This entire article and thread are based on word games that have rendered it value-less.
The word "supported" has a very specific meaning for Microsoft. It means tested/documented/optimized/escalation support paths staffed/etc/etc.
Hyper-V is a hypervisor based virutaization solution that presents a generic x86 or x64 platform to guest OSes, just like most virtualization solutions. Therefore just about any x86 or x64 operating system will work on it, just like with most virtualization solutions.
The misunderstanding here is around the word "supported." VMWare, for example uses the word "supported" to mean "compatible", so VMWare will say that they "support" just about any x86 OS, when really there is no backing or active support behind that, they're just saying it "should work". Microsoft would use the word "compatible" to describe the same concept and in that sense just about any x86 OS is "compatible" with Hyper-V. "Supported" for Microsoft is an entirely diffent animal (again, meaning testing/optimization/active support/hiring people/contracts signed/etc), and for obvious reasons the "supported" list is short.
seems quite good. The info there hits on a lot of the key points with just enough detail to be instructive, but not so much as to be unreadable for a first introduction/preview of the topics.
Just now I did some searches to try and revel just these kinds of things, and came up (mostly) dry.
The info on microsoft.com/vista is absurdly broad, and while msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista is massively better, it still only tells part of the story.
I hope that this changes/improves as release time gets closer!
I'm sort of amazed that every mention of Vista or Mac OS in the press focuses entirely on GUI widgets and desktop search (the feature of the month, apparently)- and in comparing these two things between Windows and Mac OS X.
Frankly, I am a fan of both of these OSes (and others), but comparing the two in this way is silly, because their target audiences and development focuses are wildly different.
Sure Vista is going to include some updated UI elements, and this will inevitably generate comparisons with Mac OS, but I believe that for the Windows folks updating the UI is a tiny frilly prize at the end of a much more substantial journey. (I think) Most of the work going into Vista is not related to wow-ing an individual user with the splashy out of box experience (though there will be some of this). Instead, most of the work going on is targeted at corporate IT installations of tens of thousands of machines and the associated management costs. Things like new deployment options, services hardening, re-engineering to provide functionality while reducing attack surface, expanding on multiple layers of management frameworks, expanding on policy enforcement, network access protection, using AES for more and more crypto functions, etc, etc, etc... In some cases Vista will represent a radical advance in the plumbing of the Windows platform.
I guess it is understandable that a reviewer wouldn't be interested in these more important things, focusing entirely on UI widgets, but it is unfortunate that a project as substantial as Vista, one which will likely affect all of us, is only represented in the press with the thought "Now includes desktop search! Sort of like Mac OS!"
Speaking of theory... let's clarify how this works.
Generating a certificate/key-pair is trivial. You can do it yourself for free or have a 3rd party do it free or at mild to great expense.
In theory, a certificate is only useful in verifying the identity of a resource (server authentication of a web server in this case) so long as you trust the issuing authority, and therefore you take it on the issuing authority's word (cert is signed with the authority's private key) that the server at the end of https://companyA.com really belongs to companyA. You trust the issuing authority to have verified this fact for you. That's all server authentication consists of.
In theory, then, the critical question is 'what certificate authorities do you trust to make that kind of verification on your behalf?'
In general practice, however, all this boils down to is 'what certificate authorities are shipped as "trusted" on an out of the box install of the dominant platform/browser?' This, of course, includes Verisign, Thawte, and serveral others that have gone through both a PKI practices certification process and what must surely be an expensive business relationship with Microsoft.
So, as a server administrator, you either pay up for a cert from one of these widely "trusted" authorities, or explain to your users wy they should either import your CA as a trusted root, or otherwise deal with the warning messages that the browser will issue if your cert comes from anyone "untrusted", including yourself.
And, as has been alluded to, one you are past the server authentication usage of the PKI, the session key exchange for bulk encryption (SSL) can be handled equally well by any technically correct certificate/key-pair, regardless of the trust chain.
For those interested in the VM market space, the real interesting product is not Microsoft's revision of VPC, but Microsoft Virtual Server 2005. You can download RC1 free on their site. It runs on Server 2003 (also runs on XP, but slower) and it is *MUCH* faster than you think it is going to be. Plus the virtual layer 2 networking is impressive and tight.
The much maligned author of the DMCA* actually responded, individually**, by snail mail, to an email I sent.
Approx 1 year ago I sent an email to Orrin Hatch (via the website) about debt relief to HIPC (heavily indebted poor countries). Much to my surprise I recieved an individualized snail mail response that featured, if I recall correctly, two paragraphs. The first paragraph stated that he agreed with my position and that he had just voted for the bill in question (I had not supplied the bill number, but his reply did), and that thanks to his support the bill had passed. This paragraph was surely cut and pasted by the staff member preparing the response.
The second paragraph was a brief, but clearly personalized, reference to my personal experience on the issue and other references I had made in my original email.
The letter closed by inviting my to stay in touch with the Senator.
In short: a wonderfully pleasant surprise.
Notes:
* I was, at the time, a constituent.
** When I say "he responded" I clearly understand that a staffer responded in his name.
Remember when Microsoft infused a ton of cash into a dying Apple? (1998 maybe)
I'm sure that microsoft would love to have a non-microsoft version of.NET out there as token competition (even though, as the it's PASSPORT guy said, it doesn't really matter). Even better that the "competition" be from a visibly sworn enemy who happens to be a weak company that they could crush at any moment.
This looks like a very glossy anti-anti-trust move.
I checked out airswitch.com and they have changed their name to switchpoint, and there is absolutely no information on the service or for ordering. They seem to have transitioned into a "technology" company, only interested in licensing their system to someone who actually feels like implementing it. Lame. I wonder if their (former?)subscribers in Springville UT are still connected?
Indeed! Airswitch (bad name for an ethernet to the curb company) has had 100mb right to your house in a small town in Utah for many months now. My former boss, who had the service, described the upstream (beyond the ethernet segment) bandwidth in terms that make me shudder. T3 type speeds common to fast servers around the net. It was cheap too! Less than DSL. And he got static IPs.
Oooohhhhhh!!!! I just thought of something else great from the music world: The Beastie Boys Anthology DVD.
It uses some clever but simple trickery to take advantage of DVD interactivity. For each song you get to choose one of 4 video tracks (which are generally "remixes" of the music video). Additionally you get to choose one of four audio tracks to go along with the video track you've selected. It is fun and full of variety/new combinations. The trick is that whichever video track and whichever audio track you choose- they sync!
Mp3 = file extension and popular name given to audio encoded with MPEG1 layer 3. MPEG1=Standard for compressing Video and Audio MPEG2=Standard for compressing Video and Audio MPEG4 version1=Standard for compressing Video and Audio MPEG4 version2=Enhanced version of MPEG4, backwards compatible with MPEG4 version1 Microsoft MPEG4=Typical Microsoft (incompatible) implementation of open standard. Hacked together from unfinished draft of MPEG4 (version 1?) DivX(consumer product)=Defunct comsumer Digital Video format (like DVD, except no one bought it) Div-X(codec)=Hacked version of Microsoft's hacked version of MPEG4 "MP4" (as used in this article)=Div-X codec (see above)
Slashdot Mirror
This entire article and thread are based on word games that have rendered it value-less.
The word "supported" has a very specific meaning for Microsoft. It means tested/documented/optimized/escalation support paths staffed/etc/etc.
Hyper-V is a hypervisor based virutaization solution that presents a generic x86 or x64 platform to guest OSes, just like most virtualization solutions. Therefore just about any x86 or x64 operating system will work on it, just like with most virtualization solutions.
The misunderstanding here is around the word "supported." VMWare, for example uses the word "supported" to mean "compatible", so VMWare will say that they "support" just about any x86 OS, when really there is no backing or active support behind that, they're just saying it "should work". Microsoft would use the word "compatible" to describe the same concept and in that sense just about any x86 OS is "compatible" with Hyper-V. "Supported" for Microsoft is an entirely diffent animal (again, meaning testing/optimization/active support/hiring people/contracts signed/etc), and for obvious reasons the "supported" list is short.
New one:
a ult.mspx
Actually
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/def
seems quite good. The info there hits on a lot of the key points with just enough detail to be instructive, but not so much as to be unreadable for a first introduction/preview of the topics.
Cheers
Shotfeel you make a valid point.
Just now I did some searches to try and revel just these kinds of things, and came up (mostly) dry.
The info on microsoft.com/vista is absurdly broad, and while msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista is massively better, it still only tells part of the story.
I hope that this changes/improves as release time gets closer!
Cheers.
Unfortunate Comparison
I'm sort of amazed that every mention of Vista or Mac OS in the press focuses entirely on GUI widgets and desktop search (the feature of the month, apparently)- and in comparing these two things between Windows and Mac OS X.
Frankly, I am a fan of both of these OSes (and others), but comparing the two in this way is silly, because their target audiences and development focuses are wildly different.
Sure Vista is going to include some updated UI elements, and this will inevitably generate comparisons with Mac OS, but I believe that for the Windows folks updating the UI is a tiny frilly prize at the end of a much more substantial journey. (I think) Most of the work going into Vista is not related to wow-ing an individual user with the splashy out of box experience (though there will be some of this). Instead, most of the work going on is targeted at corporate IT installations of tens of thousands of machines and the associated management costs. Things like new deployment options, services hardening, re-engineering to provide functionality while reducing attack surface, expanding on multiple layers of management frameworks, expanding on policy enforcement, network access protection, using AES for more and more crypto functions, etc, etc, etc... In some cases Vista will represent a radical advance in the plumbing of the Windows platform.
I guess it is understandable that a reviewer wouldn't be interested in these more important things, focusing entirely on UI widgets, but it is unfortunate that a project as substantial as Vista, one which will likely affect all of us, is only represented in the press with the thought "Now includes desktop search! Sort of like Mac OS!"
Good point.
Thank you for clarifying what I had lumped together in an unclear sentence.
Speaking of theory... let's clarify how this works.
Generating a certificate/key-pair is trivial. You can do it yourself for free or have a 3rd party do it free or at mild to great expense.
In theory, a certificate is only useful in verifying the identity of a resource (server authentication of a web server in this case) so long as you trust the issuing authority, and therefore you take it on the issuing authority's word (cert is signed with the authority's private key) that the server at the end of https://companyA.com really belongs to companyA. You trust the issuing authority to have verified this fact for you. That's all server authentication consists of.
In theory, then, the critical question is 'what certificate authorities do you trust to make that kind of verification on your behalf?'
In general practice, however, all this boils down to is 'what certificate authorities are shipped as "trusted" on an out of the box install of the dominant platform/browser?' This, of course, includes Verisign, Thawte, and serveral others that have gone through both a PKI practices certification process and what must surely be an expensive business relationship with Microsoft.
So, as a server administrator, you either pay up for a cert from one of these widely "trusted" authorities, or explain to your users wy they should either import your CA as a trusted root, or otherwise deal with the warning messages that the browser will issue if your cert comes from anyone "untrusted", including yourself.
And, as has been alluded to, one you are past the server authentication usage of the PKI, the session key exchange for bulk encryption (SSL) can be handled equally well by any technically correct certificate/key-pair, regardless of the trust chain.
For those interested in the VM market space, the real interesting product is not Microsoft's revision of VPC, but Microsoft Virtual Server 2005. You can download RC1 free on their site. It runs on Server 2003 (also runs on XP, but slower) and it is *MUCH* faster than you think it is going to be. Plus the virtual layer 2 networking is impressive and tight.
A pleasant surprise.
Hold the Presses! Orrin Hatch responds
The much maligned author of the DMCA* actually responded, individually**, by snail mail, to an email I sent.
Approx 1 year ago I sent an email to Orrin Hatch (via the website) about debt relief to HIPC (heavily indebted poor countries). Much to my surprise I recieved an individualized snail mail response that featured, if I recall correctly, two paragraphs. The first paragraph stated that he agreed with my position and that he had just voted for the bill in question (I had not supplied the bill number, but his reply did), and that thanks to his support the bill had passed. This paragraph was surely cut and pasted by the staff member preparing the response.
The second paragraph was a brief, but clearly personalized, reference to my personal experience on the issue and other references I had made in my original email.
The letter closed by inviting my to stay in touch with the Senator.
In short: a wonderfully pleasant surprise.
Notes:
* I was, at the time, a constituent.
** When I say "he responded" I clearly understand that a staffer responded in his name.
Remember when Microsoft infused a ton of cash into a dying Apple? (1998 maybe)
I'm sure that microsoft would love to have a non-microsoft version of .NET out there as token competition (even though, as the it's PASSPORT guy said, it doesn't really matter). Even better that the "competition" be from a visibly sworn enemy who happens to be a weak company that they could crush at any moment.
This looks like a very glossy anti-anti-trust move.
Favorite Quote:
"some incredibly creative enemies like the zombies, zombie knights"
ROTFLMAO!
Hmmmmm. something seems to have gone wrong.
I checked out airswitch.com and they have changed their name to switchpoint, and there is absolutely no information on the service or for ordering. They seem to have transitioned into a "technology" company, only interested in licensing their system to someone who actually feels like implementing it. Lame. I wonder if their (former?)subscribers in Springville UT are still connected?
Lame. Lame. Lame.
Indeed! Airswitch (bad name for an ethernet to the curb company) has had 100mb right to your house in a small town in Utah for many months now. My former boss, who had the service, described the upstream (beyond the ethernet segment) bandwidth in terms that make me shudder. T3 type speeds common to fast servers around the net. It was cheap too! Less than DSL. And he got static IPs.
It was heaven, with fries, biggie sized.
Oooohhhhhh!!!! I just thought of something else great from the music world: The Beastie Boys Anthology DVD.
It uses some clever but simple trickery to take advantage of DVD interactivity. For each song you get to choose one of 4 video tracks (which are generally "remixes" of the music video). Additionally you get to choose one of four audio tracks to go along with the video track you've selected. It is fun and full of variety/new combinations. The trick is that whichever video track and whichever audio track you choose- they sync!
Good stuff to be sure.
Check Balthaser.com
DISCLAIMER: I AM A FAN
U2's PopMart concert tour (1997) was a ridiculous/amazing multimedia extravaganza of... well.. biblical, or at least stadium sized, proportions.
You can get a good tape of it at amazon or a less offensize retailer of your choice.
please correct/update this where I am wrong.
Mp3 = file extension and popular name given to audio encoded with MPEG1 layer 3.
MPEG1=Standard for compressing Video and Audio
MPEG2=Standard for compressing Video and Audio
MPEG4 version1=Standard for compressing Video and Audio
MPEG4 version2=Enhanced version of MPEG4, backwards compatible with MPEG4 version1
Microsoft MPEG4=Typical Microsoft (incompatible) implementation of open standard. Hacked together from unfinished draft of MPEG4 (version 1?)
DivX(consumer product)=Defunct comsumer Digital Video format (like DVD, except no one bought it)
Div-X(codec)=Hacked version of Microsoft's hacked version of MPEG4
"MP4" (as used in this article)=Div-X codec (see above)
Hope this is usefull (and accurate)