"Don't forget all those MCSE's out there who think that AD is god's gift to Admins."
But how long is that going to last now that they can soon no longer play with those toys themselves (hinting at Microsoft dropping TechNet support)?
1929 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
"Don't forget all those MCSE's out there who think that AD is god's gift to Admins."
But how long is that going to last now that they can soon no longer play with those toys themselves (hinting at Microsoft dropping TechNet support)?
"The truth is that Microsoft can't keep us all happy."
Normally I'd believe that.
However, I think the author is missing or ignoring the bigger picture here. Because one can only acknowledge that it has become "awkward" to say the least that the feeling of dislike is happening all over the place as of late. And if you look at the hard numbers and the way Microsoft has been acting I think there's no denying the issue at hand. This isn't about a few people disliking Microsoft any more.
Lets go non-tech: Gamers. A lot of XBox fans have been in high expectation of the XBox one, and hardly anyone liked it. The dislike spread so deep and wide that Microsoft eventually reversed some of their plans. I highly doubt that they'd go that far if we were talking about "some dislikes" here. But most gamers aren't stupid; they know that unwanted changes can occur after purchase as well, that has now become a big liability for the future of the XBox.
And speaking of Windows 8: surely the extremely disappointing sale numbers say something here?
Sure; let's go modern as well. Cloud you say? When talking "developers, developers" then Microsoft is putting a lot of effort in pushing Visual Studio 2012 forwards. The only problem is that most die-hard Microsoft developers would rather stay on 2010. And instead of acknowledging the whole problem (which, in all fairness, Microsoft has partly done) they're now getting ready for the next Visual Studio version.
Systems engineers? Microsoft whacked TechNet and you can already see some of the impact because of it.
Microsoft has shown a very weird tendency as of late to piss off a lot of their customers, developers and even their fanbase alike. Sure you won't see the effect of those actions the very next day, if you think that Microsoft would be out of business in a few months if those actions were really bad then you're a fool. Changes like that don't go that fast.
But that also doesn't mean that the problem isn't there either.
Surely it's not that hard to realize that if you're losing a monopoly position then the last thing you should do is piss off all the people who actually liked your products?
"Thus, the UI you use to find and display content on your TV is the exact same UI you use to find and display that content on your Android or iOS device or in your browser. The only difference is that when you press the Cast button, the content comes up on your TV."
That sounds awfully troublesome to me. Because in my place the TV sits in the livingroom, neatly before the couch and all, whereas my computer sits in my 'study' (basically a room separated from the living room).
And well, if I want to watch stuff on my TV which resides on my computer the last thing I'd want is having to walk over to the computer, start the contents (automatically missing the first part) then walking back and so on.
Quite frankly I don't really get the advantage here. When I download something to my computer and I want to watch it on the TV I simply put it into a folder which is shared with the network. My Ryan can access my Windows PC, and then play the contents. Better yet: I'm in full control, using the remote I can stop, pause, fast forward; do anything you'd normally want to do. Without even having to get up from the couch.
Use your computer to collect media, then use a mediaplayer to, well, play it.
My (small!) company is heavily relying on Microsoft products. I'm using a Windows 7 Professional desktop together with MS Office 2010 Professional, and we have 2 in-house Windows 2003 servers. Some other people involved are more that often relying on Windows XP.
Next to that we also host some websites on a Windows 2008R2 server, and own a Visual Studio Professional license which, at the time of writing, is mainly used for rather extensive ASP.NET development.
Why I think the reorganisation won't mean anything to me? Because the damage has already been done, big time.
Because in my opinion it can't -by far- outdo the impact of Microsoft's decision to quit with the TechNet subscriptions model. THAT is something which really will leave an impact, not only by Microsoft resellers and consultants such as my company, but all over the place. From the single Microsoft systems engineer who is fascinated with this stuff and decides to work on his own expertise by experimenting at home with a testlab, right down to Enterprise departments where an extra server license is out of the question (this will go out of the departments budget); even if it is partly required for testing purposes. That's where TechNet more than often came in.
And Microsoft threw all of that away.
In many regions this day is hardly known and sometimes its considered 'cool' to know about it and to make a good impression as an employer.
I do think its important to be very careful in regions where it is better known. Take the article here; "you can enter a competition", however: "you only need to register here..". And that should really lead up to the question: "So what are you going to do with my data?".
In this case marketing, obviously, but it seems to be to a minor degree: "By clicking this button you submit your information to the webinar organizer, who will use it to communicate with you regarding this event and their other services". Obviously this isn't for me, I don't need more spam, thanks.
So keep that in mind as well. Organisations who may appear to acknowledge "sysadmin day" might not simply do so because they feel good about us sysadmins but because they hope to collect a lot of personal information which can then be used for plain old marketing purposes.
"Really, there are a lot more important things to worry about in the world than people paying each other for sex."
I think its more devious than that: they pay each other for sex without paying any tax to the government.
Now you're suddenly in a whole heap of trouble because when the government realizes they're missing out on some tax income the gloves go off.
It's required. Because how else will those politicians pay for their own escort services?
Nah, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They follow an Enterprise business plan which is much more sophisticated and therefor much better than yours:
1) Provide Linux support for Hyper-V
You might want to take extra care not to take this protest into the US. Because if you do chances are high you'll get arrested and thrown in jail for indecent behaviour; and if you happen to have the misfortune that there were also some minors looking an optional: "endangering the welfare of a child", which can easily end you up in jail for a few years.
4 wasn't bad at all, though I never understood why they needed to force the X environment in there. With some servers X could cause quite some hassle to get it going, which basically resulted in being unable to configure or change your NDS tree.
I'd rather would have seen a DOS based 'NSD Editor', like the many DOS based client and administration programs. I've always liked their colour scheme.
There can be five!
As far as I know there have been 5 Highlander movies ;)
"The rock's passing 11 Lunar Distances from Earth, which is to say it'll be 11 times more distant from Earth than the moon."
So basically it doesn't even come within the moons orbit around us. Yet we've also had meteorites which actually came within this virtual boundary, so how does that make this particular object "unsettlingly close"?
"Uhm, wait a minute.. Trolls *are* edible, right?"
You might want to throw a 1d12 to make sure ;-)
Horribly wrong and extremely naive example.
This filter doesn't take down anything, the only thing it does is hide the ugly truth from you. And guess what: there is a lot of garbage out there.
But instead of actually providing any resources to fight these disgusting (self-censored) pieces of (self-censored) (self-censored) who would easily abuse and exploit children the English government now seems to put more effort in hiding the offense rather than fighting it.
Obviously there is also the harsh reality about censorship. This move is wrong in so many ways..
"The NSA has admitted that the organization's use of Microsoft SharePoint allowed an unnamed sysadmin to leak information."
It's not the use of SharePoint which allowed this sysadmin access; it's the idiot administrator who gave him access in the first place.
What is this anyway; an attack on Microsoft to try and restore their reputation a bit? ("You see; even the NSA doesn't like Microsoft. Surely the NSA would like Microsoft if they had just rolled over?").
Obviously the black helicopter.
Now you're just being mean. Guns are the ultimate expression of a fundamental *human* right called self defence. The right to bear arms and defend your home and family.
Surely you realize that nudity is something completely different. It just isn't normal, even though the whole of humanity seems to be strangely attracted to it at times.
For $deity's sake, think about the children will ya? ;-)
...but still ended up in jail.
"Obviously, the Chinese are made of stern stuff. To be able to say "I'm being electrocuted" while being electrocuted is no mean feat."
You're overlooking something important: the major differences in the language.
Chinese and Japanese are what I like to call very "direct" languages, the meaning of a sentence depends a lot on context and doesn't use verbs like we do.
In this case it's more likely he said something in the likes of: "I electrocuted" where the latter would be shortened too.
According to electronic translations he would have said: "Wǒ chùdiàn". And I somewhat imagine that he'd shortened it to "wo chu!".
Which is a lot shorter than "I'm being electrocuted".
"Unlike compromised home PCs, there really is no excuse for compromised web servers."
Agreed, but there should be even less excuses not to act against such servers, which is in my opinion the main problem.
If you noticed Internet abuse and then notified the involved parties then it remains to be seen if anything is done against it. More than often people let it slide because apparently they either can't be bothered to fix it or they don't want to upset their customers.
"Are you now suggesting Linus Torvalds should be scared and kneel in front of his lieutenants just because they might fork the kernel ?"
No, but there's a big difference between saying someone wrote horrible code and someone is a horrible person. Because this can only spiral out of control and go out with a bang, unless someone comes to his senses.
Let's assume Linus is right and that no one listens to him if he says (quote:) "please don't do that". Has no one ever stopped to wonder why that may be so?
If you start raising your voice to get your point across you will reach a point where people eventually ignore that shit ("there he goes again"). So you'll have to come up with other ways to get your point across in a way where people know you really meant it.
Let's start swearing..
Yet now you only started a new cycle. Eventually you reach a point where people get fed up again and will ignore it ("here we go again").
Let's start swearing.. in Finnish!
So where does all of this end? Don't forget that most people who tolerate that shit don't necessarily do so because they agree, but because they can't back out. There is only one Linux kernel. But take that prestige or the need away and I think things will come crumbling down, and fast too.
I think you've been watching Ramsey's shows a bit too often.
From Sarah's e-mail:
"Let's discuss this at Kernel Summit where we can at least yell at each
other in person."
Or better yet: hire a wrestling arena where lots of people can watch, make sure you provide a live stream of the event, and try if you can sell some of the rights to the WWE.
I'm sure it would catch on :-)
Then we might eventually get to see the main event too: In the right corner, Torvalds armed with a living penguin. And in the left corner Ballmer, armed with his trusty office chair.
"Do you really think that someone that created the kernel that is used in millions of machines around the world (data centers etc) is ever going to be out of work for long?"
I don't know, but it could very well be. Because what kind of a job?
I don't think that with his attitude you'd easily make it into management. Because as I mentioned in my post; take the power basis away and I think it remains to be seen how much people would put up with the verbal outbursts.
And that leaves me wondering if Linus would actually ever accept a job as a regular programmer any longer?
"But on the other hand, his occasional habit of letting loose when people who should know better make stupid mistakes has probably saved us (as in the many people in the world who depend on linux one way or another) from a lot of grief and annoyance."
I think that had more to do with not accepting the commit(s) than his ranting and swearing.
I think that's what Linus is doing and it seems he doesn't even realize it.
The problem here is that in general Linus is completely right about everything he says, at least I think so. You should be able to tell people what you think about them and their work. But the thing is; there is a huge difference if you speak amongst equals or people over who you have some power.
Many people put up with the way Linus treats them not because they want to, but because they have to. And it creates a very dangerous situation, because you can forget about any loyalty or such from them.
That may suit Linus just fine, but if the Linux hype blows over then I think he may be in for rough times ahead. Let's say Google manages to push Chrome OS forward even more, and actually treats its developers with some respect. Sure, you can call someone's work rubbish. That's hardly the same as calling him an idiot.
How long before developers would move on?
"If you want to motivate someone, someone who you have no real control over as FOSS developers can stop FOSS-ing and just walk away, you need to adopt an air of professionalism, gain respect and lead by example."
Agreed. However there is another option: "You need to lead a project known and used world-wide, favoured by by millions of people. Then it automatically becomes a prestige for some to actually work on that project. After which you can more than often treat them like shit, because they'll still revel in their prestige".
That is what's happening here in my opinion.
But it's still a dangerous situation, because if people reach a point where the shine wears off and the abuse doesn't things can go down hill very fast. Often it only takes one person to stand up to it and gain some followers.
"And, tbh, he's right about 'On the internet, nobody can hear you do subtle'"
I strongly disagree. The people who matter and value the things you say will hear you loud and clear, even if you do things subtle. I'm getting the feeling that it's not so much the people who matter who should hear him, it's the rest of the world too.
Lets face it: would some of the kernel mailinglist posts have made it to El Reg if it wasn't for the shouting and swearing? For example when he told RedHat off about code signing? Sure, in my opinion he was right on that call, but you can bring a message across without making it look as if you feel better than everyone else.
And there's something else to consider: what would happen if someone forks the Linux kernel, starts a new Linux-like project and actually treats people as they want to be treated? I know no one has done this (there'd be holy wars) but for the sake of argument lets say it happens.
How long before Linus' "lieutenants" bail out? On the other end of the mountain they may still end up in discussions and people disagreeing with them, but they could count on the respect they deserve.
I think this is a liable risk presenting itself right now. People representing RedHat will remain on board no matter what, there's money involved. But hobbyists may reach a point where they no longer think its cool anymore. And then a ship can sink really fast.
Right, you usually replace those scenes with playmobil wasn't it? ;-)
Its not only NDS which b0rk the Netware experience I think, it's also the somewhat flakey way it operated.
Netware 4 finally allowed you to manage your users from the server console, instead of the 3.11 way of demanding that the server would only be able to manage the server, and as soon as you needed to manage the user accounts you just had to find a client and logon.
I always considered that a major flaw; even more so when a friend and me tried to gain 'super' rights on a school network and his "super" program tried to logon as super approximately 4000 times with a wrong password. Effectively locking out an enraged administrator who didn't have a backup account and could now no longer logon for the following 48 hours.
But the thing is, if memory serves me right you needed X to do it. Netware had embraced X on the server, something which immediately struck me as odd because wasn't that Linux terrain? So if Novell deemed X usage worthy, then surely there had to be much more to that Linux stuff then we realized so far...
I think that also opened up a lot of eyes. Because although many people knew what Linux could be capable of at that time, it wasn't exactly as popular as it is now. And here you had a major network company actually using "Linux components".
When I picked up Unreal Tournament I was sold. Back then I still played on PC so it didn't take me long to grab maps and mods and stuff and it was always plain out fun. Also because the graphics looked awesome but without overdoing it. Heck, we even played UT on fridays at work. Coolness :)
I fully agree with some of the other posts regarding the static looks of Unreal. Not Unreal per se because that looked awesome to me, but I was still a rookie back then. But I picked up Unreal Tournament on the PS3 a few years back and had the same feelings about it in comparison with the first UT I got on the PC. Gameplay is good, some interactive maps are also nicely executed, but it looks so static and "computerized" that it didn't compare at all to the first UT for me. UT had levels where you could see the rust and dents on some of the arena's, and it also featured some awesome levels too. Like that submarine level where you basically walked across a platform which could be overlooked from all sides. Rocket launcher madness ;-) Yet nothing of that anymore. I hardly spend as much time on UT PS3 than I did on that very first UT game on my PC.
And well, Unreal II was nothing like the first but I enjoyed it. Sad ending though.
This means it won't come with a start menu but merely several groups of icons?
How disappointing ;-)
Not good enough. The poor guy was obviously using one hand for private negotiations which leaves him kinda incapacitated when it comes to mouse or keyboard usage ;)
On behalf of writing a good comment I took it upon myself to look into these fuckbook sites (not because I was wondering what the guys definition of pr0n is of course [cough, cough]) and I think he's in luck!
I found 2. The .com variant advertises to have a dating bureau. So if the guy prefers these digi-chicks over his wife then what's stopping him from re-marrying and f*ck happily ever after?
The .net variant even guarantees that you'll get laid. How's that for a sweet deal?
Yeah, I'm completely convinced it was the innernets fault. Of course it wasn't his fault for not listening to his wife when she told him to cut out the crap. Or when she told him: "Either the pr0n goes, or I'm going".
Yeah, the innernets fault. Not his possibly overly protective childhood or living style which eventually rendered him completely vulnerable to stuff which the rest of the world would call casual n00dies...
"As such, most require you to run "Set-ExecutionPolicy Unrestricted" on the target server before launching the GUIs. Otherwise they won't work."
Needless to say but doing that is a very dumb idea. The problem is that PowerShell has many networking capabilities and by default is also capable of executing remotely located scripts. Not the behaviour you want if you can't trust the remote source.
Even so, I think Unrestricted wouldn't cope here because if you execute an unsigned script from the Internet under this policy then you'll get prompted before execution. The only policy which doesn't block anything nor gives you warnings or prompts is Bypass.
Either way; using both is a bad idea. There is a good reason why 'Restricted' is the default behaviour.
"MS really need to simplify their pricing structure.(honest Guv1)"
True. My (small!) company is a Microsoft reseller and although you get access to some kind of information regarding licenses more than often even we can't easily work out which license we need to get for our customer.
If you think you're confused then rest assured; it's even worse if you got access to the whole collection of available licenses. Sometimes we and the import company ('vendor'?) couldn't even work it out.
Still, I suppose Microsoft is trying to handle this by pushing their subscription model forwards. I just don't think that's the right way to do it.
I wouldn't jump to conclusions because "strain blocking" could mean just about anything. If they somehow managed to intercept any mouse activity which happens in the lower left corner then Windows 8 would still end up vulnerable.
Because I remember seeing robots that used such constructions to move around. Of course a bit smaller, but that's besides the point.
The best part is that when looking at robot wars you'll also quickly learn the flaws with such a design.
"A group of JPL scientists, working on improving space-scale laser ranging, believe they could one day measure the distance from Earth to Mars with millimetre accuracy."
Don't be too proud of this technological achievement you're constructing. The ability to measure the distance between planets is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
(I couldn't help myself. Darn you El Reg! ;-))
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
I didn't really like the article, it was a big vague here and there. Everytime you mentioned seller I sort of figured you meant buyer and vice versa.
"So it's not the technology itself they have trust issues with, the issues are with those who run the cloud services. "
There is, as I mentioned, one nasty risk when it comes to cloud computing I think.
Although cloud computing should basically mean that a virtual instance can reside on many pieces of hardware so that should one of those pieces fail others take over, the reality sometimes shows us different. Many cloud providers basically setup some very heavy hardware and run several virtual instances on that single machine. Sure; the machine may be well set up for redundancy (double PSU's, RAID, SAN, etc.), but still one device.
We've already seen examples (here's looking at Amazon and Microsoft) where a failure somewhere along the lines of hardware caused many instances to drop out and become unavailable. Microsoft even seemed incapable of simply moving instances from a broken set up to a working one.
But here's another concern: What would happen if a government agency has determined that one of the instances on a server is used for illegal activities and they confiscate the entire machine? If your VPS happens to be on that box as well you could be in a heap of trouble, even if you didn't have anything to do with the illegal activities.
I think its a liable risk, but one many people seem to totally ignore.
If you want to deduct this to 'real men' then I think 'real men' better buy their own tech goodies.
I don't know about you, but when I get myself a goodie I'm a nitpicker. When I set my eyes on model 3515SB1a I most certainly will not settle for 3515SB1b, even though we might be talking about minor differences. Simply because I read the specs for the 'a model' and I know what it can't do. "This one is just as good" does not cut it for me when talking tech.
I'm weird enough to pay close attentions to details like that, but I honestly doubt some of my non-tech friends or even my gf would. So to avoid any awkward situations or ending up with tech goodies I might not even use I'd rather have my friends not buy me stuff like that.
For my last birthday my gf treated me (and herself ;-)) to a nice dinner in a restaurant. That's the kind of stuff I really enjoy much more than a well meant attempt of giving me some tech stuff.
Of course they didn't mention Clippy. Clippy is to Gates what Windows 8 is to Ballmer (or so I think).
Of course the real reason is that "reliable sources" (Youtube) tell us that Clippy once drove Bill Gates to suicide (link to youtube movie which I think is funny).
You have been warned!
Would you like some HELP?! ;-)
Surely it couldn't be called after a space station which collapsed down to earth and burned up in the atmosphere? That sure gives some ideas for the future... ;-)
(yes, I know Mir didn't crash but got de-orbited in 2001 and their crash into the ocean was carefully planned; you're ruining my joke ;)).
This shouldn't come as a surprise in my opinion. That is; not to those who read Microsoft's services agreement policy before using them.
For starters (for real, this is at the top and also bold):
"IF YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES, SECTION 10 CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSE AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER. IT AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS ABOUT HOW TO RESOLVE ANY DISPUTE WITH MICROSOFT. PLEASE READ IT."
That should be an eye opener in my opinion. So what is section 10 (I prefer Section 9 myself, but then again; I'm a GiTS addict ;))? The usual kind of clause one could expect in a country which seems totally obsessed with lawsuits (seems obsessed to an outsider like me anyway).
Nah, what I'm referring to is section 5; "Privacy": "How does Microsoft respond to legal process?". And what do you know: "Microsoft may be obligated to comply with requests for your information or your content as part of such investigations or legal proceedings.".
Its right in their policies: they're following the law, as I somewhat would expect from them.
Don't blame Microsoft, BUT: Blame the big brother government of the United States instead.
But somehow I don't see that happening; Microsoft is a much easier target of course.
Coming around to remind us why it often makes more sense to use desktop applications instead of sticking your head in the virtual clouds.
My company is using 2 (in-house) Windows Server 2003 versions and the only reason we have 2 is because of TechNet (the original plan was 1 license for production and one for testing. Thanks to TechNet we could use 2 licenses for production and the TechNet license for testing).
TechNet is basically gone (you need to make business decisions as soon as possible; so I already decided this way), 3 Windows 2008 server licenses is too expensive for the company and although I was considering to look into a small business server I made up my mind a few weeks ago: we're going FreeBSD.
Common tasks like file sharing and such shouldn't be a problem with Samba, Internet services.. Well, that should be a given.
And also interesting: with the Mono project and the mod_mono plugin I can even get Apache (or perhaps nginx, which is said to be better with proxying) to parse ASP.NET code and feed it into mod_mono. Although it's not up to speed with the latest ASP.NET standards, it should be able to cope with common forms and mvc projects.
And there's ZFS :-)
Also interesting: FreeBSD can be picked up free or charge, and I got a feeling it will last quite a while.
So although it's going to be one hell of a project (one I'm not really looking forward to due to the time it's going to take) I think that's still the better way to go.
Microsoft has turned into a very unreliable partner for small to mid-range businesses. And we (IT based company) know better than to put our data into the (Microsoft) cloud (even though I don't think Microsoft is untrustworthy with this, but a private server never fails when there's an Internet outage).
Why do I keep hearing AC/DC's "Highway to hell" in my mind as of late, whenever I'm thinking about Microsoft?
Why you may be wondering? It's not because I think badly about the whole Windows Phone line; to be honest I kind of like it (still using WP7.5 myself because I like my 8 medium sized tiles on screen (and the small arrow indicator) better than the new "either extra small or extra large tiles" kind of choice (which you get with the 7.8 update; at most you'll get 6.5 medium sized tiles on your screen unless you resort to using extra small tiles)).
Even so; although I think this is a good move it's still a bit too late. They should have been doing this with WP7 instead. Because most interested people & fans bought into that because of 3 main issues:
1) Support: Windows is supported for many years; so most buyers expected the same with Windows Phone.
2) As if #1 wasn't enough; Microsoft explicitly stated that dumping Windows Mobile 6.5 (the predecessor of WP7) was somewhat of a mistake which they wouldn't repeat.
3) If the previous points weren't enough: in addition to #2 Microsoft even started making specific demands to the hardware, convincing many people (yours truly included) that they were carefully aiming for the future.
Well, the results should be well known: WP7 got one (desperately needed) update to 7.5 and that was basically it. After that WP8 got announced and although Microsoft denied it many WP7(.5) users realized that as soon as 8 was out (which isn't downwards compatible; native WP8 applications do not run on WP7.x) it would also mean that support for WP7.x would rapidly decline. And it did.
Although I'm not complaining (I prepared myself too much for that) it basically resulted in me getting a "modern" smartphone, only to learn that it would be obsoleted within a year. NOT the kind of result I expected from a Microsoft product. And judging from several WP fora I don't stand alone in this.
SO yeah, this is a good move, but the previous ones have already cost Microsoft a lot of goodwill. Because the so called early adaptors of their product sort of felt being left in the cold. And I somewhat doubt that those guys would recommend a Windows Phone. Heck; even though I'm actually pretty happy with my WP7.5 (I don't like the 7.8 update) I wouldn't recommend a Windows Phone perse. Because if you get one then there's no telling how soon support will drop.
"No, you're wrong; WP8 is "an even better choice for business"" (quote from a marketing mail I got).
But like; that's what you said about Windows Phone 7 not much longer than a year ago as well, and look where we are now...
And although I'm not much of an Android fan (mainly because of Google, which I consider very intrusive) nor Apple you got to admit that they both provide much better upgrading scenarios. Even if you have an older phone there's nothing stopping you from installing a more modern OS.
Sure; it may not run as quickly as a phone with more modern specs, but the fact remains that if you buy a "top notch" model you may very well end up with a phone which can last for years (and with that I'm referring to years of continued support).
Microsoft had that exact same reputation, but didn't (couldn't?) live up to it. And now when the damage has already been done they're all of a sudden starting to extend support cycles and stuff.
As such my post title: too little, too late.
"And just how users will carry over their Office licences in the "upgrade" was not explained."
That's because Microsoft never really heard of the upgrade process. If you paid for Office 2003 and are looking into upgrading to Office 2007 you can forget about Microsoft acknowledging you as an appreciated customer by providing a discount (no matter how small). No way; you'll just have to pay the full price again.
Now, keep in mind that I'm not judging that behaviour perse. Companies need to make money, so they decide to try and get the maximum revenue, their call.
But please spare me the marketing nonsense about how people can "upgrade" to something else. People can't: people can buy into something else instead.
And as the header says: I think they're becoming awfully transparent as of late:
"“upgrade SKUs” that will let IT bosses running on-premises Office move to cloud-hosted Office 365."
Should be obvious: make something so seemingly easy that an "IT boss" (read: manager who more than often knows more about management than ICT these days) can handle it and chances become very high that the brain cogs start to come up with the bizarre idea that they can actually save money by going 365 because they don't need "those IT guys" to set it up for them.
Of course cost reduction isn't everything. There are also important details to be dealt with as security, continuity and the "total cost of ownership" but not at the moment but while also weighing in scenario's such as: "I accidentally removed $important_document, took me 3 days to build and if I don't have it back in the hour it's going to cost us $huge_amounts_of_money".
365 couldn't care less about scenario's like that, while those "overpriced local ICT guys" might very likely be able to help you within the hour. Of course that kind of service comes at a price, but unfortunately most managers tend to forget that these days.
"If it is on my machine(s) then at least I have a decent idea if access is requested."
Well, that's the irony of it all because although Microsoft is now spouting off idiocy about "saving money" guess what one of the "advanced" features of Office 365 is?
The ability to download the desktop applications which can then run on your own computer, I kid you not.
Of course the big difference now is that while you still ended up with the desktop applications you're now also paying Microsoft a monthly fee for it.
I know I'm cynical here, but the last thing you want as an administrator in an "educational facility" such as a school or Uni is students who bring their own stuff to connect to your own network.
Because although the theory behind it all sounds very nice and fluffy, the dirty truth of the matter is that no other semi-commercial network environment will suffer from more direct and internal attacks than a school network. This isn't bad mouthing the students, and I'm also not exaggerating; it's merely a given. Anyone who has worked in this field for a while knows this.
So I think the article goes over the enrolment process a little bit too easy. Commonly speaking you don't want to give students direct access to the main school network, enrolment or not.
Note that I'm not claiming that providing easier Internet access or a "student network" which allows students to, well, use their own stuff is a bad idea. However; in these scenario's you're talking about sections which have been carefully locked down in order to clearly sever any ties between these "outer networks" and the schools own network facility.
But most certainly not an environment where a teacher puts some presentation in his own home or working directory to be used in a class room and right after storing it can be accessed by the rest of the school.
Time of Eve is a Anime movie (was also a series I think) which deals with almost the exact issue; the behaviour of humans around "robots" or androids in this case.
And I think the studies aren't that much off. However, I'm not that much impressed with the results because if you look at human history you can draw the same conclusions. People tend to have a superiority complex. Just look at the time it took for women to obtain voting rights (in Europe we were a bit faster than the United States, but even that didn't mean women we're fully treated equally).
Or what to think about gay and lesbian couples? Only a rough 20 - 30 years ago such people might even get openly shunned (or worse) for just walking hand in hand with each other.
So let me take this even one step further: a human who takes on an android as his partner (or companion) and treats him / her nearly equal? I'm pretty sure those people will be mocked, shunned and maybe even threatened because obviously you must be a pretty sick person to treat a emotionless thing as if it would care about what happened to it? Then another 30 years later and his becomes perfectly acceptable behaviour again.
Alas; I can strongly recommend "Time of Eve". It's an awesome movie which deals with this same aspect, on a smaller scale. A world where the situation I pictured here is real; and to make sure that androids can be clearly identified as such they must wear an holographic ring over their head. And the owner of one of those androids suddenly notices in her behavioural log that she's been acting on her own initiative every once in a while.
Following her GPS coordinates he and a friend end up in a small café called "The Time of Eve". And the main rule in this café is that androids and humans are to be treated equally. Androids no longer wear their holographic ring and that leads to the boys curiosity: "Is he/she real or..."?
My gf suggested this movie and although I first thought it was going to be one of those psychological mumbo jumbo movies it actually turned out into one heck of an intriguing experience. This thing even goes as far as briefly hinting at some of the potential flaws in the well known "3 laws of robotics".
Absolute must see if you're interested in subjects such as the one this article addresses in my opinion.