Are you Enabler or Disabler

I consult small and medium sized companies regarding IT, organisational and process management topics. When I enter the clients premises for the first time, I search for signs of IT empowerment or disablement respectively.

Signs of Enablers

IT as enabler allows employees to work faster, smarter and more efficiently. IT architecture usually is open, access restrictions mostly secure the perimeter, hardly ever access rights are set up within data structures. They allow their users to experiment with new application in test bed situations. They commonly question their users for new ideas on how to make life easier. And they suggest improvements on their own.

This does not mean that users are allowed to install new and/or rogue software freely. But generally the corporate culture allows employees to identify themselfs with the company and its respective success.

Signs of Disablers

Sometimes I hear people talk about who they could not get access to a document they previously wrote themselfs and then stored them on a file share. They have a three level authorisation process for updated web pages (absurdly they are only visible on the intranet). Marketing uses a special graphics application (like Photoshop) and sends proofs to the sales department. However, Sales do not have ... you guessed it ... Photoshop.

When the PC in Marketing is replaced due to hardware failure, guess what. Photoshop is missing in the installed suite.

Here, IT is definitely a disabler.

Usually I recommend firing the responsible IT manager and getting some user to do the job.

I have not come across a client to follow my suggestions. Top managers usually find excuses why they keep IT managers that cause huge amounts of monetary losses to the company.

Maybe top management is not as innocent after all.

What's wrong with Microsoft?

First, Microsoft offered Mozilla development team a free office inside the Microsoft HQs. Then CEO Steve Ballmer embraced open source as the new panacea for solving document exchange and software virtualisation. Microsoft will provide ODF document filters for OpenOffice. The Open Specification Promise is yet another step towards an open software development. Interoperability suddenly is important to the worlds largest software company.

Only recently, Microsoft announced the start of Office Live, an online office suite targeted at customers currently using Googles online office tools.

Has Microsoft changed?

Does Microsoft see the advantages of open software development?

Has Microsoft earned enough money to provide us with free software in the future?

Rest assured, nothing has changed!

If Microsoft wants to play a significant role in Europe in the future, they have to prove that charges against them for exclusive and uncompetitive business bare any substance.

While in the US it suffices to claim open business conduct and bribe their way through the current administration, the EU does not work like that. Actually, the rest of the world does not work like that.

So, Microsofts move towards Open Source is just a marketing trick to circumvent EU embargos, a door opener into shops that switched to Open Source recently and most of all a convenient way to keep a close eye on the development of new technologies.

I love .NET, I hate .NET

Recently I developed an ASP.NET application that required access to a database. So far no problem. I have done that several times before and was confident to bring the project to an early end.

During the coding phase I had to make a decision on how to access the database. Usually I would write seperated insert, update and delete procedures in code behind pages. In this particular case it seemed to be appropriate to use an Object DataSource and a GridView control.

So I dropped a GridView into the page and made an new DataSource, choosing the Object DataSource from the wizard. Then I created a class file in the Apps folder to isolate data access there.

I got the records to show in no time and I love .NET for its ease of use.

Next I tried to update records using the Edit functionality of the GridView. This was not a trivial task. First the call to the update member function would throw exceptions at me right, left and center. It turned out (undocumented) that the parameters for the function calls need to have the exact names as the fields in the database table to be altered.

Changing the fields in the GridView works fine, the changed value is forwarded to the update function. However, changing the value in the Row of the Dataset seems to be impossible. Calling the code from a C# program works fine, doing the same out of a ASP.NET class does not work.

I confess, I resorted to the oldfashioned way of updating the database directly to keep the schedule.

I hate .NET for it's non-consistent working and its lack of dokumentation.

Why Vista?

I attended several tutorials from Microsoft introducing me to Windows Vista.

We were told that Vista is faster, more secure and offers enhanced features not available in Windows XP.

However, I seriously doubt that.

1. Vista is supposed to be written from scratch. How any code written from scratch should be more stable than evolved and mature code is beyond me.

2. In order to enhance security Microsoft reverted to some obscure practices in the past. They introduced a firewall that prevents traffic from going out instead of blocking traffic in. They offer software update that introduces new features, changes existing behaviour and even renders a working system inoperable (WGA, WM licensing, DRM enhancements to CD-ROM players, etc.). Their CUA is a permanent anoyance and does not prevent users to choose trivial or empty passwords. I see no improvements in security whatsoever.

3. Most of the enhancements and new features target user experience. Translated to ordinary speech this reads: Bigger buttons, glassy, transparent look, more wizards. In order to run a Vista system properly you need hardware recently available only for hardcore gaming.
But be aware that the new features will be available to a WGA-authenticated system only.

Is it neccessary?

As far as I am concerned, no.

There are some issues XP required to change to make the system secure.

1. Make first user not Admin by default. Eliminate auto logon as well.
The only reason for admin rights is, that ill written applications will still run instead of break and force the software vendor to either rewrite or get out of the market.

2. Change some services to run in low privilege mode (like the time or network adjustment panels).
One can use policies to allow nonprovileged users to adjust network and time settings but this could be done out of the box

3. Make uitheme.dll overwritable.
Users could change the look to anything they like without resorting to potentially unsafe tools to change the Themes.

You can do all of that by yourself.
Install applications as administrator
revoke admin rights on users
change icons to network and time panes to use runas...
delete uxtheme.dll from the dll cache.

Does this justify a new operating system?

Certainly not. If anything at all, an SP3 would be required.

So why do we need Vista?

It all depends on who you define as "we".

If you consider yourself and your company as the "we", then frankly you don't need it.

You may want it and you may even have no primary expenses as you get Vista as part of the software assurance (I will comment on the cost factors in a different posting).

If you define "we" as being Bill, Steve and the gang, you need the thing desperately.

• Vista will allow for increased control over the installed base
• Vista will generate revenue for another decade
• Vista will give Microsoft enough material to force new technology onto companies

Whether you want it or not, you will have to install Vista anyway.

Is it only me or is the prospect of one company dictating what software to use and when to use it generally frightning?