Windows Server 2016

Windows Server 2016

Windows Server 2016 is a server OS designed by Microsoft as part of the Microsoft Windows NT family of OS, developed simultaneously with Windows 10.  With Microsoft Windows Server 2016, Microsoft seeks to assist customers in modernising on-premise data centres & making it simpler to move workloads out to its Azure public cloud. It indicates embracing trends like containers & microservice architectures, along with more general improvements.

So what should you expect from Microsoft Windows Server 2016 when it releases later this year? Here are a few of the main features so far…

Windows Server 2016: Nano Server

The most attractive update of Windows Server 2016 is the introduction of Nano Server. Nano Server is developed under the name ‘Tuva’; purpose-built OS designed to run modern cloud apps and act as a platform for containers. It offers fewer patches & updates, better resource utilisation, faster restarts & due to having fewer OS components, tighter security.

Nano Server is basically a significantly slimmed down edition of Windows Server, Microsoft states that.

It has a 93% lower VHD size than Microsoft Windows Server, for instance, as well as 92% fewer critical bulletins & 80% fewer reboots as a consequence of security patches. This has been obtained by, among other things, eliminating 32-bit support – it’ll only run 64-bit apps – while the GUI has also gone, with all administration conducted either remotely via PowerShell or WMI.

Windows Server 2016: Container support

One more standout features is Container support that will make it simpler to adopt microservices architectures. Containers provide a lightweight option to full virtualisation & allow apps to be packaged & moved more easily from server to server.

Microsoft is now providing a preview of its Hyper-V Containers, which it says will improve isolation & improve security by operating containers inside a virtual machine.

Remarkably the Spiceworks report – which surveyed large, medium & small businesses – highlighted comparatively muted interestin the virtualisation option. This is likely to because of container technology making less sense for smaller IT sectors currently than those operating large data centres.

Windows Server 2016: Hyper-V

Microsoft has also declared number of developments to the core Hyper-V virtualisation platform 1st seen in Microsoft Windows Server 2008. In accordance with Spicework’s IT pro survey, new Hyper-V performance is the most expected of all the new features.

Rolling upgrades will make it easier & quicker to migrate Hyper-V clusters to Microsoft Windows Server 2016. Users will be capable of adding a node operating the technical preview to a Hyper-V cluster currently running Microsoft Windows Server 2012 R2. The cluster will continue to keep operate at the Windows Server 2012 R2 attribute level until all nodes are up-graded.

Windows Server 2016: Storage

Storage Spaces is a cool Microsoft Windows Server feature, which makes it more affordable for administrators to create flexible & redundant disk storage. Storage Spaces Direct in Microsoft Windows Server 2016 expands Storage Spaces to permit failover cluster nodes to utilize their local storage within this cluster, preventing the previous need for a shared storage fabric.

Windows Server 2016: Licensing

Right after 2015, Microsoft released details on licensing plans for Windows Sever 2016. Consumers will be needed to pay per-core instead of per-processor when the service releases later this year. This mirrors an identical change with SQL Server licensing a couple of years back & is prone to increase costs & complexity for users.

How Microsoft Bing Censors the Middle East

According to a paper written by ‘Berkman Center for Internet and Society’ researchers, Microsoft had been censoring some of their Bing results quite arbitrarily since 2009 back when their search engine was first launched. Apparently, Bing searches that originated from specific places in the world yielded Safe Search-only results, in an effort to forcefully steer the users clear from any ‘inappropriate’ content.

According to Bing, any results are remotely related to sex, or any LGBT-related content, should be considered inappropriate, and people who lived in specific countries should not be granted access to them by default.

The paper resulted in Microsoft lifting some of their limitations in some specific cases, in which they were falsely enforced. However, it appears that even now, Safe Search limitations are still being applied arbitrarily in some regions even after some years later.

When citizens of China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Middle East, Singapore, Thailand and Turkey attempt to search a ‘taboo’ keyword in Bing, they may very well be presented with an automated message instead, stating that their country or region requires a strict Bing Safe Search setting which filters out results that might return adult content. How does a Region require anything?

Indeed, these countries, to name just a few, are categorized by Microsoft as ‘strict’ countries. That means that content searched that originates from these places should conform to the local laws as well as to local customs and social norms. Which I thought it was fine. At this point, it would make sense to wonder what they are thinking, since nobody should be forced to conform to anything but the law; anything more than that should be a matter of personal choice and certainly not the business of a company that is supposed to be protecting and promoting internet freedom!

And why would Microsoft bother to take censorship further than a country’s legal requirements? Frankly, we think that it’s easier for them to just lump together the regions that are located near or around an oppressed country and enforce the same rules to all of them. It looks a bit lazy to us to just disregard the people’s right to choose the type of content they wish to browse -not to mention how unethical it is to blatantly refuse them their rights to equal internet access for no reason at all!

Under no circumstances should a search engine or a company act as an intermediary, acting in accordance to the demands of strict regional repressive regimes. We understand that sometimes it’s unavoidable, but even if Microsoft was forced to heed an oppressive legal system’s dictates, they should take extra precautions to protect the rights of the citizens in nearby countries, instead of just brushing them off and putting them all together.

Microsoft’s reply was that people, who live in countries that shouldn’t fall under the ‘strict’ category, but somehow still get filtered results by default, could just change their account’s regional settings. But why should thousands of users take extra steps to change their account location settings, in order to be able to use Bing without any censored results? Why should they be logged into their user accounts 24/7, in order to not be treated as second-rate internet denizens? Couldn’t Microsoft just examine each country’s case individually and customize their regional Safe Search settings accordingly, instead?

FBI and DOJ Target New Enemy In Crypto Wars: Apple and Google

All computer users know how important security is; most of us rely on preventative measures against intrusions, Trojans and viruses on our computers, since having to wipe an entire HDD clean after an infection is not a rare occurrence anymore.

But that’s not the only type of security computer users should be worried about though. What happens to sensitive private data we push after it has been sent out there? While it travels through the great unknown, before reaching its final destination. Is that data safe from interception? And more importantly; is it completely safe from being ambushed or intercepted?

Well, the FBI and the Department of Justice both say ‘absolutely not’! They recently turned against two of the most powerful companies, Apple and Google, in order to force them to stop providing end-to-end encryption (E2EE) services to their clients – or to obligate them to provide the authorities with the means to actually interpret any end-to-end communications they may intercept. ‘Wait a minute, what is this end-to-end encryption, exactly?’ you may ask. Apparently, not all types of encryption are equally effective, and this particular encryption method is infinitely more secure than the rest of its counterparts – so far, at least. With all other types of encryption, even the super-hard-to-crack ones, which would take a supercomputer aeon to get through, the data is only secure as long as it is not intercepted.

Do you really know what servers your data travels through while being transmitted to its recipient? Some of them might be compromised; some might even be keeping logs of everything that goes through them! Generally speaking, the only way to be certain that even if someone gained access to your data, they wouldn’t be able to read or view it. That is end-to-end encryption; it allows your data to remain encrypted throughout its digital ‘journey’ towards its intended destination. Only the recipients of your choice will be able to read or view your data, since you will provide them with your key.

So, why would the FBI and DOJ feel threatened by such a foolproof, solid encryption system? Well, the simple answer is that they would like to be able to monitor any kind of digital communication they want, in order to facilitate their investigations. They apparently need to be able to decrypt all messages they intercept, so they turned to the Senate for a solution. In a recent Senate Judiciary, FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates presented their case, namely that companies such as Google and Apple should retain access to their client’s information at all times, in order to avoid compromising criminal and national security investigations!

They said that they would like to work with the internet and communications providers, in order to discover a happy medium; where customers are to feel perfectly secure in their communications, but at the same time the FBI and the DOJ will be provided with a ‘skeleton key’, which will allow them to read or view any message they intercept, at any given time. Yates and Comey didn’t hesitate to stress the importance of solving this issue, and even threatened the companies with the possibility of enforcing compliance! They seem to believe that by actually forcing the Silicon Valley to develop a way of circumventing end-to-end encrypted communications. The developers will end up presenting them with more creative results at a fraction of the time.
The FBI and DOJ also raised the moral issue of the problem as they claimed that; whichever company develops code that prevents compliance with a lawful court order should be held in contempt and they even compared the companies to citizens that withdraw information in court! And expect them to make their case even stronger by providing numbers and analytical data that would present all of the ways in which strong encryption prevented them from doing their job on important cases. However, neither of them did so; Yates only mentioned that whenever the Department of Justice comes across strongly encrypted communications, they don’t even look into getting a wiretap order. However, according to the Federal Court report, it seems that in 2014 there were only four cases where wiretaps were dropped because of the data or communication was encrypted! We don’t know what are those four cases might have been about. But we do know that the Bureau and the DOJ have multiple other methods of tracking and cracking criminal activity, anyways!

It looks like this attempt to trivialize the importance of the general public’s communications security didn’t hit its mark, and we’re glad it didn’t! As important as fighting crime and terrorism is concern, I believe that the internet should remain free. Developing a ‘skeleton key’ would render all end-to-end communications obsolete, since it surely wouldn’t take long before it falls into the wrong hands.

Think about it, if everyone else had the option. What would you choose? Would you prefer being vulnerable as long as everyone else is vulnerable too? Or would you rather remain secure and protected?

New Proposal on Trac to Remove Post Formats from WordPress Core

Before the release of WordPress 3.1, quite a few users cried out for the implementation of a core way, which would allow them to easily format the visual appearance of their posts, according to their content type.

This idea seems to have stemmed from Tumblr, which had already become hugely popular, partly because of its awesome micro-blogging style format options, which allowed users to blog as often as they liked, and in shorter bits.

So, in an effort to appeal to a greater audience, and make their pre-existing users’ lives easier, a a radio button box was implemented to the core of WordPress (with version 3.6), which allowed users to customize the way each and every one of their posts was presented; they had the option of choosing between a multitude of default formats (as long as their preferred theme supported them), such as:

  • aside – minimal style with no title
  • gallery – ideal for viewing images
  • link – good for linking to another site
  • image – used when posting a single image
  • quote – used for presenting quotes, with specific locations where the name of the quotee and the quote itself would appear
  • video – for sharing a single video, or a playlist
  • audio – good for pod casting, or for sharing an audio file
  • chat – used when uploading a chat script

Looks like the users’ voices were eventually heard, and that they got what they were asking for all along, right? Well, not exactly; in truth, ever since Post Formats were implemented, they have not been upgraded or improved in any way at all – which is problematic, considering how finicky and inconsistent this core feature seems to be.

Besides the Post Formats’ behavioral issues, there were actually quite a few functionality-related problems, as well; they would not appear by default in WordPress installations, and needed to be enabled by a coder. Upon being enabled, they would require some design work by the themes’ developers, so that the users could actually see what they were doing. After all that hassle, the feature would become accessible, but their UI position was still kind of obscure while in the WordPress Post Editor.

You can understand how this entire deal was kind of hard to explain to the end users, most of whom didn’t really need to use the feature, anyways.

In an effort to address this issue, Morten Rand-Hendriksen, who has been teaching WordPress via, has created a ticket on trac, requesting that the Post Formats feature be removed from the platform’s core, since it rarely behaves as it should.

According to Morten Rand-Hendriksen, Post Formats support is not consistent across the various WordPress themes out there, and sometimes the panel and options disappear between themes.

Another major issue is that sometimes the feature’s behavior ends up causing posts to appear broken or glitchy, in the eyes of the viewers.

Not to mention that each theme developer can customize their theme’s Post Format options to behave in any way they choose, which may end up confusing the user. So, when a user switches to a theme that supports a new set of Post Formats, all their former assignments will be altered, as well. Post Formats don’t really have a use case anymore, to be honest. They seem to have been replaced by the goal of developing modular post editing options, instead. The feature’s behavior can actually be mimicked by theme creators by using categories, or other custom taxonomies, thus rendering it obsolete.

Finally, Morten Rand-Hendriksen asked for the Post Format feature to be moved into a plugin, which would allow it to evolve alongside WordPress, and also inspire potential experimentation and ideas for its improvement. If not, it could always just be abandoned entirely.

EU to Ditch Mobile Roaming Fees

The European Union announced that, by June 2017, there will be no more mobile roaming charges within the 28 EU member countries. It has also approved a ‘net neutrality’ plan, which is a first step in the right direction, but still leaves much to be desired.

The issue of roaming fees has been a staple in EU discussions for a while now, and their elimination was initially intended to take place back in 2015; however various EU countries asked for a delay, until 2018. The happy medium apparently ended up being June 2017.
Andrus Ansip, commission VP for the digital single market, said in a statement: “Europeans have been calling and waiting for the end of roaming charges as well as for net neutrality rules. They have been heard. We still have a lot of work ahead of us to create a Digital Single Market. Our plans to make it happen were fully endorsed by Heads of State and Government last week, and we should move faster than ever on this.”
Bear in mind, that the plan regarding roaming fees, should be first permitted by the European Parliament and the European Council before it can actually be implemented. As a preliminary example of things to come, roaming charges within the EU will decrease slightly in April 2016, by €0.05 / minute for calls, €0.02 / SMS, and €0.05 / MB of data. Of course, providers will still be able to retain a ‘fair use’ policy, which will help them prevent abusive users from hogging bandwidth while roaming. Don’t get too excited, though; incidentally, telecommunications companies may see fit to raise domestic prices as a counter-measure to the EU ruling!
In addition to the decrease in roaming charges, and their eventual abolishment, the EU is taking steps towards ensuring that all users will be treated as equals, as far as internet access and online content are concerned.

The EU will soon be called to review the 2009 Telecoms Package, which addresses five main issues:

• The creation of a true single digital market, which will ensure equivalent access to the internet for everyone.
• The sale of spectrum rights, which will bring members of the EU sizeable revenues.
• The creation of sufficient incentives for markets to invest in high-speed networks, which will ensure that end-users will be able to benefit from competitive, affordable and fast connectivity.
• The examination of new online players, who may be able to provide similar or equivalent services to traditional telecoms services.
• The creation of a regulatory consistency across the EU, regarding spectrum management and other related issues.

They EU officials seem to think that telecommunications companies should treat all traffic equally, when providing internet access services, and forbade them from blocking or slowing any users down – except for when there have been hacker attacks, or when they need to enforce countermeasures. No more prioritization for paying customers, it seems!

However, some new, innovative and expensive services, such as IPTV, digital doctor-type of aps, high quality teleconferencing and self-driving vehicle technology, will require, apart from optimized hardware, a way faster and more reliable internet service, which seems like it will only be available to paying customers. How is that fair and neutral?

Well, EU officials seem to claim that this ‘better’ internet service will still allow room for open and unencumbered internet access for the rest of the users, and it will not hinder them at all. That remains to be seen!

NASA Sending Microsoft’s HoloLens to Space

New Picture (3)On Sunday, June 28th 2015, two Microsoft HoloLens augmented reality headsets were sent to the International Space Station (ISS) via a SpaceX Dragon resupply mission, which carried various supplies and other much-needed cargo to the final frontier.

The HoloLens headsets are part of a new NASA project called ‘Sidekick’, and they’re supposed to help facilitate communications between the astronauts and their technicians back here on Earth, reduce their training time and help them perform their tasks more efficiently. The need for verbal instructions will supposedly be replaced, in part, by the use of specially designed holographic animations.

The Sidekick headsets will eventually be able to perform in two basic modes; the first mode, aka ‘Remote Expert Mode’, will be purely communicational, as it will connect the astronaut to a technician on Earth via Skype. It is important to note that the technician will be able to jot down information or draw sketches that the astronaut will be able to see, which can be very helpful, as some more technically oriented tasks require more than just verbal communications in order to be completed successfully. However, the aforementioned headsets are not meant to work in ‘Remote Expert Mode’; this particular mode will be tested at a later time, with 2 new headsets being sent into space by NASA.

This time around, the headsets will help test the second mode, aka ‘Procedure Mode’, which involves the HoloLens’ ability to project 3d holographic models and animations over the astronauts’ real-time viewing. This exciting new technology is very innovative and practical, and it is bound to be very helpful to the astronauts when they are required to perform certain tasks, as it will probably be way easier for them to complete their work, if they can actually watch a holographic representation of how it is supposed to be done, in real time!

Regarding the project, NASA’s Sam Scimemi said: ‘HoloLens and other virtual and mixed reality devices are cutting edge technologies that could help drive future exploration and provide new capabilities to the men and women conducting critical science on the International Space Station. This new technology could also empower future explorers requiring greater autonomy on the journey to Mars.’

HoloLens designer Kipman said, in a statement: ‘Sidekick is a prime example of an application for which we envisioned HoloLens being used – unlocking new potential for astronauts and giving us all a new perspective on what is possible with holographic computing’

NASA and Microsoft’s next project, called ’OnSIght’, will revolve around enabling scientists to utilize advanced holographic computing technology in order to work on various projects in real-time, by controlling rovers on Mars, as if they were driving them in a virtual reality environment!

Holographic technology has advanced by leaps and bounds during the past few years, and we are glad to see that it is being put to good use, for the benefit of all mankind. As long as such important technological advancements are utilized in a meaningful way, driven by our species’ sense of wanderlust and our need to explore the unknown, there can actually be hope for the future!

US Running Out of IPv4 Addresses?

US Running Out of IPv4 Addresses

The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN which manages the assigned internet protocols or IP’s available for use recently announced that IPv4 addresses may run out by early 2016. The average browser of the internet may not understand how this could affect their daily browsing, but larger entities such as those that provide internet services and data centers can be heavily affected not only in terms of the availability of their services but also of great financial costs. So, instead of the usual 32-bit system that is commonly used to indicate IP addresses, users may now have to get to used to the 128-bit system that is bound to replace it: the IPv6.

Background of the Shortage

Back in the 1980’s when the internet was first used by the US’s Department of Defense, the IPv4 was designed as a way to identify, specify the location or address of, and to route information to specific devices which are connected to the internet. It was designed to accommodate up to 4.7 billion internet addresses and was considered during that time to be a large enough number for all internet users. The internet however was released for public use in 1994 and with that came a large number of consumers for unique IP’s. During the following years, the introduction of various electronic gadgets that can connect to the internet have made that demand much bigger than expected with users coming up to billions.

In 2011, the ICANN released the last block of usable IP’s. This means that they have officially run out of available IPv4 addresses to provide for future users of the internet. Europe and Asia had been the first ones to totally exhaust their available IPs and US may be the last to experience this type of shortage together with Africa and Latin America.

The Solution

The IPv6 had been created back in 1998, way before the highly-anticipated shortage was foreseen to occur. Hence, there is really no need to panic whether the end of the internet is near. During that time, the Internet Engineering Task Force had already known that the IPv4 is not limitless and thus have started to create the solution even before the problem occurred. With IPv6, they featured other benefits which cannot be found in IPv4:

  • Can accommodate up to 340 trillion trillion trillion addresses
  • More efficient routing
  • Built-in security features
  • Easy management
  • More efficient multi-cast routing
  • Elimination of the need for Network Address Translation

This, however, also comes with several potential problems if not addressed early on: IPv6 uses a different type of packet compared to IPv4 which means that you may not be able to access some sites using IPv6 and switching to IPv6-capability would also put some considerable costs in the purchase of compatible hardware. If you are an average user, this may not sound to be a huge problem for you as the ICANN explained that current websites using IPv4 will still continue to be usable for many years. The problem however, lies on internet service providers such as those selling web hosting, domain name registration, and internet access as newer sites will soon be hosted in IPv6.


Apple Vs. Samsung

Apple Loses $382 Million in Damages vs Samsung as US Court of Appeals Reverses Part of Verdict

The US Court of Appeals for the circuit in Washington has overturned a part of the 2012 ruling against Samsung, lowering the amount of damages to be awarded to Apple by $382 million. This may seem to be a partial success for Samsung who has appealed the decision to the higher court after a federal jury of California convicted them of stealing some of Apple’s technology as well as design features. The original cost of damages was valued at $1 billion although this was subsequently lowered to $930 million.

The Verdict in San Jose, California

Back in 2012, Apple sued Korean smartphone maker, Samsung, of stealing some of its software and design features. These included Apple’s finger gesture technology which was available on iPhone and iPad, the bounce-back scrolling feature, and the physical design of iPhone and iPad. To these charges, the nine-person jury all favored that Samsung was indeed guilty of patent infringements and arrived at a whopping $1 billion award for Apple. In 2013, however, a retrial was conducted and the award was lowered to $930 million by Judge Lucy Koh basing on the principle that the cost of the award was based on a “legally impermissible theory.”

During this time, Apple had also requested that the Samsung products involved in the patent infringement case be pulled out from the market although this was rejected by the court. Samsung had also tried to file a countersuit against Apple, but their demands had not been granted as well.

Court of Appeals Reverses Part of Ruling

Although the court of appeals still upheld some of the verdict, they did reverse some of the damages to be awarded asking the San Jose court to “reconsider” the $382 million amount of damages which was for the “trade dress dilution” of Apple’s designs. “Trade dress” refers to the external packaging and appearance of a product and Apple’s contention was that Samsung copied iPhone and iPad’s design. According to Apple, Samsung was “diluting” Apple’s uniqueness in the market by producing devices bearing a similar design.

The court of appeals however, did not agree with Apple on this point. According to the recent ruling, the “rectangular, round-cornered, flat-screen, and touch-screen” design of the said devices cannot be protected by a patent since they are essential aspects related to the functions of the phone. Giving patent rights over the said design would be impractical since they would then be the only ones producing smartphones with the said design.

Overall, Apple’s award will now only be around $540 million compared to the original $1 billion which was granted by the San Jose jury. With the Court of Appeals ordering the lower court to “reconsider” the amount, the decision may turn into a much lower cost or it can be totally deducted from the total damages altogether. Either way, this can be considered as a partial victory for Samsung which is one of the major competitors in the smartphone market today.