“When you think about enterprise systems management, companies like Computer Associates, Hewlett-Packard and IBM come to mind. They offer comprehensive suites for monitoring and managing the behavior of the broad array of IT components that keep an enterprise afloat. You don’t necessarily consider Microsoft in the same vein, but with its characteristic resolve, the company is attempting to make comprehensive systems management part of the genetic material of Windows.” Read the article at ZDNet.
Microsoft’s New Genetic Code
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The vast majority of Microsoft software isn’t built from the ground up with manageability and security in mind. As a result, we (Microsoft) are in a quagmire, with software vulnerabilities and complexities that make management of Microsoft networks and IT assets more of a costly nightmare than usual. It’s true for Windows and other Microsoft software as well, and we have to change the way people develop software and make it manageable from the beginning.”[/i]
Correct! 🙂
and we have to change the way people develop software and make it manageable from the beginning
Isn’t that what Microsoft will try to do with Longhorn?
These re-architecting themes come out of Redmond on a monthly basis. Windows DNA. .Net Server. Hailstorm, Now we have “SDM” or whatever the flavor of the month is. Just more vaporware/conceptware to rope in anyone lacking a brain and still on the fence. Its amazing anyone still pays attention to these initiatives anymore.
But at the end of the day backwards compatibility will be key for Windows as most users refuse to upgrade. So that means leaving all the usual security holes open.
Isn’t that what Microsoft will try to do with Longhorn?
Maybe. It’s an API change (.NET), but the core is based on XP, which is based on 2000, which is based on NT 4, which is based on NT 3.5, which is based on NT 3.1, and somewhere there’s a splice of the DOS->Win3->Win95 line. So it’s the same, but with lots of extras and (maybe) a clean-up.
I don’t see Microsoft changing their behavior any time soon.
…
As for ‘genetic’, they shouldn’t really be throwing that word around unless they’re writing genetic algorithms. Actually it would be pretty cool to have an OS made of evolving components!
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/faqs/ai/genetic/part2/faq-do…
Actually the direction of this theory, about decoupling systems so that they don’t depend upon each other and doing that through generic data formats is a theory based on quality software, but Microsoft is a product, so I would be very cautious. IBM has a better strategy, through open source Linux, that is reflective of the real trustworthy computing initiative.
but Microsoft is a product, so I would be very cautious. IBM has a better strategy, through open source Linux, that is reflective of the real trustworthy computing initiative.
Yes indeed, a system with such a small userbase and still so many flaws that comes across… I mean wow…
Wouldn’t you say that the best strategy would be the player who aims for diversity rather than hype?
What worked for Microsoft in the past is going to be less successful in the future. If somehow Microsoft could find a way to put variety into it’s systems so that all of the software wasn’t cloned replication and immitation than it would be hard to kill. If Microsoft tries to remove peoples freedom as a way to solve security weaknesses, there is going to be a massive backlash. Microsoft is volnerable because the software is the same everywhere, it’s a weak and wide open target.