Revolving Door
In contrast to Apple’s stunning success, the first calendar quarter of 2011 was a revolving door for other Silicon Valley companies and executives. There were management shifts, shakeups and ousters at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), Google, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and Microsoft. They were variously aimed at jumpstarting product momentum (AMD, Microsoft), polishing a tarnished image and placating stockholders (HP) and providing an orderly transition of power (Google).
You need a scorecard to keep up with all the comings and goings.
AMD’s board ousted chief executive Dirk Meyer in mid-January after only 18 months on the job. It then appointed Senior Vice President and CFO Thomas Seifert, as interim CEO while the search goes on for a permanent chief executive. Siefert continues as chief financial officer and says he does not want to be considered for the permanent CEO position. This is probably a smart move. AMD’s flamboyant co-founder Jerry Sanders spent 33 years as CEO (1969 to 2002), but everyone who’s followed has had a short tenure.
The challenge for any AMD chief executive is to jumpstart momentum and somehow find a way to gain ground on perennial logic chip front runner Intel and Nvidia which dominates the mobile (Tegra 2) and graphics chip market. AMD’s Opteron dual and quad-core processors and the mobile and graphic chips which it acquired in its 2006 purchase of ATI are all solid offerings. However, AMD’s former CEO Hector Ruiz and Meyer elected to focus on optimizing their chips for traditional notebooks instead of the lightweight mobile devices and tablets that are stars in today’s markets. According to statistics published by International Data Corp., Intel’s share of the PC and server chip market is approximately 81% compared with AMD’s 19%.
AMD continues to shuffle its executive ranks. In February, two senior executives, Bob Rivet, executive vice president and chief operations and administrative officer, and Marty Seyer, senior vice president of corporate strategy, also resigned. In late March the company named former HP executive Mike Wolfe as its new chief information officer. Prior to joining AMD, Wolfe served as vice president of information technology for product development and engineering at HP. Wolfe is now responsible for managing AMD’s global technology infrastructure. Ironically, AMD’s former CIO Ahmed Mahmoud, who departed in 2010, went to HP where he is currently the Senior Vice President of the global information technology group.
HP Still Hurting from Hurd Scandal
HP has also had its share of executive shakeups in 2011. All of them stem from the continuing fallout from former CEO Mark Hurd’s exit last summer. The reverberations have tainted the company’s once pristine image and they are as toxic to HP as the radiation leaking from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant. Hurd left under a cloud of scandal amidst charges of sexual harassment and dodgy expense accounting related to an undefined but inappropriate relationship with a female contract employee. A scant week after Hurd’s departure which included a platinum severance package worth $44M — a group of HP shareholders filed suit. The suit alleges that HP board members are guilty of “gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets.” They claimed the board put the shareholders’ finances at risk by failing to disclose the charges of sexual harassment against Hurd. It sounds reasonable. What’s particularly galling to shareholders and rank and file employees is that Hurd got rewarded for his bad behavior after he spent the last several years cutting tens of thousands of workers from HP’s payroll.
In January, HP replaced four of its board members and added an additional director to the board. The departing HP board members are Joel Hyatt, John Joyce, Robert Ryan and Lucille Salhany. They are replaced by Shumeet Banerji, chief executive officer of Booz & Company; Patricia Russo, former CEO of Alcatel-Lucent; Gary Reiner, former CIO at GE; Dominique Senequier, CEO of AXA Private Equity and Meg Whitman, former president and CEO of eBay Inc.
The new board members provide HP with diversity and wide ranging experience. By overhauling its board, HP seeks to mollify outraged shareholders and distance itself from the Mark Hurd debacle. This is no easy task. HP launched its own investigation of Hurd’s departure. It will be conducted by CEO Leo Apotheker, the new board members and outside legal counsel. Apotheker has wasted no time assembling his team. On April 18, HP announced that Thomas Hogan, who headed the company’s enterprise business sales and marketing, will leave on May 31 to “pursue other interests.” Hogan’s replacement is Jan Zadak (a former Compaq executive). Zadak is presently the managing director for HP’s Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) operations. In mid-April, HP also appointed Marty Homlish as executive VP and chief marketing officer. Homlish will be responsible for overseeing and leading marketing across the company and will become a member of the company’s Executive Council, reporting directly to Leo Apotheker. Homlish and Apotheker worked together before at SAP AG, where the latter was CEO. Prior to joining HP, Homlish spent 10 years at SAP AG, where he served as the global chief marketing officer and corporate officer, as well as president and CEO of SAP Global Marketing, Inc.
There was also a seismic (though amicable) shift at search engine market leader Google. The company announced in January that Eric Schmidt would relinquish his CEO post in April in favor of company co-founder Larry Page. Page took over in early April and immediately reshuffled managers and the reporting structure.
The CEO change at Google is prompted by the desire to aggressively expand into new markets. Page is going to have to prove himself. Wall Street is nervous. In the wake of continuing skirmishes with leading vendors including Microsoft and Apple and latest and somewhat disappointing financials reported on April 14, many on Wall Street are concerned about Google’s prospects. They question the company’s aggressive spending spree. Months ago Google announced plans to hire 7,000 to 10,000 new workers; hand out 10% company-wide salary increases and aggressively pursue new business. That includes technology expansion into everything from smart phones to social networking to mobile and expensive marketing campaigns.
In its latest quarter, Google reported expenses of $2.84 billion; a 54% increase from the prior year. While revenues in the latest quarter ended March 31 rose by 29%, Google’s stock price has decline by nearly 9% since January when it announced that Schmidt was stepping down as CEO. The decrease has wiped out roughly $12.5 billion from Google’s market capitalization which now stands at $173.09 billion (still one of the best in the industry). Google remains the dominant player in the search engine arena with a commanding 65% market share. Its next closest competitor is Microsoft’s Bing which has about 14% and Bing is linked to Yahoo which has another 16% for a combined share of 30%. Google’s Android mobile operating system meanwhile remains the undisputed market leader with a solid 45% market share; twice that of its nearest rival Apple’s iOS.
“Dog Wars” Android App Bites Google’s Image
Meanwhile, Google faces growing and well deserved criticism by the Humane Society, the ASPCA and animal rights activists who are outraged over an Android application called “Dog Wars.” The video game built by Kage Games glorifies dog fighting and depicts a bloodied pit bull next to the game’s logo on Kage’s website. Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said in a prepared statement that “Dog Wars” could be used as virtual training ground for would-be dogfighters. Even Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick who spent 18 months in prison after being convicted of illegal dogfighting, condemned the Android application. “I’ve come to learn the hard way that dogfighting is a dead-end street,” Vick said in a statement posted on the Humane Society’s website. “Now, I am on the right side of this issue, and I think it’s important to send the smart message to kids, and not glorify this form of animal cruelty, even in an Android app.”
Google ducked the issue for two weeks before it was finally pulled from Android Marketplace. on April 28. This incident also shines the spotlight on a larger issue: as Google further expands into the gaming industry via the number one Android operating system, will profits win out over principles and ethics? To further extend the Android mobile OS and solidify its lead, Google launched the new “Games at Google” gaming unit and they are seeking a Product Manager to fill the post. Let’s hope it top management provides some much needed ethical oversight.

Changes are also afoot at Microsoft. In late January CEO Steve Ballmer announced the departure of 23 year veteran Bob Muglia who successfully ran the company’s very profitable Server and Tools business. Under Muglia’s direction, STB recorded a $1.63 billion operating profit on sales of $3.96 billion in the prior fiscal quarter. Muglia will leave sometime this summer. To date, Microsoft has been mum about his replacement and while the company isn’t saying anything publicly word inside the company is that Ballmer forced Muglia out to accelerate Microsoft’s cloud strategy.
Whether or not that’s the case, Ballmer should speed up the search for Muglia’s successor and plug the gaping holes left by other very visible departures. They include: Brad Brooks, a corporate vice president in the Windows consumer marketing group who left to work for Juniper Networks; Matt Miszewski, the general manager of Microsoft’s government business who is taking an executive post Salesforce.com and Johnny Chung Lee, the infamous Wii hacker who partnered with engineers in Microsoft’s Applied Sciences group to develop the Kinect for the Xbox 360. Lee is defecting to Google. Ouch! The Kinect motion camera has been an unqualified success for Microsoft. It sold eight million units in the first 60 day. Microsoft is also betting heavily on its Windows Phone 7, which has garnered generally positive reviews. Microsoft says it has sold over two million units to date but it isn’t clear how many of those units (which have been shipped to partners) have actually been sold. Microsoft will have to bring its “A” game to challenge Android-based smart phones, Apple’s iPhone 4 and RIM’s Blackberry.

IBM AIX v7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Highest Security Marks
Nine out of 10 — 90% — of the 470 respondents to ITIC’s 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability survey rated the security of Microsoft’s Windows Server 2008 R2 and IBM’s AIX v7 as “Excellent” or “Very Good.” This was the highest security ratings out of 18 different Server Operating System distributions (See Exhibit below). Three-quarters or 75% of survey participants gave HP UX 11i v3 “Excellent” or “Very Good” security ratings; this was the third highest ranking of the 18 major server OS distributions polled. This was followed by Ubuntu Server 10 and Debian GNU/Linux 5, which tied for fourth. Seven out of 10 survey participants — 71% — of those polled ranked the two most popular open source distributions’ security as “Excellent” or “Very Good.” Red Hat Enterprise Linux v 5.5 and Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise 11, the two most widely deployed Linux distributions trailed Debian and Ubuntu but were nearly tied with each other in security rankings. Just over two-thirds — 67% — of Red Hat users rated its security as “Excellent or Very Good” while 66% of survey participants judging Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise 11 security to be “Excellent” or “Very Good.”
Some 58% of Apple Mac OS X 10.6 survey respondents rated its security as “Excellent” or “Very Good,” putting it at the bottom of the pack, beating only Oracle’s Solaris 10 which was rated “Excellent” or “Very Good” by 63% of respondents.
, which in the past two years has been notching modest gains among corporate users,
Also noteworthy was the fact that only a very small percentage of respondents gave thumbs down “Poor” or “Unsatisfactory” security grades to their server operating system vendors. In this category, Apple had the highest percentage of respondents – 7% — who gave its Mac OS X 10.6 both “Poor” and “Unsatisfactory” marks. This might appear puzzling to some since Apple’s users have long touted the security of the platform. Apple users have long boasted about the fact that there are far fewer viruses and malicious code written targeting Macs compared to Windows. However, now that Apple is once again re-emerging as a significant presence in corporate networks, the Mac OS X 10.6 will no longer enjoy the “security by obscurity” that it claimed as a standalone consumer OS. Macs, iPhones, iPads and tablets are becoming mainstream staples as business tools. Hence, the number of exploits, including such malware as worms, Trojans and bots that target the Mac is increasing commensurately. Apple will have to respond accordingly with tighter security.
Survey Methodology
ITIC and our survey partner GFI Software conducted an independent Web-based survey of 470 corporate IT mangers and C-level executives worldwide from November 2010 through February 2011. The survey’s objective was to poll corporate customers on the reliability of 14 of the most popular server hardware platforms and 18 of the top server OS distributions.
Survey participants came from 23 countries worldwide; approximately 83% hailed from North America. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions and one essay question. ITIC supplemented the Web survey two dozen first person customer interviews. In order to maintain objectivity, ITIC accepted no vendor sponsorship monies.
Solid Security is Essential to Network Reliability
Solid security is an essential element for every network environment. The server operating system upon which corporate middleware and software e.g., databases, word processing applications, spreadsheets and other mainstream line of business (LOB) applications run is the cornerstone of the entire network computing environment. As the saying goes, “the chain is only as strong as the weakest link.” Server and their operating systems literally run the business and incorporate a significant percent of organizations’ sensitive data and intellectual property (IP). If server OS security is flawed, buggy or easily hacked, the entire business and its operations are potentially at risk.
Each GFI/ITIC survey invariably serves up some unexpected responses. And in this survey the biggest came in the responses regarding server operating system security.
The biggest of these, of course, was Microsoft, which like the Bible’s Prodigal Son, has returned home to rejoicing and rave reviews. Over the past decade Microsoft has struggled to shed the stigma that Windows is a porous server OS, perennially plagued with security flaws and easily compromised. It is now nine years since Microsoft publicly launched its Trustworthy Computing Initiative which was designed to make all of the company’s software inherently more secure by default and by design. Based on the survey responses, Microsoft has succeeded – particularly with Windows Server 2008 R2.
Of particular note, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 are the only three operating systems out of the 18 different server OSes in the GFI/ ITIC poll in which the majority of the respondents indicated that the security has improved over the past 3 years. This is an 18 percent improvement over Windows Server 2008 and a 30 percent jump in the number of survey participants who gave a similar rating to Windows Server 2003.
It is equally true in analyzing the responses that the Windows Server OS was the platform that most needed to strengthen and shore up its security. Based on the results of prior ITIC surveys as recently as 2008, user perception was that Windows Server security lagged behind nearly all of the other server OSs by a substantial margin.
Other Server Operating Systems Stay the Course
In all of the other 15 distributions, the majority of survey participants indicated that the security of the other server OS platforms “has remained the same.”
If Windows Server 2008 R2 is the Prodigal Son, then IBM’s AIX v 7.1 is the “Good Son” which has consistently delivered superlative security year after year, always garnering top ratings for overall reliability and security in each of the annual ITIC Reliability surveys. The 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability poll was no exception. IBM tied for first place with nine out of 10 respondents – 90% — giving AIX v 7.1 an “Excellent” or “Very Good” rating. Many of the IBM security managers ITIC interviewed, cited the consistency and inherent ‘bullet proof” nature of the server OS source code and the fact that IBM is quick to discover, inform them and issue a fix when a security issue does arise.
Other distributions like HP’s UX, Red Hat Enterprise Linux , Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise and Apple’s Mac OS X 10.x also received high security marks and praise from customers.
The results of ITIC’s latest 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability survey indicated that organizations of all sizes and across all vertical markets feel that it is critical that they monitor the server OS and associated server-based line of business (LOB) applications for vulnerabilities. A 51 percent majority of businesses feel that the security of the OS has an impact on the overall security and reliability of the network. Specifically, 60% of respondents indicated they place equal importance on monitoring the vulnerabilities of all network components followed by 56% that rated the OS as crucial and 42% say they feel the security of their databases and other main LOB applications are pivotal to the overall security of their network computing environments.
Among the other security highlights in the ITIC/GFI 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability Survey:
• In response to the question: “Estimate the impact or perceived impact that server OS security has on overall network reliability”
o 10% of respondents said “No impact, they are separate and distinct”
o 37% of participants said “minimal impact
o 21% said “moderate impact
o 17% said “significant impact
o 12% said “extremely crucial, server OS and security are intertwined”

Based on ITIC’s first person customer interviews, we determined that the biggest customer complaint was not with the inherent security of a specific server OS platform, but rather in finding fixes and getting technical service and support when the organization was stymied. In many of these particular instances, the organizations were very large enterprises and a common complaint was that searching for a fix was akin to finding “proverbial needle in a haystack.” Since the underlying reliability and security of nearly all the server operating systems and server hardware has improved, the majority of the more moderate and severe Tier 2 and Tier 3 outages are mainly due to integration and interoperability issues e.g., incompatible applications or drivers.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Server OS security is fluid and not static. No server operating system, application or hardware component is immune to penetration. Customer perception can and does change the minute a security flaw is found or malware is unleashed that successfully penetrates or threatens to compromise the security of any platform.
None of the server operating system vendors can rest on their laurels. Microsoft has made impressive security gains making Windows Server inherently secure by default, design and deployment, now it must endeavor to maintain the consistency of its security. Windows Server also has the biggest bull’s eye on its back since it is one of the most widely deployed server operating systems. Other server OS distributions, most notably Apple’s OS X 10.6x, which has so far managed to avoid falling prey to very major or public security holes, must likewise maintain its vigilance as the OS increases its presence in corporate enterprises.
Corporations also bear at least 50% of the responsibility for securing their respective environments. Even the most bulletproof server OS can be compromised and undone by configuration errors and failure to install and turn on OS security features. Organizations are also advised to conduct quarterly threat assessments of their environments. Staying current on the latest patches and fixes is also a must, as are regular updates of anti-virus applications and other security packages. Corporations should also review and update their security policies and procedures annually.
These results are especially important considered in light of the ongoing economic crunch which has caused companies to cut their IT budgets and reduce staff. As they strive to accomplish more with fewer resources, IT departments must rely even more heavily on their vendors to deliver more reliable and secure servers and server OS platforms.
Time is literally money. Even a few minutes of downtime – especially when a hack or a suspected security leak occurs — can result in significant costs and cause internal business operations to grind to a halt. Downtime as a result of a security breach can also undermine company’s relationship with its customers, business suppliers and partners. Reliability or lack thereof can potentially damage a company’s reputation and result in lost business.

Dell, HP, IBM and Stratus Technologies won high praise from corporate users for their prompt and efficient after market technical service and support in the latest ITIC 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability survey.
The results came from a broad based survey that polled organizations worldwide on the reliability, security and technical service and support from among 14 of the leading server hardware platforms and 18 of the most widely deployed server operating system distributions.
As we said in an earlier discussion, each poll elicits some surprising and unexpected revelations. In this survey, users reserved their highest encomiums and most critical barbs for the server hardware vendors – both in terms of product performance and reliability and the service and support they receive from their respective vendors.
Among the mainstream hardware vendors with the largest market shares, users expressed the most satisfaction with Dell, HP and IBM service and support. Stratus Technologies, whose ftServer line specializes in high availability, also got customer kudos for delivering superior service and support.
Specifically, the results show that 76% of HP customers rated its service and support as Excellent or Very Good, followed by 72% of IBM corporate accounts who gave Big Blue servers Excellent or Very Good grades and 70% of Dell customers who said their technical service and support was Excellent or Very Good.
Equally important is the fact that only a very small minority of Dell, HP and IBM customers dinged those vendors with negative ratings for their technical service and support. Only three percent of IBM server users rated the company’s technical service and support as Poor and none called it Unsatisfactory. Among Dell users, only a very small two percent minority called technical service and support Poor and only one percent deemed it Unsatisfactory. Similarly, only three percent of HP server respondents called technical service and support Poor and only two percent rated it Unsatisfactory.
The high ratings users gave HP and IBM is perhaps not surprising since service and support is a core competency that represents roughly 50% of each company’s respective annual revenue. The most common complaints voiced about HP support was that updates are difficult to roll out because they come out sporadically and there is a constant need to check HP’s website for the newest updates. IBM customers were mainly satisfied with the alacrity and quality of Big Blue’s support, but some did complain that it “was too expensive.”
Over eight-out-of-10 or 84% of Stratus ftServer customers gave the company’s technical service and support an Excellent or Very Good rating. Significantly, none of Stratus’ customers said the technical service and support was Poor or Unsatisfactory. Stratus, based in Maynard, MA and which is among the last of the small, independent server vendors, won rave reviews from mid-market and enterprise customers for the depth and breadth of its technical service and support and the willingness of its support staff. “In the rare instances when we have occasion to call Stratus support, they are extremely responsive and always willing to do whatever it takes to resolve the issue,” said an IT director at a mid-Atlantic enterprise.
User Support Concerns
ITIC conducted over two dozen first person interviews with IT managers and C-level executives in order to delve more deeply into issues like technical service and support that positively or negatively impact reliability. Based on those conversations, we determined that with rare exceptions the biggest customer complaint was not with the inherent performance, reliability or security of a specific server hardware or server OS platform, but rather in finding a fix and getting technical service and support when an IT department is stymied.
This is especially problematic for enterprises that have large, complex enterprises and multiple remote locations. This means that network administrators spend more time ferreting out the cause of the outage before they can even begin to search for a fix.
Since the underlying reliability and security of nearly all the server operating systems and server hardware has improved, the majority of the more moderate and severe Tier 2 and Tier 3 outages are mainly due to component failures, integration and interoperability issues e.g., incompatible applications or drivers.
Interestingly, the service and support issues that most irked IT managers were the sometimes lengthy waits for replacement component parts for their servers and incompatibilities among the server hardware, server OSs and third party applications. The latter point left many IT managers scrambling to escalate support issues to get the fix in a reasonable amount of time.
An IT administrator at an SMB construction firm and a self-described “Dell fan boy” commented, “I have always found Dell’s support to be good… but over the last year to year and a half I have had some problems getting parts or servers in a timely fashion. I ordered two servers last year that the sales rep quoted 2-3 weeks to arrive. It took almost 3 months to get the servers and only after having to escalate the order more than once.”
The long lead time in ordering and receiving replacement parts was not limited to Dell. Many IT managers voiced the same complaint about other vendors, although there did not seem to be a groundswell of consensus that the lead times to receive replacement parts affected one vendor more than any other.
Network administrators like the manager at an SMB manufacturing firm, lamented the lack of an overarching toolset that could be used for more synergistic security and system monitoring. He noted that while there are some overlapping tools that can be deployed for the server OS, the server hardware and the networking gear, there is “no comprehensive “offering.
“It would certainly be nice to have a common portal to manage & monitor all aspects of security and reliability among all hardware/OS platforms. This may not make sense for large organizations, but for the SMBs, where all of these systems are managed by the same team (or individual), it would be a dream,” he said. “We just don’t have the manpower to keep an eye on everything 24×7. The sooner we can react to issues, the better our business operates,” he added.
A VP of IT and security at a midsized organization in the Northeast observed that size does matter when it comes to technical service and support. “Most of the big server vendors provide adequate support if you have 50+ servers and you can escalate past first level support quite easily.”
So how do SMBs who lack the budgets and the clout of their enterprise counterparts manage? The survey responses and customer interviews reaffirmed the fact that SMBs are heavily reliant on managed service providers (MSPs) or consultants to solve thorny reliability issues.

Survey Methodology
ITIC conducted an independent Web-based survey of 470 corporate IT mangers and C-level executives worldwide from November 2010 through February 2011. The survey’s objective was to poll corporate customers on the reliability of 14 of the most popular server hardware platforms and 18 of the top server OS distributions.
The survey participants came from 23 countries worldwide; approximately 83% of the respondents hailed from North America. The survey consisted of multiple choice questions and one essay question. ITIC supplemented the Web survey two dozen first person customer interviews. In order to maintain objectivity, ITIC accepted no vendor sponsorship monies.
Nonetheless, downtime, regardless of the reason, still disrupts network operations, costs the corporation time and money and raises the risk of litigation. Additionally, any extended amount of downtime (and these days even a 15 or 20 minute outage can be classified as lengthy) will almost certainly cause service disruptions that can have a domino effect on business partners, customers and suppliers.
This underscores the importance of timely and efficient technical service and support, which can make the difference between minutes or hours of downtime. It is not hyperbole to state that technical service and support is one of the pillars – along with product features, performance, security and scalability — that solidifies or undermines the overall reliability of the network infrastructure.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Vendors’ ability to deliver top notch technical service and support – including a quick response with updates, fixes and patches to known flaws and security vulnerabilities – has a direct impact on overarching network reliability. Technical service and support – good and bad – also distinguishes and differentiates vendors from their competitors. How promptly, efficiently and courteously a vendor responds to its customers definitely plays a role in an organization’s planned purchases and upgrades.
Vendors who provide shoddy service, or have been inattentive to their customers’ requests for information on products and pricing or who fail to effectively respond in times of crisis, may find that such behavior backfires. A vendor that ignores its clients needs once the contract has been signed, may find themselves unable to upsell to those users or tossed out of the account completely when the contact expires. At the very least, such vendors can expect that service contract renewals will be imperiled.
Competition is fierce among hardware and server operating system vendors. Users have choices and they know it. In 21st Century networks, time is literally money. Fast action and superior service and support can save or cost a corporation thousands or even millions of dollars for every minute of downtime.