NWC | Letters | Letters | | December 1, 2002

NEWS BLOGS FORUMS NEWSLETTERS RESEARCH EVENTS DIGITAL LIBRARY CAREERS

IMMERSE YOURSELF:

Storage & Servers

December 1, 2002

TOC Issue TOC

Printer Print full article

E-Mail E-Mail this URL

Flame the author

"Steve Ballmer jived and danced around the answer in what has become a Microsoft tradition." ~Ben Myers

Eye for Business
I read Rob Preston's column "IT Pros Still Undervalued" (Nov. 1, 2002) and completely understand the MIS point of view. However, IT pros fail to understand that, once they become managers, they must shift their focus more into the business thought process. For example, when I joined a prior firm as the director of network systems, I went out of my way to meet every decision-maker and asked to be apprised of any problems. I received dozens of complaints about poor service, no quality control, missed dates of delivery, inconsistent support and problems with product implementations. It seems MIS and the user community had a poor relationship.

My goal is to make my employer more profitable, so I team up with profit centers in my firm to boost their numbers. When I looked for financial support to implement infrastructure, I won support from the same departments many MIS professionals consider a pain in the neck, and moved forward on my project with fewer hassles. It's about developing and cultivating relationships.

Robert J Gagliano
Amtek Corp.
rjgagliano@ieee.org

Out of Sight...
I liked Bruce Boardman's column "Jack of All Trades ..." (Nov. 1, 2002). I have the reverse problem: Users want a problem solved when they see it in front of their eyes. They don't think about what problems might arise and how to prepare for them.

I use NetFrame NMS. Check it out at www.meritek.com. Nobody knows about it because the company is small. Keep up the good writing. Thanks for your insight.

Fred Alam
Network Consultant
Alam Consultants
alamf@earthlink.net

Microsoft Mambo
Although I agree with Don MacVittie's premise that it's time for people with DOS applications to move on (see "Don't Look Back" Oct. 10, 2002), I am not willing to let Microsoft off the hook as easily as he does. I attended one of the original Microsoft Windows 1.03 programming seminars, where Steve Ballmer tried out his bombastic persona on the public. Near the end of the seminar, I noted to Steve that the Windows API was extremely complicated and asked when Microsoft might offer some code-generation tools to make it easier for programmers. Steve jived and danced around the answer in what has become a Microsoft tradition.

Since then, Microsoft has jerked around hardware OEMs and software developers with constant changes to the Windows APIs, changes that have forced software developers to repeatedly rewrite drivers and applications. With each new release, many API calls become obsolete, replaced or augmented by others.

The Windows API always was unduly complex for the job it was intended to do: Put a pretty face on ugly command-line DOS. It has become ever more complex over the years. The constant turmoil of rewriting drivers to fit new Microsoft driver "models" has cost hardware OEMs millions, and has cost many end users the loss of support for perfectly operational hardware devices, when the hardware OEMs chose not to rewrite drivers yet another time.

Add the turmoil of ever-changing driver and application APIs to the inherent complexity of the APIs and you have a recipe for unreliable and insecure software, exactly what Windows is today in all its incarnations. Let's also chalk up the billions of hours spent by IT troubleshooting and fixing holes in Windows. I remarked to a client the other day that I was tired of solving the same problem for the thousandth time on the thousandth computer. The presence or absence of DOS APIs has little or nothing to do with the current state of affairs, an environment that leaves 99 percent of American business wide open to cyberterrorism and other forms of computer mischief. And for this, should we be thankful to Microsoft for making our lives more productive?

Ben Myers
Owner
Spirit of Performance
ben_myers@charter.net

KVM Advantage
I read Ron Anderson's "A Paragon of Security, Raritan's System Provides Remote Access From a Tiny Place" (Aug. 19, 2002) and hope he might be able to tell me the advantages of using a hardware-based KVM switch versus a remote control application to manage servers. I understand most of the arguments regarding Symantec pcAnywhere, but what about AT&T Laboratories' VNC and enhanced versions such as TightVNC, both of which are free, cross-platform alternatives to KVM switches? Also, IBM has Desktop On-Call, which probably could be used to manage a server remotely. Anderson mentions that Raritan's TeleReach Web interface will give you access to the system BIOS on reboot. With remote-control applications, you have to wait for the OS and the remote-control application to load. How important is this distinction?

Barry A. Baker
President
The Cobble Hill Group LLC
bbaker@cobblehillgroup.com

Ron Anderson replies: You detailed the biggest advantage: immediate access, including BIOS-level access, to the system as it boots. BIOS access is important only when you need it, but then it's vital and could save you a late-night trip to the machine room. Also, since you'll be using a KVM solution in a large data center anyway, it might as well be one that gives you access via IP.

Tell us how you really feel. Write to us at editor@nwc.com. Include your name, title, company name, e-mail address and phone number. All correspondence becomes the property of Network Computing.