that makes Microsoft look so bad. And tarnishing the image of the revered OS X is not a possibility Apple wants to entertain.
Which is too bad because, given enough hardware support, a platform-agnostic OS X could put a major dent in Microsoft's installed base over the next year and a half. However, such a move requires vision, not to mention a modicum of courage -- both of which seem to be in short supply over at 1 Infinite Loop.
Note that I'm not listing Windows XP here since I believe that, post-2009, hanging on to this rapidly aging platform makes little sense. If you're going to reject Microsoft's upgrade path, then do yourself a favor and go all the way. Try one of these emerging competitors. Chances are, given another 12 to 18 months of development, more than one of them will begin to rival Windows XP as the best alternative to Windows 7 -- a.k.a. Vista Reloaded.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 17, 2008 03:00 AM
June 03, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Desktop Windows: Is it time to "cut and run?"
Cutting and running. A bad idea for chainsaw massacre movie villains, scissors-wielding grade school students and the occasional foreign incursion. But what about IT? At what point does further investment in a platform or technology cease to make sense?
Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed - at least on the enterprise desktop. What Microsoft's aging (in the U.S., NT is almost old enough to vote) OS needed was a heart transplant. What it got was a new name, a fresh change of clothes and an A.M.A. discharge from the ER.
It's not enough. The IT community deserves better. Microsoft's loyal customers deserve better. The folks from Redmond owe us a fresh start; a clean break; a path to the future free from legacy baggage. Basically, they owe us a new Windows.
"MinWin" was a good start. Unfortunately, Microsoft executives seem to lack the will to see it through. It's easier to keep re-warming the same stale bits over and over again, safe in the knowledge that the Windows customer base will lap it up all the same. Monopolization has its privileges.
Of course, the secret to maintaining a de facto monopoly is to not push your customer base too far. Every industry segment has its breaking point, a fact Microsoft learned the hard way with Windows Vista. With Vista, they ignored IT, choosing to instead kowtow to big media and the DRM crowd. The result was an unprecedented backlash as angry IT shops spurned Vista and drove the Save XP campaign to international attention.
Now we learn that Microsoft's one chance to get it right - to atone for its sins and perhaps salvage some modicum of respectability - is really just another PR stunt. Windows 7 will be Windows Vista "Part Deux." Same clumsy, monolithic architecture. Same crippling legacy baggage. Whatever hope may have been sparked by the whole "MinWin" fantasy has now been officially snuffed out.
If I sound frustrated it's because I am: At Microsoft for refusing to leverage its vast technical resources to address Windows' myriad shortcomings; and at the customer base for agreeing to take each new batch of Windows lemons and make lemonade.
When will the Windows community wake up and realize how much power it has? We've already demonstrated what can be done when enough of us decide that, hey, we really don't like lemonade all that much. Vista is a debacle precisely because we decided "enough is enough" - and because a viable alternative (XP) still existed. Microsoft's response? Try to squash the "rebellion" by pulling the rug out from under us (i.e. XP's impending expiration date) . Talk about sour grapes!
That's why I say it's time for the Windows community to take a hard look at alternative platforms, like Linux and Mac OS X. It's over there, on the other side of the fence, that the real innovation is occurring. By contrast, Windows - including the over-hyped version 7 - is an architectural dead end. We, as a community, need to accept this fact and move on.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on June 3, 2008 03:00 AM
May 26, 2008 | Comments: (0)
It's like politics. You start out by focusing on your ideas, how you want to improve things, maybe change the world a bit. But as the campaign slogs on, or as the legislation stalls, or the opinion polls begin to dip, you lash out. First at the media - for their "unfair, biased coverage" - then at your opponent. Until finally your "talking points" become little more than a laundry list of the "other guy's" faults and why you think he/she is "unsuitable" for public office.
Such is the case with Microsoft's campaign to win the IT community over to Vista. What started out as a positive effort to promote Vista's many benefits - the "wow starts now" - has devolved into kind of character assassination of its predecessor, Windows XP. At least that's how I'm reading the new white paper being circulated by the folks from Redmond: A classic political hit piece, one designed to cut the "other guy" (XP) off at the knees.
It's also sign of desperation. Microsoft tried the above-board route with Vista. It failed. Now it's time to get down into the mud and really pummel the opponent. No more mister nice guy. It's time to dig up every dirty little flaw and parade them through the mire in the hope that the Vista fence-sitters will finally see just how desperately they need "change."
Unfortunately for Microsoft, the version of XP they're attacking - with the missing features and incomplete security model - is a bit of a straw man. By focusing exclusively on the bare OS (up until and including the Service Pack 3 bits), they effectively strip XP of the robust ecosystem of supporting tools and workarounds that has evolved during its 5 year reign as King of the Desktop. As a result, the product they cite in their white paper bares little resemblance to the OS that enterprises deploy today.
For example, the white paper runs through a laundry list of new Vista "features" that are "missing" from XP. However, the majority of these have been addressed already by third parties (e.g. configuration management, mage-based deployment). Others are more like "bolt-on" components than features of the core OS (e.g. Sync Center, Mobility Center). And, of course, there are the myriad XP security and management "holes," which seem daunting until you realize that virtually none of them apply to the locked-down, tightly-controlled, corporate firewall-protected world of an enterprise Windows XP desktop.
Note: For more on the whole XP vs. Vista debate, check out my recent Test Center article: Death Match: Windows Vista versus XP.
Microsoft knows it can't win if the battle is between Vista and Windows XP as it exists today in the real world. So instead of attacking XP fairly, it slips in a sucker punch in the hope that someone further up the corporate management chain (and thus sufficiently removed from the IT trenches to know any better) will buy into the whole smear campaign and start pushing for a Vista migration.
The IT community may eventually forgive Microsoft for trying to hoodwink customers into a forced XP-to-Vista migration. However, with Windows 7 just around the corner, and with desktop Linux looking more polished every quarter, the company would do well to pull a few of its punches before that same, forgiving IT "electorate" decides to sit out yet another OS "election cycle" - or worse still, starts exploring one of those "3rd party candidate" options.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 26, 2008 03:00 AM
May 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
It's a bumper crop of VM goodness!
Life in the blogosphere has its ups and downs. Some weeks there's little to write about. Others, you're inundated with too many juicy story ideas to count.
Last week was all about virtualization. After savaging Microsoft's Hyper-V Achilles' Heel, I was pleased to discover a new beta release of VMware Workstation 6.5. Also dropping in to pay a visit: Virtual PC 2007 Service Pack 1. Truly a bumper crop of leads to follow-up!
First, I just got done putting the latest VMware 6.5 pre-release (Beta 2?) through its paces. The earlier beta was already pretty solid (see my preview for the Test Center), so I wasn't expecting all that much in the way of improvement.
One thing I did want to test again: 3D video hardware acceleration. In the earlier beta I was able to fiddle with a few DirectX tests -- including the Direct3D 7, 8 and 9 cube thingy in dxdiag -- however, the experience was quite buggy. The VM would often freeze or crash, and I never made it through the entire test suite without some sort of bug or issue.
Clearly, VMware was listening. The new build (91185) is rock solid, allowing me to complete the full range of Direct3D tests as well as play some legacy games (Quake II, Starfleet Command III) under Windows XP Professional (SP3). Otherwise, the basic feature set remains the same. There's still the slick new Easy Install option, which worked great with both XP and Vista. However, I'm not yet sold on the whole Unity business. The amount of shearing and other visual weirdness I encounter when enabling Unity makes the feature all but unusable for me - that, and the fact that VMware crashes whenever I try to enable it while CubeDesktop is running.
Oh well, at least VMware is making progress on its 3D acceleration feature. Virtual PC SP1, on the other hand, is really an update in name only. Aside from an expanded set of supported host OS (Windows Vista SP1, XP SP3) and guest OS (Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition, Vista SP1, XP SP3), the only real change is to the Virtual Machine Additions, which are now at version level 13.820 (up from 13.803 with the original Virtual PC 2007 release). Otherwise, the product remains effectively unchanged, which also means that it sill doesn't support 64-bit guest OS and only pays lip service to Linux and other non-Windows platforms.
The other major contender in this space -- VirtualBox -- seems to be benefiting from its recent acquisition by Sun. Version 1.6 was released at the end of April and brings the full force of Sun's engineering prowess to this previously obscure VM solution. One feature, in particular, that seems to have received some polish is Seamless Windows. Much like Unity under VMware, Seamless Windows lets you run applications from a VM directly on the host desktop. The only difference is that Sun's implementation actually works well. There's none of the window shearing that makes Unity so difficult to stomach and performance seems at or near that of a locally executing application. And most importantly, it doesn't crash when enabled with CubeDesktop running.
Overall, VirtualBox 1.6 is a solid release and one that shows how serious Sun is about producing a competitive, Open Source alternative to VMware Workstation. Check it out.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 20, 2008 03:00 AM
May 13, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Update: Since first posting this entry I've been in communication with Microsoft about the BSOD I encountered with the ATI installer. In an effort to assist them in their investigation, I recreated the scenario that caused the failure and proceeded to capture memory dump information for them to dissect. It's also worth noting that bug continues to be reproducible under Hyper-V Release Candidate 1. It seems to have something to do with the installer attempting to probe the hardware in order to identify the specific device make, model and revision - a common task performed by driver installation programs from myriad vendors. My advice is that, if you must deploy Hyper-V, make sure you perform any driver updates - including those for plug & play or hot-pluggable devices - with the server in an idle state and with any hosted VMs shut down or with their running state saved to disk. Given the catastrophic nature of this failure mode, and the general fragility of the Hyper-V driver architecture, it is my opinion that you simply cannot be too careful when maintaining the host/root partition of a Hyper-V server
A house of cards -- that's how I'd describe the current state of the Windows device driver ecosystem. With so many Windows-compatible devices and so few competent driver developers, it's no surprise that hunting for driver updates has become a necessary part of every power user's skill set. Most of the time, the search ends in frustration: Either the new driver doesn't correct the existing problem(s) or, worse, creates a set of new ones. And now, with the introduction of Hyper-V, we have a whole new failure vector to think about.
In a nutshell, one of Hyper-V's advertised strengths -- the host partition's ability to work with generic Windows device drivers -- is also its greatest weakness. That's because the quality level of Windows device drivers, especially those from third-party developers, is notoriously inconsistent.
I found this out the hard way while experimenting with the Hyper-V Release Candidate on a newly configured Windows "Workstation" 2008 system. After enabling the Hyper-V role in Server Manager, I made the mistake of trying to install the latest ATI Catalyst (8.4) software for the system's X1300 display adapter. The resulting Blue Screen of Death was both alarming (I hadn't seen one of these in months) and puzzling: I had successfully installed this driver before, on the same system, without incident. The only difference this time around was Hyper-V (uninstalling the role and rebooting allowed me to complete the driver installation).
Even more disturbing was the fact that I had just finished watching an old (December 2007) Channel9.com interview with Mark Russinovich, a Technical Fellow at Microsoft and one of the smartest guys I know. In the interview, Mark talks about Hyper-V and how its ability to leverage existing Windows drivers in the host partition gives Microsoft a competitive advantage over certain unnamed competitors (read: VMware), which require custom drivers for their proprietary hypervisor OS layer.
It all sounds great on paper, until you realize that it effectively places Hyper-V -- and the rest of Microsoft's virtualization architecture, for that matter -- at the mercy of the single most glaring weakness of the Windows ecosystem: third-party device driver developers, most of whom have no idea what Hyper-V is or how to avoid tripping over it during driver configuration/installation.
I point this out because it runs counter to everything that makes VMware's ESX platform so compelling. With ESX, you get, effectively, a black box: a proprietary environment, but one with its own, rigorous testing and development model. The pieces that go into that box -- the drivers and services that extend the Console OS layer (which is, itself, a derivative of Linux) -- are carefully vetted to ensure at least a baseline level of robustness.
By contrast, the Windows device driver landscape is more akin to a Wild West shoot-out. And while you can try to minimize the risk by sticking to Windows Hardware Quality Lab (WHQL)-certified products, there's no guarantee that they'll work reliably under the added stress introduced by the shared VM bus architecture on which Hyper-V is built. Eventually, something is going to cause a conflict, resulting in the kind of catastrophic system failure I experienced during the aforementioned ATI driver installation.
Bottom line: What Microsoft needs is more and better certification options. The company needs to expand WHQL to include Hyper-V testing and/or create a parallel program that further tests WHQL candidates for Hyper-V compatibility. Until then, it'll be hard to take its virtualization plans -- desktop or server -- seriously.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 13, 2008 03:00 AM
May 08, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Are MCSEs too stupid to learn Linux?
That's the conclusion seemingly reached by the resident *NIX zealot on another news site. According to this joker, learning Linux, Solaris or any other *NIX derivative requires a degree of conceptual understanding that MCSEs are either unwilling or unable to attain. To master these advanced OS, he says, you must first immerse yourself in the theory behind the implementation - starting with some arcane UNIX programming tome written way back in 1984. Failure to do so will, apparently, leave you branded as a member of the great unwashed (i.e. someone foolish enough ask the kind of stupid "noob" questions that are the antithesis of the Linux learning model).
Ignoring for the moment the sheer arrogance of his assertions, I find his characterization of Microsoft Certified System Engineers to be rather insulting. Though not an MCSE myself, I can certainly sympathize with those who choose to try to recoup their investments in training and certification by focusing on the environment they know best. This isn't laziness - its pragmatism. However, my larger disagreement is with his insinuation that Windows professionals, as a whole, are nothing more than ignorant "hacks" looking for the next combination of clicks and drags to make the "computer do stuff." In other words, if we had the prerequisite neuron density to handle the conceptualization demands of *NIX, we'd be there already.
What this sort of bigoted line of reasoning fails to consider is that a fully sentient, capable individual might very well examine the various *NIX derivatives and decide that - gasp! - they don't like them. Furthermore, this same intelligent, liberally-minded soul may fire-up a copy of Windows XP, 2003 or Vista/2008 and decide that - groan! - they think it's just "swell," thank you. This person might even be an IT veteran, someone who's followed the evolution of UNIX, Linux and Windows for years.
Maybe they jumped on the original Windows NT bandwagon when it was still headed by Dave Cutler and when running the OS meant investing in an Alpha 21064 with SCSI disks (i.e. a very expensive proposition at the time). This is the kind of person who would have devoured Helen Custer's original "Inside Windows NT" during its first printing and who would have objected loudly to the prospect of moving portions of the windowing system into the kernel with NT 4.0.
And though today they might run one of the newer editions out of necessity (albeit heavily tweaked in the way that only a true NT veteran knows how), they still look longingly at the jewel case to their Windows 2000 Professional installation CD - a.k.a. The Best Damn OS Microsoft Ever Shipped. "Win2K" was the culmination of all their hopes and dreams, a shining moment of clarity prior to the great downfall that was the Windows XP "unification." But I digress...
In conclusion: While it's true that there are plenty of Windows "hacks" in the world (having an installed based in the hundreds of millions tends to magnify this phenomenon), there are also a great many NT enthusiasts who appreciate the myriad qualities of the *NIX platforms yet still prefer working within the most successful operating system environment in the history of computing.
All of which begs the question: Are *NIX users simply too stupid to appreciate the enduring qualities of Windows NT?
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 8, 2008 12:04 PM
May 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)
How Unix politics are killing OS innovation
It's frustrating. Each time I think I've found a viable long-term replacement for my Windows development and testing environment, along comes some stumbling block to trip me up. And while these hurdles are mostly technical, the "root" causes (pun intended) are almost always political in nature.
Case in point: My various bouts with the disease known as "Ubuntu-itis." Every six months or so I get the urge to jump ship and join with the great hippie masses swaying to the open source beat. But then "the man" has to come and spoil the fun. All that finger pointing about the ACPI bug -- nVidia pointing to the kernel team pointing back at nVidia, with me pointing at Canonical for failing to sort the whole mess out. It's like trying to decipher that Battlestar Galactica "Last Supper" picture: Everyone's got a knife out for someone else (FYI, I'm leaning towards the doe-eyed Dualla as the final Cylon).
This week it's OpenSolaris, the new kid on the FOSS block that may not be quite as "open" as Sun would like us to believe. That's because, despite public statements to the contrary, Sun may not "own" the Unix IP in the way that most of us think of ownership. In fact, it's looking more and more like the only true IP holder is Novell, the same company that just got done grinding SCO's bones to make its bread. If they get hungry, might they turn on Sun? How much damage could Novell inflict if Sun decides to go ahead with a GPL-3 license for OpenSolaris and the folks from Provo object? More importantly, would you feel comfortable adopting an OS platform that may get litigated out of existence before its first birthday?
It's a shame because I actually like OpenSolaris. The 2008.5 release is polished, easy to install/configure and seems chock full of promise. During my own preliminary testing, the Gnome-based UI had me feeling right at home, though re-inventing the package manager wheel seemed a waste. Most of my devices were supported (I tested on a Dell OptiPlex 745 instead of my usual XPS notebook), including such esoteric stuff as the bay-mounted 12-in-1 memory card reader (Memory Stick Pro Duo support -- yeah!). Even VirtualBox seemed to work correctly, which isn't surprising since Sun now owns the code base.
Overall, it was far more pleasant experience than my various PC-BSD misadventures. I got the sense that Sun actually knows what they're doing with Unix, which makes the thought of Novell stomping this nascent Linux challenger into oblivion that much more disturbing. Here's hoping that OpenSolaris survives and serves to keep the increasingly insular Linux community -- including the "hear no evil, see no evil" crowd that controls the kernel -- honest.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 7, 2008 12:10 AM
April 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
I have to admit, one of the most attractive (to me at least) features of the Linux desktop has always been the famous Beryl/Compiz 3D "cube" plug-in. I first dismissed the feature as pure "eye candy," however, after several months experimenting with various Linux distros, I came to appreciate the simple beauty and practicality of a 3-dimensional workspace. The ability to assign windows to different "surfaces" - and then navigate between them intuitively - made me more productive by allowing me to "un-clutter" my desktop.
So you can imagine my delight in discovering that I can create roughly the same experience under Windows, using a simple 3rd party utility called CubeDesktop:
Figure 1 - The 3D "Cube" View
With CubeDesktop, I can create up to six virtual desktops and navigate between them using mouse gestures or keyboard shortcuts. The desktops can be wrapped around the aforementioned cube, around a "cylinder" like structure, flipped through via an OSX-like "cover flow" type view or spread out across a lighting table style "explorer" view. Each view is hardware-accelerated, providing for a clean, responsive navigational experience.
Figure 2 - The 3D "Roll" View
The "basic" version (9.95 Euros = ~$16 USD) supports only the 3D Cube look, while the "pro" version (19.95 Euros - ~$32 USD) adds the Roll, Flip, Carousel and Explorer looks as well as the Windows "Exposer" - a Mac OS X "expose" like tool for navigating between multiple applications within a single desktop.
Figure 3 - The Window "Exposer" View
Other useful "pro" features include the ability to password-protect individual desktops and to create rules defining specific desktops for specific applications.
Figure 4 - The 3D "Flip" View
I installed CubeDesktop under Windows "Workstation" 2008 x64. Aside from a few usability quirks (e.g. notification area icons in one virtual desktop not retaining their links to the corresponding application window in another desktop), the solution seemed stable. One feature - an icon management panel for controlling which desktops get which icons - was non-functional under 64-bit versions. But otherwise, CubeDesktop worked as advertised - and with a level of stability and "polish" I found lacking in competing solutions from Otaku and others.
Of course, the big question is whether or not it's worth shelling out $30+ USD just to gain some fancy virtual desktop effects.
If you're a long-term "Beryl" cube addict like me it's a "no-brainer:" I'm way more productive with multiple desktops, and I find non-3D solutions counterintuitive. However, if you can do without the effects (which mostly add intuitiveness at the cost of higher resource consumption and lower overall functionality), you can achieve the same general productivity result using any number of freeware 2D virtual desktop solutions (Dexpot is a particularly attractive option, as is the open-source VirtuaWin). And you can reproduce a very "expose-like" effect using the Instant Viewer application in Microsoft's free (for Microsoft Mouse owners) IntelliPoint software.
But don't be mistaken: None of these comes close to the pure "cool" factor of spinning that cube...while still under Windows!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 20, 2008 11:03 AM
April 10, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Ubuntu: More doomed than ever...
UPDATE: I just tried a clean install of the Ubuntu 8.04 RC build. Setup completed, the system rebooted and I logged into the desktop. I then clicked the Power button in the upper right corner and chose Suspend from the list of options. Went to resume and...wham! Black Screen of Death! On a pristine install with no proprietary drivers (first boot after setup completed). Unacceptable!
I consider myself a patient person. When it comes to OS quirks and difficulties, I've put up with more than my fair share. After all, I was an original Windows NT 3.x early adopter (feel my pain), which means I've come to accept that obscure, niche computing platforms invariably suffer from a long list of compatibility issues and functional compromises.
By contrast, I have little tolerance for such quirks or anomalies under more "mainstream" computing environments. A buggy, half-baked device driver might be "de rigueur" for PC-BSD. But produce a similar result under Windows XP or even Vista, and you have the makings of a public scandal.
That's why I simply cannot ignore the ongoing debacle that is ACPI support under Ubuntu. Despite six months of user complaints, dozens of bug reports and one very public scolding (by me), Ubuntu still does not run reliably on notebook PCs.
That's right: The ACPI bug I encountered with Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" has been carried over to Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron." In other words, the suspend/resume "black screen of death" is back, and nastier than ever!
This is unacceptable. Canonical, Ubuntu's publisher, wants us to see their "distro" as a mainstream alternative to Windows. Yet, even as they pile on new features - some of which, like WUBI, are designed to entice Windows users to kick Ubuntu's tires - they blatantly ignore glaring holes in the distro's underpinnings.
To clarify: I installed the Ubuntu 8.04 "Hard Heron" BETA on the same Dell notebook (XPS M1710, nVidia GeForce 7900GS graphics, 4GB RAM, Core 2 Duo T7200 CPU) that I tested Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" on last year. Using the default open-source nVidia driver I got an immediate "black screen" upon resuming from a suspend-to-RAM state. Switching to a proprietary nVidia driver left me with a "white screen." In both cases, I had to use the ACPI-override technique (hold down the power switch for 5 seconds) to shutdown the system.
Six months to correct the problem and they still can't get laptop power management right! This is just crazy! If Microsoft delivered anything close to this level of dysfunction there'd be calls for an FTC investigation!
Thankfully, the folks from Redmond got their act together long ago and made Windows work fairly reliably with mobile hardware. In fact, Vista has pretty much perfected the suspend/resume experience (with XP not far behind). By contrast, Ubuntu turns my $3,000.00 USD laptop into a very expensive (in terms of price/performance) desktop. Without suspend/resume, I'm screwed.
The whole situation really does boggle the mind. How Canonical can expect to be taken seriously as a mainstream OS provider when they can't get something as basic as power management working is beyond me. I had high hopes for "Hardy," if for no other reason than I expected my "showstopper" ACPI issues to have been resolved. That Ubuntu 8.04 remains unpalatable because of a stale, well-documented holdover bug from the previous version is really disappointing.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 10, 2008 09:55 AM
April 08, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Bitter fruit and broken promises: My "hackintosh" odyssesy (and more)
A week ago I solicited suggestions on which version of *nix to try next. I'd been "jonesing" for a new OS experience, and it made sense to see how some of my previous choices had evolved during my six month hiatus. So, after collecting a long and varied list of possible targets, I set out on my odyssey to find out if any of the current crop of *nix variants could serve as a full-time replacement for my satisfying - yet entirely unsupported - Windows 2008 "Workstation" configuration.
Since I was starting from scratch, I decided to go with the most radical suggestion first: Turn my Dell XPS M1710 notebook into a "hackintosh" by installing OS X. I've always been curious about OS X - just not enough to spring for a new notebook. So the "hackintosh" route seemed like a nice alternative.
My previous attempts at creating such a beast, using a modified OS X 10.4.9 "Tiger" installation DVD, had all been unsuccessful. Either the OS wouldn't install at all or, when it did, the video was so distorted that I couldn't continue. I was, therefore, quite pleased to discover that an intrepid group of "hackintoshers" had put together a new 10.5.1 "Leopard" version of the modified OS X DVD image (i.e. the "iATKOS" DVD) . This new compilation promised a "one step" installation process as well as better device support for the myriad non-Apple hardware peripherals that a "hackintosher" might encounter.
Unfortunately, the experience didn't quite live up to the hype. Yes, I was able to successfully install OS X 10.5.1. And yes, the video worked reliably on the first try (using the "NVinject" kext). However, I ran into all sorts of problems with the OS X kernel and its interactions with my dual-core T7200 CPU (lots of pointer stuttering and delayed keyboard/mouse input).
I was able to work around this issue by disabling dual-core support in the Dell's BIOS (thus turning my notebook into a single-core system), but it seemed like a kludge fix at best. Then, when I realized that my notebook's Intel 3945ABG wireless adapter was not supported (and likely never would be since Apple doesn't use this device in any of its models), I knew it was the beginning of the end for my "hackintosh" odyssey. Since I also could not get my Broadcom wired Ethernet adapter to work (making searching for a solution online nearly impossible), I finally threw-in the towel and ditched OS X in favor of the next OS on my list: PC-BSD 1.5.
When I first tried PC-BSD (version 1.4) last fall I found an OS that did a fairly good job of masking the complexities of the underlying BSD UNIX. Unfortunately, spotty device support (that annoying wireless card again) ended my experiment prematurely. So when I heard that the PC-BSD folks had improved wireless support with version 1.5, I became optimistic that my next foray into BSD-land would be more successful.
Foolish me! Yes, PC-BSD is still quasi-user-friendly (the installer was a breeze). And yes, they've put some "spit and polish" on their KDE-derived UI. However, my Intel 3945ABG adapter *still* is not supported. Given how prevalent the adapter is (i.e. part of the whole "Centrino" package) this is simply unacceptable. All major Linux distros have gotten this right a long time ago. The PC-BSD folks need to wake up and smell the modern hardware.
Note: I even attempted to compile my own driver using the "ndisgen" utility and the Windows XP driver for my card. Now the OS won't boot (gets past the boot loader menu and then restarts - over and over). Add to this the bizarre behavior of the accelerated nVidia drivers (screen will suddenly freak out and become unreadable, forcing me to hit the Big Red Switch) and I decided that, for my purposes at least, PC-BSD is still not quite "fully baked." Perhaps when they move to the BSD 7.x base things will get better.
Two attempts, two failures. Maybe I've gotten soft. I've become so used to the stellar device support under Windows that I no longer have the patience to tinker endlessly with my OS. Even Windows NT 3.1 wasn't this hard!
Anyway, time to move on. Next up: Ubuntu 8.04 "Hardy Heron." I just hope they've fixed that showstopper ACPI bug!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on April 8, 2008 09:53 AM
March 25, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Is Microsoft artificially delaying XP SP3?
It's a valid question. Last week, virtually anyone who was anyone within the SP3 Beta community thought that the release of Service Pack 3 for Windows XP was imminent. InfoWorld even commissioned a lead-out news item on the subject (penned by yours truly) of SP3's arrival.
Now we learn that SP3 has been delayed once again, this time until late April. Up to now, things has been going swimmingly for SP3, with recent builds showing RTM-levels of polish. Then, all of a sudden it's "not ready." No explanation for the delay - just a "failure to launch" when everyone expected it to.
In the meantime, Microsoft is talking-up Vista SP1 in a big way. There are all sorts of quasi-marketing collateral pieces floating around about SP1's impact, how to deploy it, key new features/functions, etc. Microsoft is even offering toll-free installation support for anyone having trouble with the update. Basically, they're pulling out all the stops to make Vista SP1 a success.
To recap: Microsoft delays Windows XP SP3 without explaining why, then puts on a full court press to promote Vista SP1. It doesn't take a genius to see what they're doing here. They've decided to "save Vista's bacon" (delaying XP SP3 might prompt some fence-sitters to take the Vista plunge) at the expense of XP getting a much needed roll-up of critical fixes and patches - great if you're a Vista fan, not so hot if you're an XP shop waiting on the first real Service Pack in nearly 4 years.
In fact, you could say that Microsoft has shown its true colors with its handling of SP3. By delaying the update's release, company executives have made it clear that they're willing to screw-over even their most loyal customers if it helps Microsoft salvage a flagging product.
Note to IT: All those years of dedication to Windows and enthusiasm for the Microsoft brand mean nothing. This company will drop you in a heart-beat if it serves to further its agenda.
I guess I picked a good week to explore my *nix options...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 25, 2008 08:27 AM
March 25, 2008 | Comments: (0)
The six month *nix itch: How should I scratch it?
It's been a little over six months since I tested the Linux waters with Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon." Back then I found Ubuntu to be a very attractive OS with some unfortunate architectural issues (poor ACPI support leading to frequent power management-related hangs). It was an educational experience, my five days living exclusively in Linux-land, and it gave me a new, less prejudiced perspective on my previous OS home, Windows Vista.
Since then, I've discovered the joys of Windows Workstation 2008 (faster, more stable, less bloated than Vista) while watching with curiosity as the fervor surrounding "Ubuntu-as-Windows-replacement" died-out. Some of this was due to the overall bugginess of the Gutsy release (I might still be running it today if not for the myriad ACPI problems). That, plus all the anticipation/controversy surrounding Vista SP1, helped to quash what had, for a time, threatened to become a real grass-roots movement.
Now I'm faced with yet another Ubuntu incarnation: 8.04 "Hardy Heron." As a long-term support (LTS) release, Hardy is supposed to be more reliable and stable than the "experimental" releases (i.e "Edgy," "Feisty," and "Gutsy"). I'm optimistic that they've worked out their ACPI issues (though I have not tested this). And the inclusion of CFS and Gnome 2.20 should, on paper, yield a more responsive, better performing OS.
However, before I dive in and take another "Ubuntu Plunge," I'd like to solicit suggestions on possible alternate paths. As the title of this blog entry indicates, I'm itching to take another stab at *nix migration. Note, also, that I said *nix and not Linux: I've always been intrigued by derivatives of the "true" UNIX OS (SVR4) that I experimented with back in the late 80's, so recommendations from outside the Torvaldasphere are also welcome.
Here are some of the front-runners:
- Hardy Heron - For obvious reasons. I have experience with Ubuntu, which should ensure a smoother trip. I'm also eager to see if they've fixed the issue that killed my last attempt: ACPI. I can put up with a lot of hardware compatibility issues (I am, after all, a veteran Windows NT 3.x proponent), but having my notebook hang every time I close the lid or do a manual suspend is not one of them. I'm also interested in seeing how well VirtualBox has matured on Linux. With the right fonts and libraries installed it almost works like a native gtk application ... almost. Definitely leaning towards the Ubuntu option at this point.
- OpenSuse 10.3 - I went down this road before, and I'm disappointed to see that not much has changed in six months. Perhaps I've been spoiled by Ubuntu's rapid release cycle. I really thought Novell would have released something newer by now. However, to be fair, the majority of my issues involved nVidia drivers, so I'm curious to see if they've improved the situation since the Fall. Otherwise, it'll be another short trip through Suse-land.
- PC-BSD 1.5 - As I mentioned above, UNIX has always intrigued me, if for no other reason than it's a true original (as opposed to a cheap knock-off). The UNIX code tree can be traced back decades. It's a tried-and-true way to manage a PC and its applications. And with PC-BSD, it's also visually quite attractive. My first attempts with version 1.4 were thwarted when I discovered that, in true BSD fashion, it didn't support one extremely common, yet also quite critical, hardware component: My Intel 3945ABG wireless adapter. Now I hear that PC-BSD 1.5 has a completely new wireless stack. Might be worth a look, though the HCL still seems a bit thin, especially for mobile users like me.
- Wildcards - I can be forgiven for associating Linux with Ubuntu. After all, it is the leading distro (though the bugs in "Gutsy" have taken the bloom off the rose), and certainly what the typically layman thinks of when they hear the word "Linux." However, I feel I'd be doing myself a disservice not to consider some of of the other popular distros - with the caveat that I'm a Windows NT user first and thus approach most new OS from the perspective of someone steeped in Dave Cutler's original vision.
So, what do you recommend? Stick with the tried-and-true Ubuntu? Or take the road less traveled and try something more radical, like Slackware or a BSD-variant? I'm open to suggestions...
Note: I also promise that - no matter what happens - I won't slam my choice if/when the migration hits a dead-end. Unless, of course, it deserves a good slamming...like Gutsy.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on March 25, 2008 03:00 AM
February 12, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Sun's Innotek acquisition a smart buy
It was bound to happen eventually. Somebody, somewhere, was going to see the light and snatch-up the last of the original virtualization pioneers, Innotek, makers of the VirtualBox Virtual Machine platform for Windows, Linux and Macintosh systems.
That somebody is Sun Microsystems. And based on the wording of their press release, I'm convinced they did so for all the right reasons.
For starters, they recognize that Innotek's strength is in the desktop space. Though the German virtualization developer has been working on some more server-centric models (including at least one 32-core implementation), they're greatest success has been as a low or no-cost alternative to VMware Workstation and Microsoft Virtual PC.
But perhaps even more important is Sun's recognition of Innotek's commitment to developers. VirtualBox has long been the preferred solution for open-source programmers seeking to "roll their own" virtualization platforms. The combination of componentization (virtually every layer of VirtualBox can be scripted or accessed programmatically) and GNU public licensing of the VirtualBox source code makes for an attractive package that Sun can use to further its own FOSS goals.
So, congratulations (I seem to be saying that a lot lately) to Innotek, and a hearty "bravo!" to Sun for seeing the value in VirtualBox and its potential as a building block for a robust Desktop virtualization strategy.
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 12, 2008 11:36 AM
February 04, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Ubuntu 8.04: hard(l)y worth a yawn
I had high hopes for the next Ubuntu. Version 7.10 was a solid release, and apart from a debilitating ACPI bug that rendered it impractical (to me) for day-to-day use, I found little to dislike about it. Unfortunately, Ubuntu 8.10 -- a.k.a "Hardy Heron" -- is shaping-up to be one of those releases that reminds of why I can't stand some of the more "desktop-centric" distributions.
Simply put, "Hardy" is nothing more than "me-tooism" run amok. I mean, how many Windows Vista features do you need to rip-off before someone calls you a "copycat?"
For example:
- Individual GUI "unlock" buttons for system-level tasks. Hello? Microsoft calls this "User Account Control." They even have a special icon image that can be overlaid onto buttons that trigger functions requiring privilege elevation. Oh, but since it's "UAC-on-Linux" I guess it'll suck less, right? Yeah, sure ...
- Hand-in-hand with the "unlock" buttons: PolicyKit, the most poorly disguised knock-off of Windows Group Policies I've ever encountered.
Note to Canonical: Microsoft has an eight year head-start in this department, with massive 3rd party buy-in, so ... good luck!
- World Clock/Weather Applet: One of the features I missed most from Vista during my stay in Ubuntu-land was the ability to have multiple clocks (I travel a lot overseas). Of course, there are numerous weather applets for Windows Sidebar, so this is clearly another "me-tooism."
- Finally, prefetch! It'd be interesting to see a technical breakdown of how this new "Superfetch" knock-off compares to the original. I guess Con Kolivas was right, after all!
- Multiple audio sliders. Again, done already with Vista, though it's hard to do a proper comparison since the "Hardy" version isn't enabled yet. Will the "copycatting" never end?
To be fair, Ubuntu 8.04 will likely be a fine OS, one that further strengthens the community's case against Microsoft on the desktop. However, I was really hoping for some innovation here. Both "Feisty" and "Gutsy" were successful in advancing the platform while still providing a unique and compelling user experience. "Hardy," on the other hand, looks like little more than an attempt to make Ubuntu indistinguishable from Windows. Sad.
I dread the introduction of the new GTK theme. If I see any kind of "orb" appear in the upper left corner of the desktop I may just kill myself ...
Posted by Randall Kennedy on February 4, 2008 08:20 AM
January 17, 2008 | Comments: (0)
It's true. Windows 7 was just released ... to manufacturers.
Of course, this differs from that other "RTM" -- released to manufacturing -- but hey, it sounds good!
Seriously, it appears that Microsoft has just released what is being dubbed "Milestone 1" of the Windows 7 code base to its key vendor partners. And while this doesn't mean we'll be booting Windows 7 anytime soon (current projections put the real RTM in the second half of 2009), it does show that a Windows 7 product currently exists and is "alive and kicking" on some hardware, somewhere outside of Microsoft (albeit behind several layers of locked doors and mean looking security guard-types).
What this also shows is that we're likely a scant 12-14 months away from a beta program for Windows 7 -- and perhaps as little as 18 months away from a really usable product. Given that most IT shops are only now starting to consider their Windows Vista migration plans, the not-so-distant arrival of "Version 7" gives further credence to the idea that these shops could actually skip Vista altogether. Add to this the generally tepid response to "Windows 6" -- plus efforts like the "Save XP" campaign here at InfoWorld -- and it seems clear that the XP option will remain viable for some time.
Frankly, this is a good thing. Microsoft needs to be shown that, at least in enterprise computing circles, they can't simply force-feed their customer base a new version. Release software that provides no compelling reason for us to upgrade and we'll ignore it. Period. However, lest we become overconfident, it's important to remember that this may very well be a one-time deal. It's unlikely that IT shops will choose to fall more than one generation behind the state of the art, so skipping Windows 7 is not really an option.
Here's hoping that Microsoft gets smart and makes this next version more appealing to its enterprise base -- and that Ubuntu and others keep improving Linux so we always have a viable alternative to keep the 800lb gorilla honest!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on January 17, 2008 08:15 AM
January 07, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Those who follow my online ranting know how disappointed I've been with Microsoft's Vista Backup utility. Here you have this technically superior (to Apple's "Time Machine") backup solution that is hamstrung by the fact that it's most powerful feature (shadow copy integration) is buried in the bowels of an OS (Vista). Add to this myriad questionable design decisions (e.g. arbitrary file inclusion/exclusion lists) and you end up with one of those classic Microsoft "could've been, might've been" moments.
Now, to add insult to injury, the zealots on the FOSS side of the fence are working on their own "Time Machine" alternative. Dubbed "Flyback," this GUI wrapper for the Linux rsnapshot utility is rapidly maturing and will likely pass Vista Backup as the second most usable integrated OS backup utility. In fact, "Flyback" is progressing so well that the developers have time to indulge in little side projects, like a promised "3D" effect for restoring archived files/folders (i.e. a nice "slap in the face" to Apple).
All of which begs the question: What the hell is wrong with Microsoft these days? It seems like every time their R&D folks come up with something unique and powerful (volume snapshots), some idiot further down the program management chain steps in and cripples it -- leaving those of us who pay attention to such things scratching our heads in disbelief.
"What could've been, what should've been" indeed!
Posted by Randall Kennedy on January 7, 2008 08:31 AM
December 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Everyone's got an end of year list, so...
- WGA Nightmares
After nearly losing my primary development workstation to this Orwellian scam I began to appreciate why so many power users have switched to Linux. Hopefully, Microsoft will honor its commitment to remove the Vista "kill switch" with SP1.
- Linux ACPI Woes
I was *this* close to switching to Ubuntu. Then I realized that the power management scheme had more in common with NT 4.0 (i.e. effectively non-functional) than NT 6.0 (i.e. a very functional Vista). Perhaps they'll get it right with "Hardy."
- Broken Vista Backup
Inexcusable. If something's stored in a user's personal *data* folder structure (i.e. Document, Picture, Music, etc.) it should be backed-up. Period. That I have to ZIP-up my work each day (including all my my .aspx files) to ensure that Vista's Backup actually picks-up the data is ridiculous. What could've been, what might've been...
- VMware Arrogance
Note to EMC: Rein these guys in a bit, will ya? All that talk about VDI and world domination is getting a bit stale. The real threat to Microsoft's hegemony will come from the browser, not a virtual machine.
- Longhorn Nostalgia
Let's see: Take some aging bits from an incomplete (and now defunct) Windows beta release, mix-in some clever photo-chopping and a few install script tweaks, and voila! You have a hunk of steaming, semi-functional crap that is *still* subject to international copyright laws. Of all the stupid schemes...
- User Account Control
Everyone hates UAC for the wrong reasons. Yes, its annoying. And yes, you're worried that users will just blindly click-through the warning dialogs. However, the real issue is the false sense of security: Even if you pay attention to every elevation prompt you're still not secure. It took less than six months for some clever hackers to discover a potential loophole in UAC's "non-elevated" administrator scheme. Take a cue from the Linux crowd: Dump Vista's default security scheme and run as a true "Standard User" whenever and wherever possible.
- Forking Linux!
Talk about your hyper-sensitive types! I had the audacity to comment on the internal politics of the Linux community! Shame on me! On the plus side, the resulting firestorm permitted me to achieve that rarest of journalistic trifectas: The 3-column "Dvorakian" bait and switch. Thanks, guys!
- 64-bits Gets the Shaft!
First it's the lousy driver support. Then it's being shut-out of various "Live" beta programs. However, the final straw was learning that Microsoft would not be supporting Vista x64 as a SoftGrid client platform. How can Microsoft expect us to take its 64-bit offerings seriously when they keep giving users of Vista x64 (of which there is a growing base) the shaft?
- Vista SP1
Once the cure-all that would save Vista, Service Pack 1 is turning out to be a major non-event. Performance improvements? Non-existent. Reduced UAC harassment? Nope. In fact, aside from correcting a few well-publicized flaws, SP1 does little to improve the lot of Vista users. It is what it is, so stop waiting for a miracle and either suck-it-up or switch OS.
- Live Anything
Embrace and Extend lives on! Thanks to Office Live, we now have access to a half-baked attempt to marry the Web 2.0 and Microsoft's productivity suite. Unfortunately for the folks from Redmond, Live Documents does it better. I just love it when a little guy makes a fool out of the 800lb gorilla.
Happy New Year!
RCK
Posted by Randall Kennedy on December 29, 2007 08:30 AM
November 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Why Desktop Linux Fails: A First-hand Account
Pass the buck. It's a way of life for politicians and Linux distribution publishers. When something doesn't work - as was the case with my recent ACPI headaches under Ubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy Gibbon" - the response is most often to point fingers. Assign blame. Pass the buck.
In the case of the ACPI debacle, where many nVidia-based laptops refuse to resume after a suspend-to-RAM cycle, the blame is being directed at nVidia and its buggy proprietary drivers. Or is it the Linux kernel team that's to blame?
If you ask Canonical, they're leaning towards nVidia. As Scott Remnant pointed out in an email response from the company:
"..early indications really do suggest that it's the nVidia card that's causing the problem."
But in the same message he states that they (Canonical) hope that "the 2.6.24 kernel for hardy is better..."
So, is it the driver? Or is it the kernel? Is it the "evil, greedy, proprietary" (my words) nVidia that's at fault? Or is it the "noble, angelic, gang-of-the-L-man" (again, my words) kernel development team that dropped the ball?
Several user accounts (as documented in the official tracking thread on the Ubuntu forums) seem to contradict the driver-as-culprit theory. Specifically, they show that *downgrading* the Linux kernel to a previous version - something closer to the Ubuntu "Feisty Fawn" 7.04 revision - alleviates the problem. This theory also seems to be supported by the myriad "Feisty" users who've had great success with suspend/resume in the past. In other words, the nVidia drivers work fine - until you upgrade your kernel to the version that comes with "Gutsy" 7.10.