SCB Blogroll

• Dave Ballard
• Dr. Vic Perotti
• Thom Craver
• Dean's Blog
• Saunders College Blogs
• Ian Mortimer
• Dr. James Baroody
• Nick Francesco
• Saunders College Senator
• Development & Alumni
• Dr. Deb Colton
• WordPress.com
• WordPress.org
• Dr. Neil Hair
• Dr. Sandra Rothenberg

Subscription Links

• RSS 2.0

Login / Logout

• Register
• Log in

One of the problems we have in the academic world is balancing security with the openness of research. A lot of the research can involve software that is either still in development, or so new that there could still be security issues that have yet to be resolved or even discovered. This can be a nightmare for Systems Administrators.

So why not provide each faculty member two computers? One computer could be used for research and the other for administrative work, which includes working with student data? The problem is that in most cases, academic institutions cannot afford to give their faculty two computers. What about the use of new technology such as VMware View?

VMware View is a desktop virtualization product that looks like it has the potential to solve the problems with balancing the security and usability for academic faculty. There are other products that specialize in desktop virtualization, but so far, I’ve been very impressed with VMware products.

So how exactly would VMware View, or another desktop virtualization product help with this issue? Rather than providing faculty with one virtual desktop, provide them with two. Use one of the virtual desktops for administrative work such as grading papers, reading and writing email and working with confidential materials. When the faculty member wants to do research, use the second virtual desktop. This way, if the system is compromised or corrupted, just wipe it out and restore from a template and within a matter of minutes, you have a fresh computer ready to “play” with again.

VMware View has the ability to provide multimedia rich virtualization to thin clients. This is much more beneficial than similar products that provide simple 2D access to a workstation. When faculty are on the road, they would have the ability to download their virtual desktop session to a laptop to take with them. If a faculty member’s thin client or laptop is damaged, nothing is lost because it all resides in the virtual environment. Just connect to the environment from another thin client and you have all of your applications and documents.

Desktop virtualization is new technology, but not a new concept. In the old days of computing, we used mainframes which were accessed using dumb terminals. With this new technology, the dumb terminals of today have the appearance of that of a full multimedia rich workstation while keeping all of the processing power on the central servers.

As this technology improves, will we see adoption of desktop virtualization? What are your thoughts?

Time Warner will soon be introducing usage caps for all of its customers in the Rochester area, as well as other areas where they have no competition, this summer. This means that you will now be paying by the amount of information you are downloading and not by the bandwidth you have available to you.

I am not alone when I say that this is a perfect example of corporate greed. Time Warner claims that we will all save money by this, but I think this can’t be further from the truth. Rather than debate this issue, I would like to just focus on the innovation aspect of the usage caps.

Back in the mid 1990’s, we started to see pictures showing up on websites. This was because modems were getting faster and there was more bandwidth available to pull down the additional information needed to draw the graphics. Since then we have moved from a mostly text based Internet to a media rich environment with flash animations and high definition video clips. This is all thanks to the bandwidth of services such as Time Warner RoadRunner.

If a usage cap is imposed on users, we could see websites revert back to text based sites with minimal graphics. If I’m using the Internet to read the news or even research what colleges are out there, and I have to pay a usage cap, I’m going to stick with those sites that have no graphics or animation on them to ensure I don’t go over my cap.

This could very simply result in a loss of innovation on the Internet. Consumers may start demanding sites to be developed with only text based information and to remove all of the graphics and video. We could even see a new version of web browsers that block this information from being downloaded to prevent you from going over your caps. This could decrease the new innovative technologies out there such as high quality video cameras that consumers could use to upload high quality family videos to share with friends and family.

If Time Warner imposes a usage cap, I’ll either switch to Frontier DSL or I will stop playing online games, stop signing into things like Facebook and Secondlife and even stop watching video highlights of Sabres games where they actually win for once. Even worse, I’ll probably have to start coming into work at all hours of the night to review server logs, perform maintenance and help students with their assignments over services such as Adobe Connect because that will very quickly take me over my cap. Forget the idea of me ever teaching an online class from home.

So what can we do to try and stop this. A great place to start is with StoptheCap.com as it has an enormous amount of information on this topic including information about what we, the consumer, can do to try and fight Time Warner on this. Another way is to write your local congressman or senator to support the The Massa Broadband Internet Fairness Act which is aimed directly at stopping this type of monopolistic practice.

Either way, it is important to make your voice be heard. Don’t sit on the sidelines and let Time Warner take away your ability to communicate without restrictions with the rest of the world.

In closing, I’d like to remind anyone reading this that these views are my own and are in no way affiliated with the E. Philip Saunders College of Business (SCB) or with the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT). If you have issues with my comments, please address them to me and not to SCB and RIT.

Thank you.

Normally I write about technology, but after coming back from a vacation, I wanted to write about something I was shocked to see. I recently went to Maine to enjoy a much needed vacation. While on a whale watching trip, I was amazed as to how much garbage I saw floating in the ocean. Everything from balloons, coffee cups, milk jugs to even used diapers. I’ve seen plenty of garbage on the sides of streets, but I just couldn’t believe I was seeing this stuff 25 miles off shore in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

I personally try to recycle as much as possible and use as little energy possible. I even unplug any power adapters when I’m not using them as they still draw power. I have always been someone that thinks we need to take care of our environment because when it is gone, it is gone. After seeing what I have saw, it just made me realize that everyone, including myself, need to do more. There is no reason I should have seen this stuff floating in the middle of the Atlantic. Maine does an excellent job at keeping their state clean. It makes me wonder about other states and other parts of the world. Are people really doing what is necessary to help clean the environment or are they just taking the attitude of ignorance? “I don’t see it so it doesn’t affect me.”

All I can say is that this event was a real eye opener for me. I certainly hope that more people take a closer look as to what is really happening to our planet and start making an effort before it is too late. Which someone people think it may already be too late.

When it comes to the age old question of which is better, plain text or HTML e-mail, I’d have to say plain text is the way to go. It is just way too easy for someone to craft an e-mail that looks authentic, but underneath it really isn’t. I personally think the best approach is to always view your e-mails as plain text. Only when you know it is a safe e-mail, then convert it to HTML. This gives you the chance to review to the message to see if it is not safe or has something hidden in it. Things to look for are images that come from major websites that you know are safe, but the Click Here link goes somewhere else or links that go to a site that is just numbers. These are good indications that the email is most likely a phishing attempt to steal your information.

With Microsoft predicting more phishing and e-mail scams in 2008 (source: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/656), one has to wonder as to why anyone would want to view their e-mails in HTML format by default.

Your thoughts?

E-mail has been around since 1965 and is today one of the cornerstones of electronic communication, but will it survive the next generation of computer users? The reason I ask this is because I recently had a discussion with other systems administrators at RIT in regards to our students using services such as Facebook, mySpace and even Instant Messaging (IM) instead of e-mail. Some students go as far as to never check their e-mail. Because of this new trend, does RIT need to rethink how electronic communication is distributed to our students? Most likely this won’t be the case for some time simply because e-mail is so easy to use and provides an excellent record of communications between faculty and students.

E-mail is so vital to the day-to-day operations of virtually every university and corporation that I can’t imagine a shift away from it as a primary means of electronic communication; however, Xerox said the same thing about the mouse and graphical operating systems when it came to desktop computing. Perhaps some day we may see a shift in technology, but I would think that as students move out into the work force, they will start using e-mail more and using services like Facebook, mySpace and IM less.

What are your thoughts on using services like Facebook, mySpace and/or IM to replace e-mail?

Ever since Firefox was first released, I’ve been a fan. I think that the browser has done great over the years and has defiantly given Microsoft a reason to improve Internet Explorer. While I love Firefox as a user, I’ll admit that I have never liked it from the perspective of a Systems Administrator. The application is always providing challenges in its deployment to remote systems. Once you think you’ve got it figured out, the developers seem to throw something into the mix that messes things up. Up until recently, I was willing to look past this. But now something new, at least new to me, has came up that has just made think that the developers at Mozilla are purposely trying to make Systems Administrator’s lives miserable.

File versioning. Mozilla doesn’t seem to understand the concept. Take version 1.5.0.11. If you look very closely at firefox.exe when you install 1.5.0.11, you will see that the actual version of the file is 1.8.20070.31202. Okay, this isn’t that big of a deal. At least not until you look at 2.0.0.3. Firefox.exe for 2.0.0.3 is 1.8.20070.30919. Look closely at those numbers. Firefox 2.0.0.3 actually has a lower version number than Firefox 1.5.0.11. So when you develop a script that says to install Firefox 2.0.0.3 if the version is less than 1.8.20070.30919, it won’t upgrade 1.5.0.11. What was Mozilla thinking?

The only think I can think of is that Firefox 2.0.0.3 may have been released prior to 1.5.0.11 and the version numbers are meant to track the releases over time. But with this methodology, it makes it much more difficult for administrators to automate the upgrade of Firefox. Especially from 1.5.0.11 to 2.0.0.3. Now yes, there are ways to script around this. That’s not the point. I just personally think, and I’m sure a lot of Systems Administrators will agree with me, that a file version should be larger for a newer version of software. Or in the case of 1.5.x and 2.0.x, make them distinguishable by doing something like 1.8.x for 1.5.x and 1.9.x for 2.0.x. What do you think?

For the past few weeks, I’ve been playing around with Windows Vista. I have to admit, I was a bit skeptical at first, but after a while of working with Vista, I have been quite impressed. One area I like is the virtualization of several sections of the OS and of key files.

When an application requires the ability to write to the Program Files directory, Vista places those files into a virtual location in the user’s profile without the application ever knowing that this has happened. For example, let’s say there’s an application that needs to write to C:\Program Files\My Application\configuration.ini. In previous versions of Windows, unless the user explicitly has write access to that file or has administrative rights, the application may fail. In Vista, the OS will place the configuration.ini file in C:\Users\username\AppData\VirtualStore\Program Files\My Application\configuration.ini so that the application can write to the file without failing. The application won’t even know this has happened as Vista takes care of this all behind the scenes. This new feature makes an administrator’s life easier by being able to keep the Program Files directory secure.

For a few weeks now, I have been playing around with Office 2007 Beta.  I have to say, the new design is starting to grow on me.  I am sure it will be difficult for a while for people to navigate the new interface, but I don’t think it will take all that long for the average user to be come accustom to the new design.

Outlook is probably the most important of all the products in the Office Suite simply because it handles all your tasks and communications.  While Outlook’s interface hasn’t changed much, I do like the small differences that do exist.  I think the best part of the new Outlook interface is that on one screen, I can see my email, upcoming appointments and tasks.  In previous versions, I would have to open two windows to accomplish this.

One issue with Outlook is speed.  When you first setup Outlook, it is very, very slow.  This is because Outlook is going through all your email and cataloging it to make it faster for searching.   Once this has been completed, Outlook’s performance does pickup, but it is still a bit slow.

Now, in all fairness to Microsoft, I am using Beta code.  Once the final release is available to me, I am sure my opinion about Outlook’s speed will change.  But overall, I have to say that I am pleased with the new version with Office 2007.  Let’s see if I continue to say that after I start supporting it for our end users.

What’s your opinion?

Every once in a while, I am asked “which computer should I buy?” My response used to be go with a Dell, IBM or Compaq. Today, I now usually recommend, get a good warranty. I may still be new to computers compared to some of my colleagues, but in the past 12 years I have been working extensively with them, I have noticed a decline in their quality. I really think that manufactures are now cutting costs by putting out cheaper equipment and betting on customers not purchasing extended warranties.

In the more than 8 years I have worked at the COB, I have noticed our newer servers have a much higher failure rate than our older servers. This is not just exclusive to the COB. Other RIT departments have reported an increase in hardware failures with their newer equipment. Are manufactures cutting costs to the point where they are putting inferior components into their computers?

This makes me wonder if the manufactures are trying to make computers a throw away commodity. We purchase a computer that lasts about two to three years rather than one lasting five to six years. This means we are purchasing computers more often. Are the manufactures making more money with this methodology despite the fact that computer prices have fallen in recent years? Is this hurting the computer industry by creating less reliable systems that are used for everything from writing a paper to running a corporation? What do you think?

On July 11^th, Microsoft said a long awaited goodbye to Windows 98 and Windows ME. Next on the Microsoft chopping block is Windows XP SP1, which is due to end on October 10, 2006. Why is Microsoft dropping support of these fine, cough, products?

Windows 98 was released in 1998 making the Operating System (OS) 8 years old at the time it was dropped. I for one am glad to see the old OS go. After all, most versions of Linux don’t stick around for more than 2 to 3 years. Okay, I know what all you Linux people are saying. You can upgrade the kernel of Linux for free where as with a Microsoft product; you have to spend money to get an upgrade. It’s actually worse than that. Windows XP probably won’t run on that old computer that you bought with Windows 98, so you’ll have to upgrade the hardware too.

So should Microsoft still support Windows 98 for those people that can’t afford to upgrade? I still say no. Anything older than 5 years needs to be retired. The reason simply put is security. For one, Windows 98 and Windows ME have virtually no security built into them. With that in mind, I think they should have been retired a long time ago. With the growing number of threats out there, it’s time for home users to either unplug from the Internet, or upgrade to a different OS (notice I didn’t say a Microsoft OS).

For those users that just simply can’t afford to upgrade, try Linux. While I usually recommend Debian for the server world, Ubuntu seems to growing in popularity, especially in areas where users are not technically savvy. I have downloaded and installed Ubuntu and found it surprisingly easy to install. If all you do is word processing, email and surfing the web, Ubuntu might be your “free” answer. If you are feeling adventuresome, check out Debian.

For more information about Microsoft dropping support of Windows 98, Windows ME, and Windows XP SP1, please visit Microsoft’s web site at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/support/endofsupport.mspx

For more information about Debian Linux, please visit: http://www.us.debian.org/

For more information about Ubuntu Linux, please visit: http://www.ubuntu.com/

Comments