January 24, 2007
so yesterday was mothership’s big launch event in birmingham.
honestly….
big is an understatement.
humongous would prolly be a much better word.
response in birmingham was so strong they had to move it to a much bigger venue, which ended up being the south meeting rooms of the birmingham jefferson civic center.
we were looking for the across america truck to find the entrance, but since the ringling brothers barnum & bailey circus is in this week as well, i guess there wasn’t room enough in this town for 2 travelling animal acts.
here’s an idea of the turnout yesterday…
and again…
standing room only in the it pro sessions all day yesterday.
between the onslaught, yours truly got a chance to re-connect with some old friends from the birmingham area.
and, of course, with the microsoft folks, who were out in force.
the gulf states area team was well-represented. of particular interest for all of us sbsc partners is jessica emmons, the gulf states partner community manager.
think of jessica as the sbsc fairy godmother for the gulf coast.
also got a chance to personally thank the gulf states team for the award given to my former company at the last partner awards dinner for our work in the small business sector, which was written about previously.
so thanks to craig kampel, donald deshaies (in the pic below), sandy hamel & the rest of the folks out there. looking forward to working with them on the initiatives black warrior technology plans to undertake & execute in 2007.
didn’t see shawn henry out & about yesterday…but will catch up with him soon, i’m sure.
also met some new folks, like blaine barton. if you’ve never heard him speak…it’s like being at a rcok concert/revival for techies.
in all, a really looooooooong day…
but a good one.
and if you’re at a gulf states event & can’t find jessica, just look for the nearest hallway corner. you’re bound to find her having a “working” picnic.
fyi for those who will ask, which basically means vlad…
running antelope refused to give clearance for her pic to be posted, upon threat of bodily harm to me & my person.
sorry folks…
i need my person, whatever that is…
remaining in one piece.
|| posted by chris under business, community, it pro, mothership, travel || comments (1) ||
||
January 19, 2007
the issues with remote wipe for windows mobile were more than documented here at the funcave, oh so many moons ago…
as regulars should already know.
fact of matter…
the biggest news stories regarding data loss nowadays involve data retrieved from equipment that is swiped or lost.
call me crazy…
but it seems much easier to me to work on a disconnected unit to grab data, rather than trying to do the old bob & weave routine to breach perimeter defenses.
quite frankly tho…
even if you do follow the funcave’s procedure for priming a windows mobile device so that remote wipe truly does what its name implies…
mothership’s remote wipe just doesn’t cut it as a tool to combat the modern reality of mobile device usage & the potential for data theft because of one glaring omission above all others:
the inability to remote wipe memory cards.
so if you want a full-featured wiping tool that will put the bang-shang-a-lang on sd cards, i recommend remoteprotect.
yes, it’s 15 smackeroos per unit.
yes, it’s potentially worth 100x that price if there’s anything even slightly sensitive floating around on your company’s devices.
and yes, post up if you’d like to see a more extensive write-up of remoteprotect in action…
assuming no one else decides to summarize this a few days or months from now & pass it off as first work, that is.
|| posted by chris under mobility, mothership, thumbs down || comments (0) ||
||
January 19, 2007
the issues with remote wipe for windows mobile were more than documented here at the funcave, oh so many moons ago…
as regulars should already know.
fact of matter…
the biggest news stories regarding data loss nowadays involve data retrieved from equipment that is swiped or lost.
call me crazy…
but it seems much easier to me to work on a disconnected unit to grab data, rather than trying to do the old bob & weave routine to breach perimeter defenses.
quite frankly tho…
even if you do follow the funcave’s procedure for priming a windows mobile device so that remote wipe truly does what its name implies…
mothership’s remote wipe just doesn’t cut it as a tool to combat the modern reality of mobile device usage & the potential for data theft because of one glaring omission above all others:
the inability to remote wipe memory cards.
so if you want a full-featured wiping tool that will put the bang-shang-a-lang on sd cards, i recommend remoteprotect.
yes, it’s 15 smackeroos per unit.
yes, it’s potentially worth 100x that price if there’s anything even slightly sensitive floating around on your company’s devices.
and yes, post up if you’d like to see a more extensive write-up of remoteprotect in action…
assuming no one else decides to summarize this a few days or months from now & pass it off as first work, that is.
|| posted by chris under mobility, mothership, thumbs down || comments (0) ||
||
January 19, 2007
the issues with remote wipe for windows mobile were more than documented here at the funcave, oh so many moons ago…
as regulars should already know.
fact of matter…
the biggest news stories regarding data loss nowadays involve data retrieved from equipment that is swiped or lost.
call me crazy…
but it seems much easier to me to work on a disconnected unit to grab data, rather than trying to do the old bob & weave routine to breach perimeter defenses.
quite frankly tho…
even if you do follow the funcave’s procedure for priming a windows mobile device so that remote wipe truly does what its name implies…
mothership’s remote wipe just doesn’t cut it as a tool to combat the modern reality of mobile device usage & the potential for data theft because of one glaring omission above all others:
the inability to remote wipe memory cards.
so if you want a full-featured wiping tool that will put the bang-shang-a-lang on sd cards, i recommend remoteprotect.
yes, it’s 15 smackeroos per unit.
yes, it’s potentially worth 100x that price if there’s anything even slightly sensitive floating around on your company’s devices.
and yes, post up if you’d like to see a more extensive write-up of remoteprotect in action…
assuming no one else decides to summarize this a few days or months from now & pass it off as first work, that is.
|| posted by chris under mobility, mothership, thumbs down || comments (0) ||
||
January 16, 2007
hey eric,
this is not gonna be a smart aleck post, i promise.
i’ve been watching the january action pack release for quite some time now, because the issue of what’s included is of great interest to me, as it is many many other people.
i still see value in the action pack. i do. a great deal of value, actually.
to replicate what the action pack has allowed me to do with my new company would have cost us somewhere north of $5K.
which we received for 400 smackeroos.
that’s fantastic.
but you have to understand that certain changes to the action pack program give a lot of people pause.
the switch to upgrade-only desktop os licenses, for one.
now, that change actually made sense to me.
i’m not a system builder, so it didn’t directly affect me in the pocketbook as much as others. but i’ve seen waaaay too many whitebox machines over the years that clients bought from jimmy joe bob’s to know that action pack loading is a major problem.
the difference is…that move makes sense to help curtail that problem.
i’m not so sure about the other things that people are fussing about.
those changes/decisions seem to me to run counter to what i’d expect you folks in redmond would want to happen with the action pack…
here’s why:
no 2 folks are alike. neither are their business models, nor their clientele.
so if there were some flexibility built-in, i think the action pack program would be much more effective at its stated goal, which is enhancing partner knowledge of microsoft products & services that are available, to help those same partners effectively sell, install & build on the microsoft platform.
i think the action pack program could be improved.
so, without further ado…
happyfunboy’s super awesome ideas for making the action pack program better
better validation of registered partners & action pack enrollees
i’ve mentioned this more times than i care to remember. here’s one idea: make sbsc a minimum requirement for the action pack. there are paths for oem builders & non-builders. i don’t see the big deal with this, altho others will.
a la carte licenses
include 10 licenses of windows, period. as in, any combination of the different flavors of windows, up to a total of 10. if someone wants a couple of machines with ultimate for their primary business use, fine. they could also stand up different editions of windows to show clients, test apps, etc. makes sense to do the same with office & anything else which comes in different flavors.
1 year grandfathering
any release received in a previous action pack shipment can legally be used for up to 1 year after it was superceded by a newer release. declare no support & no replacement media for the superceded version after it’s been superceded. that would take care of the careless folks, yet still allow partners to continue to support their clients & their own lob apps that haven’t yet been updated at a reasonable schedule, while allowing for certain seasonal ‘blackout’ periods. yes…that one was for you, susan.
downloadable images
track & limit the number of downloads to conserve bandwidth if you want. i don’t need a binder or fancy sleeves. but the ability to get final code faster, as in before it hits the general populace? priceless.
certain additional non-production licenses
having an additional license of server-level products (sbs, for example) for non-production usage like directed client demos would be phenomenally helpful.
point is…
i don’t want to see the action pack program go away.
nor do i want to see it become a hindrance for honest partners…which is where it’s heading, quite frankly.
thanks for your time.
all best,
chris
|| posted by chris under business, mothership || comments (6) ||
||
