Six years ago is "ancient history" for some emails to surface, but the Halloween memos twenty years ago is still held up as proof of Microsoft's bad faith in open source.

y tho?

All the clouds have their own storage platforms which are far more performant, far more available and far cheaper than you could ever run it on a set of your own nodes. There's no point for them to encourage you to build it on your own when they provide a far better option already.

Maybe because PowerShell treats everything as a .NET object, so you get all the power of using .NET methods against that data, whereas bash treats everything through the pipeline as text, and so of course they are quite different.

For tail, you go get-content -path -tail . Not an equivalent for head though. select-string is basically grep, with support for regex and all.

There is basically no lock-in to any virtualisation platform these days. They all use essentially open virtual hard disk formats and it's trivial to convert from one to the other. But you end up locked in anyway, as all your scripting & management is targeted at whatever platform you choose - be it KVM/vSphere/Hyper-V. So choose the one that makes managing it easiest for you. If you like bash, choose KVM. If you like PowerShell, choose Hyper-V or vSphere.

If you are so fat and lazy that moving your arm 24 inches occassionally is causing you strain, then using a touch screen is the least of your worries.

Somehow it doesn't seem to be a problem for all those iPad users. And have you ever seen anyone using a touch screen device? They don't sit there with their arms out in front of them, like the original "Gorilla Arm" complaints.

If you're getting muscle strain touching the computer screen, go to the gym. For heavens sake, it's not like you're being asked to lift a sack of potatoes or shovel coal. You're touching an incredibly smooth surface with very little muscle force or tension.

They're not making money off open-source software. They're making money off closed source software, by using open-source to decimate the market. Their strategy is to scorch the earth of mobile providers (like they did with RSS sync tools) with an open source phone OS and continue to make money from their closed source search product.

Late reply, but I'm guessing that if you're considering a Hyper-V solution, you're probably in the Windows ecosystem and will likely have a Windows administrative workstation somewhere...

You can manage Hyper-V using the MMC tools from a remote workstation, you don't necessarily need VMM, although at a certain scale it becomes desirable - at which point you incur cost. Although you could use another wrapper over the top - like OpenStack for instance.

Your claim was: " In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows."

That has been demonstrated by me & the other poster to be 100% false. To get a host machine running Hyper-V, you don't have to buy Windows - you can download the 100% free Hyper-V server. Saying that because you need to have an admin workstation is moving the goalposts. It is correct to say that you will need to have a Windows management station (Windows 8 will do) but your claim was that to run a Hyper-V host you need to buy Windows, and your claim is wrong.

Read again. Hyper-V Server is 100% free - you do not have to buy Windows to get it, you download the ISO from the Microsoft site, and install it. It's fully functional (HA,live migration, live storage migration etc etc). If you wanted to run a whole bunch of Linux VM's on it then you could do that without paying microsoft a cent.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/hyper-v-server/default.aspx

It syncs with Exchange - why would you want to sync it with a client side app?

And WP has had cut & paste for a while now...

They both can, your 100K employee global firm is simply wrong. WP7 & 8 both support remote wipe. They don't have much other management, but they do support remote wipe.

Actually if you bother to read the article it looks like they had a reasonably good process going on behind the scenes i.e. cert owners got alerted & pushed the new cert in an update. The only problem was that they forgot to mark it as containing critical information (well, and their monitoring tools didn't alert them say a week out to say that the certs hadn't been renewed). So there is definitely room to improve the process, but saying that there is not a whole lot of good process is drawing a long bow.

Take a look at SMB3 (released with Windows 8/Windows Server 2012) and I believe with experimental support in Samba 4(?). Massive improvements in speed, bandwidth utilisation and overall chattiness. It's quite a different beast.