IT Expert Voice

If federated identity protocols can’t agree upon a uniform token format, or even standardized processes to arrive upon such a format, then perhaps they could agree upon a set of fundamental terms and concepts they all share. This may be the only key to resolving a major roadblock for enterprises.

Of all the problems with making the twenty or more user identity federation protocols in active use today work together, the most prominent is this: The standards upon which all those protocols are based are themselves moving targets. Thus a fixed solution one month may fail to work next month.

“In order for us to build interconnected systems, we need to have some agreement between all of the people who are going to be using this software and the vendors, on what the standards are for interconnecting identities,” said Stuart Kwan, Identity and Access Group Program Manager for Microsoft. “I don’t know if I would characterize it as any one vendor who is leading here. We all have to work together to make things happen, and Microsoft has been involved with a lot of the standards bodies in this area, in OASIS, in the IETF, and increasingly, other places where these standards have been advancing. . . We’ve been making a pretty major investment in engaging in these conversations, both in the industry and in standards bodies, to help move the ball forward with everyone else.” READ MORE

If you’re an enterprise considering “Windows Server as a Service” you need to be aware of how IaaS vendors would prefer you to deploy and provision your server images. It’s not just a technical issue; it’s a change in market philosophy. We examine this change from a business perspective, to help you estimate the real costs of cloud deployment. READ MORE

Now that more software in the cloud and the enterprise requires interoperability, single sign-on (SSO) is the one way every application can ensure its data is properly authorized. But a proliferation of competing Web services models and security vendors have inadvertently managed to move enterprises away from this goal.

On second thought, perhaps the stateless model for the Web wasn’t such a good idea. Sure, it made serving up hypertext easier. And it enabled the first model for distributed applications on a global scale that actually worked. But it’s left us with a significant problem, one so unique and complex that inevitably, enterprises like yours may need to solve it by making tough choices and rolling their own solutions. READ MORE

Although some believe Google Apps has just now sounded the battle cry for desktop applications, Microsoft may already have won round one.

Whatever happened to the next wave in enterprise knowledge management, the one that was destined to disrupt old business models and leave behind a new world of collaboration-based tools? It shouldn’t be any surprise that when the tide subsided, Microsoft Office remained standing right where it was.

In the evolution of every class of tool in human history — the washboard, the six-pounder cannon, the oil lamp, the flint knife — there is one common element: It was rendered obsolete by the sudden and welcome appearance of something better, more efficient, more adaptable, more relevant, more practical. Marginal improvements to a tool — anti-lock brakes, Touch-Tone dialing, the “mute” button — typically take longer to phase in. Despite all efforts devoted toward evangelistic offensives, markets have more difficulty embracing something that’s slightly better than something that’s obviously better.

Case in point: Microsoft Word. You may not recall that Word spent the first ten years of its existence languishing behind WordPerfect, whose place in the workforce throughout the 1980s (at least among smaller businesses that had adopted PCs and the first LANs) appeared unshakable. This despite the fact that with Word, you could actually see italic text as italic (albeit with a special switch), and make swift corrections using on-screen menus that guided your keystrokes. Most every businessperson to whom I demonstrated Word versus WordPerfect during the ‘80s declared Word easier to use. READ MORE

Ever thought a product or a platform could “give you scalability?”  Now the availability of cloud computing is compelling IT shops to plan for new architectures.  And suddenly those who thought they had scalability, don’t.

If you believe that a scalable architecture for an information system, by definition, gives you more output in proportion to the resources you throw at it, then you may be thinking a cloud-based deployment could give your existing system “infinite scalability.”  Companies that are trying out that theory for the first time are discovering not just that the theory is flawed, but that their systems are flawed… and now they’re calling out for help.

“Tell you what,” the development tools vendor told me on the day Microsoft officially launched Windows Azure, “This solves the whole scalability problem forever, doesn’t it? Just stick your application in the cloud. Infinite scalability!”

Scalability, we’re told, is the inherent ability of an information system to acquire more resources and continue to perform normally. But before a business invests in any bigger or better resource, such as Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, or Windows Server, it’s sold on the premise that the resource can grow as the business gets bigger. The system will be just as affordable, efficient, and practical in five years’ time as it is today. For years, that premise seemed reasonable enough. READ MORE