HEY MICROSOFT! TAKE A MESSAGE  FROM IT

[11/10/2007]

SOA, BizTalk, .NET, Visual Studio, and "Oslo"
POST A COMMENT

The week of November 5, I attended Microsoft’s fifth annual Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and Business Process Conference and learned about a new assortment of technologies code-named Oslo. According to Microsoft, this “multiyear, multi-product effort…to build on the model-driven and service-enabled principles of Microsoft Dynamic IT” will “further Microsoft software-plus-services efforts by providing extensions to the application platform to help developers bridge between on-premise and off-premise projects.”

No, that’s not a string of gibberish from some gearhead version of Alice in Technoland. It’s the sound of Microsoft reinventing itself, rejecting its legacy as a desktop company that became a server company, too. Today, Microsoft wants you to know it’s a “platform” company, and Oslo bolsters the platform vision. What that means is that Microsoft has lots of products that do great stuff, but the more important point is that those products all work together to let you do even cooler stuff. According to General Manager of Microsoft’s Connected Systems Division (CSD), Steve Guggenheim, the company wants us customers to look at its products in terms of how “the releases enhance the different capabilities in the platform.”

The term “platform” is one that you hear everywhere at Microsoft these days, and this ubiquitous word means various things in different contexts. For example, SQL Server is no longer a database; it’s a “data platform” and a “BI platform.” Exchange Server is an element of the Unified Communications (UC) “platform.” Forefront is the assemblage for a security “platform.”

However, Guggenheim explained, from his group’s perspective the meaning of “platform” is clear: “I think about the ‘application platform,’ which is what you use to build and run and manage applications. For a long time, ‘platform’ for Microsoft meant desktop—Windows and Office. In the last ten years, we’ve built the server platform side. Now you get into the other side of application development, which is the business application side and the backend side.”

 To compete with platform companies such as IBM and Oracle, Microsoft has to move beyond selling individual products. Guggenheim said, “There’s a natural tension between providing a best-of-breed product—take SQL Server, for example, as being a best-of-breed database—and being part of an overall platform. So we’ve traditionally landed a little heavily on the individual products, as opposed to how these things work together. But at Oracle, IBM, SAP, where you’re competing at the platform level, they do a pretty good job of talking about how all the pieces relate. We do a better job of developing, or building, products that work well together, but we haven’t been doing the articulation as well. As you build more pieces of a platform, people want to know how they’re related. A lot of feedback we get from customers is they’re happy that the stuff actually works together well.”

What’s in Oslo?

OK. So what does all that “platform” talk have to do with this new group of technologies code-named Oslo? The idea is to strengthen Guggenheim’s application platform and make it more competitive. According to Burley Kawasaki, a director in Guggeheim’s CSD team, the Oslo technologies will be delivered across five areas that Microsoft considers part of the application platform:

1. The next version of the .NET Framework: Oslo will enhance Microsoft’s goal of model-driven development as part of the Windows communication Foundation (WCF) and Workflow Foundation (WF) technologies.
2. BizTalk Server, which Microsoft describes as “the distributed platform for highly scalable SOA and [Business Process Management] BPM solutions,” which will “build on both WCF and WF as its core foundation, and deliver the capability to develop, manage, and deploy composite applications”
3. A new offering called BizTalk Services, which will “deliver a commercial release of hosted services that enable cross-organizational composite application scenarios,” including messaging, identity, and workflow.
4. Enhancements to a future version of Visual Studio that will “advance the application lifecycle management capabilities of Visual Studio Team System and provide support for an expanded range of roles,” as well as “support for model-driven design and deployment of composite applications.”
5. Addition of a common metadata repository shared by future versions of System Center products, Visual Studio, and BizTalk Server, to support “managing, versioning, and deploying models.”

[10/22/2007]

Too Many New Microsoft Clients and Servers?
POST A COMMENT

In my October Windows IT Pro magazine column, I wrote about Microsoft's strategy to position its products as end-to-end solutions such as Unified Communications (UC) and Business Intelligence (BI), to name just two examples. The UC platform incorporates Exchange Server and Outlook client, the new Office Communications Server and Communicator client, along with VoIP and mobility. The BI platform starts with SQL Server on the back end and extends through Office components such as Excel, SharePoint, and now Performance Point on the front end. My point was that I think Microsoft is positioning itself to compete with Software as a Service (SaaS) and rivals such as Google by offering more than a single piece of the puzzle. Unlike its competitors, Microsoft can provide not only an entire platform such as UC or BI and encompassing both software and services (Software + Services), but only Microsoft can also integrate the management infrastructure to go with the platforms (e.g., the System Center family and Powershell). The platform strategy takes advantage of existing Microsoft products and skill sets that are already in place in organizations, which makes businesses think twice before trying to introduce non-Microsoft components -- in theory, anyway.
I asked readers for their perspectives on this topic, and I got a very thoughtful response from Nate McAlmond. Nate goes to the heart of Microsoft's impetus for the platform strategy: creating new software products that add value for IT but that also give Microsoft new revenue streams. When a company like Microsoft has a market-dominating product like Office, how does that company keep the Office revenue stream from stagnating? It sells new server and client products to introduce new functionality to use with the the existing products.
I think Nate's points are dead on target. Hey, Microsoft, here's what Nate wrote:
In the past, the two main options were Exchange and SQL, and companies built on those platforms. Now Microsoft is offering more and more specialized products with a very impressive list of capabilities. It gives customers such a head start to where they want to be. Once I can make some time I really am looking forward to exploring how we can use PerformancePoint at my company to increase efficiency.
I do wish that I didn't have to add more servers to keep the same functionality that I already have. For example we use a lot of InfoPath forms at my company that are automatically submitted via email to public folders and individuals in Exchange. While some processes could probably benefit from something like SharePoint or PerformancePoint, I expect that in a lot of cases it won't really matter. But since there will be no more public folders in Exchange, I now will have a SharePoint server that is required to accomplish the same tasks as [I accomplished without SharePoint] before.
This brings me to another point. I really don't like having a new desktop client for each new server they come out with. It seems like with each new server, there is a new client to be installed, updated, upgraded, training, troubleshoot [and so on].
SharePoint is an excellent platform for building the client interface to all of the Microsoft server systems. Unless it's a standalone application like Word, [Microsoft's] emphasis should be on using SharePoint for the client in all cases. There should be a module to replace Outlook, Communicator, Project, [and so on]. If [Microsoft is] going to make SharePoint the console, then do it 100%. Sprinkling it around with different clients is not the right choice. Besides, how can you have 'Unified Messaging' when you have two separate clients?
So I guess what I'd say to Microsoft is this:

1. Don't remove functionality from existing server systems unless it's really not being used by the user community.
2. It's OK to add servers if it will give companies additional functionality.
3. Build SharePoint into a centralized console before you try forcing customers into it. In fact make SharePoint so good that it doesn't take any convincing.

[10/10/2007]

SMB Nation and Microsoft SMB Licensing
POST A COMMENT

Last week was all about small and medium business (SMB), and I think the coming year will see a lot more focus on this space, both from Microsoft and the company's partners. After the February launch of Windows Server 2008, Microsoft and the industry will be expending lots of energy and spending lots of money on the launch of Small Business Server 2008 (SBS 2008, code named Cougar). The SMB momentum will continue as Microsoft proceeds on to its new integrated server product, code-named Centro, which is an extension of the SBS concept into the midmarket. (Anybody remember BackOffice Server?) Microsoft has realized the significance of the SMB space as a potential for new revenue now that the company is feeling securely (OK, "securely" might be a bad choice of words) ensconced in the enterprise.
My SMB week started with Harry Brelsford's SMB Nation conference here in Redmond on Microsoft's campus (http://www.smbnation.com). Then, later in the week, there was the latest in Microsoft's series of licensing Webcasts called "Inside Licensing" and aimed at the SMB space. In connection with that Webcast, I had the opportunity to talk with Stacie Sloane, director of marketing and communications in Microsoft's Worldwide Licensing and Pricing group.

SMB Nation
From September 28 to October 1, the fifth annual SMB Nation conference hosted over 600 attendees, including Small Business Specialists, registered Microsoft partners, TS2 attendees, resellers, SMB consultants, VARs, and VAPs. The attendees I talked to were delighted with the quality of the information in the sessions, with the opportunity to network with each other and Microsoft representatives--and especially with the chance to meet Harry Brelsford. (Microsoft would not allow press at this event, so I met with a few people outside the event itself.)
I've known Harry for about 10 years, ever since he wrote for an SBS newsletter Windows NT Magazine (ah, the good old days!) launched and soon cancelled due to lack of reader interest. (Harry kindly says that newsletter was ahead of its time.) Fortunately, Harry went on to build a very successful business in this space, and his success was evident in universal praise for the event and in the respect everyone has for Harry. Whenever Harry walked into the room, it was like Elvis had entered the building. Several times, I happened to see Harry stopping to pose for photos with attendees.
As I was taking the elevator to the garage one day, I happened to talk to a couple of attendees from my hometown, Denver. (Go Rockies!) They said they had skipped Microsoft Worldwide Partner Conference last July, even though that event had been held in Denver. Instead, they traveled to Redmond for the SMB Nation conference because they felt they got better value for their money and a clear focus on their market segment. They said they would return next year and were very satisfied with the value they got from the conference.
I also had the opportunity to talk to some of the vendors who had exhibited at the conference. In particular, Jeff Connally, president and CEO of CM IT Solutions; Bob Godgart, CEO of Autotask; Curt James of StorageCraft; and Babek Salimi and Matthew Brown of Workshare.
The theme of all these conversations was that the SMB space is poised for growth. Of course, the upcoming launch of Centro is also testament to interest in the market and will drive great attention to and investment in the SMB space in 2008.
CM IT Solutions (www.cmitsolutions.com), Jeff Connally explained, is a company that supports SMB consultants and systems integrators (SIs) by helping them manage their business to make more money by eliminating the dilemma of dealing with everyday business problems. CM IT's business model is to franchise independent businesses (CM IT now has about 100 franchises across the country). The benefit of franchising is that it frees the technical business owners from business management and lets them focus on their core competency in technology. Franchising also provides the advantage of being able to purchase equipment and software at a discount because of CM IT's overall ability to buy larger quantities than an individual small businesses could afford. One of the most interesting aspects of the franchise model is that it creates a nationwide community of experts who can draw on each other's specialized knowledge to solve problems for local customers.
Jeff was highly optimistic about the opportunities in the SMB segment. Jeff foresees growth for the services industry and his business, specifically.

More Coming on SMB Licensing
This post is getting way too long, so I'll stop here for today. I'll follow up with more on Autotask, StorageCraft, and Workshare in my next blog posting.
And I'll talk about my conversation with Microsoft on the company's efforts to simplify licensing and provide self-help tools. In the meantime, you can view the licensing Webcast at www.insidelicensing.com. Microsoft describes the Webcast as "focused on the unique challenges that mid-sized and small customers face, and the specific licensing solutions that Microsoft offers for them. Some of the topics covered include how to plan for new IT purchases, how to determine which licensing option is right for your organization, what Microsoft offers for mid-sized and small customers in Software Assurance, and more generally how to avoid or overcome some of the common IT challenges when you're not a mega-corporation with a huge IT staff."



- posted by Karen Forster

[9/25/2007]

Virtualization Support for ISA and RRAS
(7 Comments)
POST A COMMENT

Over the past few months, I've been doing a lot of traveling and I've neglected this blog. (If for some reason, anybody is interested in how I spent my summer, see the end of this post for my quick summary. It feels odd to be writing about myself, but I guess that's what people do in blogs.) Anyway, I'm back now and have a million things to write about. Microsoft has been incredibly busy!
I'll start by sharing a letter from a reader, Jeff Vandervoort, who asked me to get a response from Microsoft. At the end of Jeff's letter, you'll see the response Microsoft gave me. I'll be eager to hear what you think.

Jeff's Letter

It's frustrating to my clients (and me) that Microsoft is pushing virtualization for all kinds of uses -- as long as it doesn't involve Microsoft's own products. Virtualization, particularly with Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition's [Server 2003 EE] licensing, potentially adds a lot of value to Microsoft products for SMBs, but Microsoft's archaic, VM-hostile support policies make it risky to make use of it.
I've been told by Microsoft [Customer Support Services] CSS that even in the absence of a published support policy for running a product in a VM [virtual machine], Microsoft may not support it unless we reproduce the problem on physical hardware. When asked for specifics of what can go wrong in a VM, I get only vague answers and guesses.
Does Microsoft support Virtual Server for production use, or not? Is the real reason Virtual Server is free that, had we paid for it, we'd expect its use to be supported?
In this specific case, I'm charged with setting up 4 small branch offices: 2 with ~5 users, 1 with ~10 and another with ~25. The 2 smallest are project-specific and will exist for less than 2 years. Connectivity to the main office is critical, but so is economy. They have determined that Terminal Services does not meet their needs.
They'll be using an RRAS VPN endpoint in a VM at a small site with Web proxy clients to Microsoft's ISA, and an ISA VPN and edge firewall in a VM at the 3 other sites. The host machine in each case will be a DC/file and print server. Using Virtual Server with Server 2003 EE on the host means we buy only one server and one Server 2003 license, which puts the project in budget.
I've advised my client of Microsoft's support position in writing, and they're prepared to move forward at their risk. Their alternative is either no connectivity to the main office at all, or reducing security of the system as a whole by using SOHO firewall/VPN endpoints in lieu of ISA. Neither is acceptable to the client.
Microsoft CSS has confirmed there will be no Internet connectivity to the host machine in our config. But our configurations are still either "not recommended" or "not supported." In the case of ISA, the config is "not recommended" in the release notes and the ISA BPA [Best Practices Analyzer], and "not supported" on TechNet! So, while neither answer is acceptable: Which is it? Neither CSS nor I could find any documentation about RRAS in a VM. Microsoft does not appear to have given virtualization very much thought.
Unfirewalled honeypots are often run in VMs. The honeypots are attacked, but the host is unaffected, and survives to allow use of the undo disk to put the honeypot back online quickly. If VS can host honeypots safely, without compromising the host, why not ISA or RRAS?
Empirically, we have tested the ISA and RRAS VM configs and they work well, but it sure would be nice to have Microsoft's blessing while going into production.
Beyond ISA and RRAS, if Microsoft is going to encourage virtualization, they need to step up and support virtualizing their products, except where specific reasons can be furnished and documented that shows why they should not be.

Microsoft's Response to Jeff's Letter

We're sorry to hear your reader had a frustrating experience when deploying and maintaining solutions built on Microsoft software. For over 30 years, our design goal has always been to offer quality products, an excellent customer experience at a reasonable price. But when we don't meet these design goals, we listen to our customers and we make changes as needed.
Microsoft takes virtualization seriously. We're making investments across our business, to include computing infrastructure, applications, systems management, licensing, support and interoperability so that customers can deploy critical workloads and applications in a virtual environment. One way we've helped meet customers' needs is the Common Engineering Criteria, which allows customers and partners to see the design goals for Microsoft server products as it relates to other Microsoft server software, including server virtualization. Virtual Server 2005 was added to the 2005 Common Engineering Criteria and Windows Server virtualization, which is a feature of Windows Server 2008, has been added to the 2008 Common Engineering Criteria. Exemptions are only granted due to OS or hardware dependencies.
Specific to your reader, Microsoft does support Virtual Server 2005 in production environments and intends to keep on doing so with Windows Server virtualization. For instance, ISA Server 2006 is fully supported within a Virtual Server 2005 R2 guest; whereas previous versions of ISA Server were not. ISA Server 2006 can run as a virtual guest, but because of performance considerations and potential security risks due to misconfiguration, this configuration isn't recommended by Microsoft, especially in network firewall deployment scenarios. The ISA Server product team is committed to supporting virtualization in the future versions of ISA Server, and is committed to security and providing sound deployment and configuration guidance to customers.
Microsoft has published two KB articles that state our support policy for software running in a virtualized environment:
- Microsoft Virtual Server support policy: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897613
- Support policy for Microsoft software running in non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897615/

Consistent with software industry practice, Microsoft doesn't provide general product support for any third-party software. However, as virtualization software matures and the industry adoption goes beyond today's 4% penetration, we recognize that new support models are needed. Customers have told us that they want a consistent support experience across their physical and virtual computing systems. Microsoft offers a progressive technical support policy covering the Microsoft virtualization software, the Windows OS and most Microsoft applications. And Microsoft is working with the industry to define such a model so that customers receive a consistent technical support experience for their computing systems, be it physical or virtual.

How I Spent My Summer

[8/26/2007]

The Problem with Printing on Windows Networks
(2 Comments)
POST A COMMENT

This summer has flown by, and I've neglected my blog. I really did try to find a way to work my Germany vacation into the concept of providing feedback to Microsoft. But I still can't figure out how to make my visit to Bavaria and Biergarten touring fit in. So the blog has been blank. How is a Biergarten like a Microsoft product? I don't know, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on that one. Anyway, I'm back on the job and will start blogging again regularly. Microsoft is certainly providing a lot of things to think and talk about. What easier way to get back into the swing of things than to post a letter from one of our favorite readers, Murat Yildirimoglu. Murat's musing on printer drivers is timely, and his point is valid. Let me know what you think. Here's what Murat wrote: Today many network admins complain about the problems of printing: printing over the network, printing through the Terminal Server, etc. DOS had only basic printing functionality but no printer driver concept. DOS expected the applications do the actual printing job. So, every application had a portfolio of printer drivers. WordPerfect was a good program because, among other things, it had the widest printer support: You could see a list of more than 1000 printers in that program (and here and there, the chance of meeting a printer not included in the list was very high). Then, Windows came and it freed applications from the burden of supporting every printer. We installed printer drivers to the operating system and, after that, every application running on top of the operating system could make use of the printer. This functionality necessitates that every Windows machine has to have the printer driver. Not bad, up until the first half of 1990s, when the network of computers become ubiquitous and we frequently use "network printers"; the printers not directly connected to the Windows machine. Network printers gave us flexibility. Printers would not have to be close to the machines, and expensive printers can be shared. Good. But the printer driver model didn't change with the network printers. Again, every Windows machine has to have the driver for the printer; whether the printer is a local one or not. And this point is nonsense. Let me give an example: If you have a network printer with a 10 MB driver software and you have 100 Windows machines that can print to that printer, then 10 MB driver must be installed either locally or over the network to these 100 machines (total 1 GB of network traffic and all the problems of locally installed drivers). What can be done for the network printers? There must be a solution so that only the print server (the machine that shares the printer) must have the printer driver. All the other machines should use that printer without installing the driver for it. Today, almost every device (mobile phones, PDAs, etc.) has some document viewing capability. That is, viewing the documents (interpreting the contents of the files) is a mundane task. Why, then, shouldn’t we send only the documents to the printers? Windows machines could send the documents as they are, and the print server could interpret the content and, using the printer driver installed on it, print the document. As a result, we may get rid of all driver related problems, especially in Terminal Server environments.
- posted by Karen Forster

[1]  2  3  4  5   next page