Why Microsoft kept Exchange 2007 SP2 off latest Windows Server

Microsoft, reacting to a slew of questions from end-users, says timing issues and technical considerations kept it from supporting Exchange 2007 SP2 on the new Windows Server 2008 R2. 5 things we love/hate about Win7/Windows Server 2008 R2Exchange 2010 beta sneak peek test On the Exchange team blog, Nino Bilic, a member of the Exchange product quality team at Microsoft, wrote that there are two primary technical considerations for not supporting the messaging server on the new server OS. Users have been peppering Microsoft with questions over the past few months and the vendor chose Monday to explain its decision as it prepares to put the final touches on Exchange 2010, which aligns with other new infrastructure, namely Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows 7 and Office 2010.  "Two primary technical points drove our decision to not support Windows Server 2008 R2," Bilic wrote. "First, Windows Server 2008 R2, while an incremental OS upgrade, creates significant testing requirements for Exchange 2007. Because the Exchange 2007 SP2 engineering preceded the Windows Server 2008 R2 RTM, Exchange 2007 SP2 would have had to be delayed significantly to align testing schedules." Bilic said the second point involves not supporting the upgrade of a server OS underneath an existing Exchange server. "The primary need is to support Windows Server 2008 R2 domain controllers in an existing Exchange 2007 deployment, which we have done." Exchange 2007 SP2 can work against those domain controllers because no part of the Exchange infrastructure is running on the domain controller. Exchange 2010 is expected to ship in November. "We felt that thoroughly validating the combination of Exchange 2010 on Windows Server 2008 R2 allowed us to focus on delivering great solutions which would be fully tested and would support the features of Windows Server 2008 R2," Bilic wrote. "This is a hard trade-off to make, but we believe it is the right one and a good balance between serving existing customers and driving innovation." The new Exchange 2010 server includes a number of new features, including high-availability and cross-domain integration using techniques such as pairing the server with Windows Server 2008 clustering technology and directory federation features. What users are missing is the ability to run any Exchange 2007 R2 components on the new server, including administrative tools on Windows Server 2008 R2. Bilic said the level of testing that would have been required to ensure only a "minimum level" of compatibility would have been significant and still denied users many of the features of the new server OS. In addition, he said the work likely would have altered the delivery schedule for Exchange 2010. Bilic said that fact drove Microsoft to conclude the best decision was to release Exchange 2010 as close as possible to Windows Server 2008 R2, which is now available. The server also includes new archiving features. "We recognize that there are some downstream impacts to this decision related to administration-only installs," Bilic wrote. "The technical problem for us is that an administration install of Exchange is almost identical to a full Exchange server installation." An administration install is when only the administrative interface, used to manage server properties and other features, is loaded on the server OS. Lee Dumas, the director of architecture at managed Exchange service provider Azaleos and a former Microsoft employee on the Exchange team, noted that Exchange 2007 SP2 contains the schema updates that are part of Exchange 2010. "So deploying SP2 prepares you for Exchange 2010. The earlier they can release SP2 the more customers will be prepared for 2010 so that might have had something to do with this as well," he said.

Follow John on Twitter. Dumas noted that releasing planned schema updates with a previous version of Exchange is something new for Microsoft.

Group seeks answers from DHS on delay of privacy report

A privacy rights group is pressing the U.S Department of Homeland Security to disclose when it plans to release its annual privacy report to Congress. The letter also noted that Callahan is obligated by law to prepare an annual report to Congress detailing activities at the agency that have an impact on privacy. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) on Tuesday sent a certified letter to Mary Ellen Callahan, DHS's chief privacy officer, noting that the department's last privacy report was released more than a year ago, in July 2008. "As it has been over a year since the publication of the last report, we would like to know when the current report, concerning the activities of your office, will be made available to the public," the letter states. The report also needs to detail complaints of privacy violations, implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, and internal privacy controls within the DHS, the letter states.

Lillie Coney, EPIC's associate director, said the privacy report was "significantly tardy enough" to merit sending the letter to DHS. "We'd like to know what the agency has been doing regarding privacy," Coney said. A copy of the DHS letter was sent to the chairman and the ranking member of the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security. EPIC needs to be sure that the DHS' privacy officer is sufficiently focused on her obligation to release the report in a timely fashion, Coney said. The DHS could not be immediately reached for comment. The annual report, which has been issued since 2003 chronicles the privacy issues that the DHS is focused on and shows whether it is fulfilling its constitutional obligations for privacy and civil liberties, Coney said. "It gives us an idea of the way the DHS has been prioritizing privacy issues and what resources it has made available" to address the issues, she said. This is not the first time EPIC has pressed DHS to release its reports in a timely fashion.

As one of the largest federal agencies, the DHS is involved in several projects that privacy groups such as EPIC keep a close eye on. The group sent a similar letter to the DHS last year after the report's release was delayed. Examples include Einstein 2.0, a network monitoring technology that improves the ability of federal agencies to detect and respond to threats, and the Real ID identity credentialing initiative . The DHS's terror watch list program, its numerous data mining projects , the secure flight initiative, the proposed use of body imaging technologies and its searches of electronic devices at U.S. borders are also all being closely followed by privacy groups.

iStockphoto guarantees its collection

Starting today, iStockphoto, the micropayment royalty-free image, video, and audio provider, will legally guarantee its entire collection from copyright, moral right, trademark, intellectual property, and rights of privacy disputes for up to $10,000. The new iStock Legal Guarantee, delivered at no cost to customers, covers the company's entire 5 million-plus collection. Recently however, Vivozoom, another microstock company, took a similar action to guarantee its collection. Additional coverage for an Extended Legal Guarantee totaling $250,000 is available for the purchase of 100 iStock credits. "Our first line of defense has always been-and continues to be-our rigorous inspection process," said Kelly Thompson, chief operating officer of iStockphoto. "The Legal Guarantee is simply an added layer of protection for our customers, many of whom are using microstock more than ever before." Although common for traditional stock houses, such legal guarantees have not been standard in microstock because of the low prices. iStock says that files purchased and used in accordance with its license will not breach any trademark, copyright, or other intellectual property rights or rights of privacy.

And, if a customer does get a claim, iStock will cover the customer's legal costs and direct damages up to a combined total of $10,000. iStock customers can increase their coverage for legal fees and direct damages up to a combined total of $250,000 by purchasing the Extended Legal Guarantee via the iStock credits (which costs between $95 and $138). iStock expects that this program will be popular with a very small percentage of sophisticated media buyers with very specific needs, and considers it to be a value-added service to customers rather than a major source of revenue.

iTunes gains Automatically Add to iTunes feature

One of the often requested features for iTunes has been the ability to set a folder for it to watch, automatically adding any items you drop in that folder to its library. In typical Apple fashion, it's not exactly what people were asking for, but Apple's interpretation of what they want. In iTunes 9, Apple has quietly added this feature, although I wouldn't blame you for not having noticed its existence.

When you install iTunes 9, it automatically creates an Automatically Add to iTunes folder in your ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music folder (or under ~/Music/iTunes/iTunes Media if you created a new library after installing iTunes 9). When you put an iTunes-compatible media file in this folder, it will, as the name suggests, be added to iTunes automatically. Whenever you drop any file into that folder, it's instantly added to iTunes if the application is running. In my limited testing, I've found that it pretty much works as advertised. If not, it gets added the next time iTunes is launched. And if you ever delete or rename the Automatically Add to iTunes folder, iTunes simply creates a new one for you the next time it is launched.

It even looks for files in subfolders you create and adds them to the library as well. However, it does have a lot of caveats. You can be pretty assured that if the video was downloaded from the Internet, it will not be supported by iTunes. For one thing, iTunes's list of supported formats, especially in the video department, is comically short. In such a case, iTunes will move it to a Not Added subfolder within the Automatically Add to iTunes folder.

Still, there are other problems. But that's to be expected because iTunes has never exactly supported a host of media formats. When users asked for an option to direct iTunes to a folder, they really wanted an option to direct iTunes to any folder. So if you have a huge collection of media in your Movies folder or on an external hard disk drive containing files that you'd like to automatically add to iTunes, you'll still have to move them to that particular folder. What Apple has done, on the other hand, is created a pre-designated folder for the task and not given an option to change it to any other location. What's the point, then?

Well, you say, we can just use the Automatically Add to iTunes folder as our primary movies folder, then-maybe even move it to a location of our choosing, and leave behind an alias to take its place. You can just drag and drop them onto the iTunes icon in the Dock and be done with it. Wouldn't that work? Not only does iTunes not accept anything added to that folder if you move it, but the presence of the alias prevents iTunes from creating a new version of the folder either. Not so much.

And when iTunes does add media files from the Automatically Add to iTunes folder, it moves them into its media folder and organizes them as it normally would, even if you have the option to do so disabled under iTunes's advanced preferences. The only possible use I can see if for you to set it as the default download location for media files you purchase/download off the Internet, so that they can automatically be added to iTunes without your having to do so (and even there, Apple has recommended you don't use it for incomplete files). I hope Apple rethinks this and gives users the freedom to use any folder they want and makes iTunes stop moving the media files around if the user doesn't want it to. It also deletes any subfolders you create within that folder (although that's a logical conclusion, given that they're useless if the media files you put in them never stay there). In short, I don't think the feature is very useful in the form Apple chose to implement it. It's still a (very small) step in the right direction though.