Microsoft doesn’t want you to use VMWare for virtualization of your information technology environment. At least, that is the message they are sending to the company I work for. For the last two years, when we’ve called for support, Microsoft’s Indian technicians seem confused and offer us conflicting information, wasting a great deal of time and causing us boundless frustration.

Today, we tried to call about a problem with DFS (distributed file system) - unfortunately the Microsoft technician noticed that the machine with a corrupt volume is virtualized and immediately went into a song and dance about it being VMWare and not being able to support the issue. Bear in mind that we had just dropped $500+ on the call. But Microsoft, in all its wisdom, has a policy that is more important that continuing to earn my company’s business.

Except as described in this article, Microsoft does not test or support Microsoft software running together with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. For Microsoft customers who do not have a Premier-level support agreement, Microsoft will require that the issue to be reproduced independently from the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software. Where the issue is confirmed to be unrelated to the non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, Microsoft will support its software in a manner that is consistent with support provided when that software is not running together with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software.

Two hours later, we’re still arguing with Microsoft about why they won’t support us. From my perspective, the company doesn’t want people using VMWare because they offer a competitive product (which I’m not interested in). Practically speaking, when Microsoft pretends that problems are caused by using VMWare when they are not, they are doing themselves a great disservice - offering me an incentive to spend time searching for alternative solutions to Microsoft’s entire line of products. Arrogance in customer service policy making never benefits the company making the policies.

Microsoft’s technicians did a very poor job of explaining the policy. We were put on hold multiple times without explanation. We were transferred multiple times and hung up on once. If this is the best Microsoft can do, they are doomed. Moving forward, I’ll be looking for ways to avoid doing business with the company. I’ve been a beta tester and long time supporter, but increasingly, Microsoft is out of touch with the people who keep it solvent. The company has become too bloated with bureaucracy to stay effective. Time for some spin offs.

VMWare’s virtualization product is better and more mature than Microsoft’s offering. And that is why we’ll continue to use it despite Microsoft’s attempts to strongarm us in a different direction.

Related information:

http://www.vmware.com/support/policies/ms_support_statement.html

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897615

And the first lawsuit against an American fiefdom that restricts its peons from defending themselves using the same instruments civil servants are allowed has been filed:

BELLEVUE, WA – Following Thursday’s (5-4) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual civil right to keep and bear arms, and that a municipal gun ban violates that right, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) filed a federal lawsuit (complaint) challenging the City of Chicago’s long-standing handgun ban.

While the Heller decision did not go far enough, it will open the floodgates to thousands of challenges to individual’s right to defend themselves. If the government is entitled to have a resource, then so am I - I will applaud each and every pro-gun lawsuit that is filed in the coming months.

If someone can show me a single American city that can definitively correlate reduced violence with a ban on gun ownership I will vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.

The most important decision the Supreme Court has made in my 37-years has been handed down.

I’d like to tell all the anti-gunners to suck it right about now, but that would be petty. Instead, I’ll just say that I hope Michael Bloomberg drops dead from shock.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The Heller decision is significant, but the battle against the unreasoning fear and ignorance about firearms being purposely spread through our society is just part of a much larger war against self-reliant individuals that is far from over. Eternal vigilance is necessary. The freedom lovers and the doers and those who care not for the mediocrity of the state must continue to ignore the bad laws when necessary and to campaign against the purveyors of collectivist ignorance.

This is one tiny victory in a war that we’ve been losing badly for decades. I’ll be standing by for a full analysis, but the small victory today warms my heart. It’s been pretty cold, politically speaking, for people like me who believe that idiots and not guns are the problem.

Perhaps the most important statement Mike has made on the topic of Iraq is:

One of the main reasons we made so many mistakes in Iraq was that high officials in the Bush Administration were often afraid of the truth and viewed a serious foreign policy question with ideological blinders.  Instead of honestly appraising the facts on the ground, they saw only what they wanted to see.  And instead of encouraging candor and even dissent, they ignored or attacked those who disagreed with them.

How many have died needlessly because of arrogance? It is criminal. Absolutely criminal. And the immense suffering of Iraqis was prolonged and enhanced needlessly because of a few bureaucrats and their immense ignorance and stubborn insistence that they were the only ones who knew what was right for the people who live in the birthplace of civilization.

Mike’s article contains some very important thoughts, and as usual, is honest and well worth the read. Please take the time.

There is no way to know how many American lives were lost in Iraq due to the tortures we inflicted upon Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and other places.  This is no argument of moral equivalence.  I have seen the atrocities committed by al Qaeda and other terrorists, and I am not saying that Americans have ever come close to those acts.  New Yorkers saw the atrocities of al Qaeda, as did many others.

Yet, when we tortured detainees, we lost something very important, something that America and its allies need in order to prevail against terrorists, not just in Iraq, but all over the world.  We scarred our honor.

Whatever you think of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I will not judge you for your opinion. What I am interested in doing is making the best of a bad situation. I think that Michael Yon has the same goal. Torture, in any form, is a moral abomination that is not justifiable. Using torture to win is actually losing. Go read the article and see if you don’t agree. The Bush Administration has been wrong from day one on this issue.

I have stopped watching the “news” and listening to my XM Radio in the last month. I just can’t stomach the inane prattle that passes for coverage of the Presidential campaign. There are no voices on the television or radio that are speaking to me, the disenfranchised freedom lover.

Rather, all the voices saturating the airwaves belong to shrill sycophants pretending that there are significant differences between the two finalists. And maybe there are. Neither of the two candidates is interested in actual freedom though, and that turns me off. I don’t care what the two bobbleheads have to say anymore because I have a hard time believing anything either one of them says. They both sound about as sincere as a telemarketer to me.

I’m boycotting the mainstream media. I’ve started listening to a podcast called Free Talk Live. Free Talk Live is entertaining, with a lot of pseudo-psycho callers. The show is oriented on talking about free markets and freedom thinking, and I suppose that when you create an environment hawking freedom, you’re bound to attract a lot of people who are marginalized by our current societal acceptance of authoritarianism.

I hope the show continues to find and challenge new listeners to think about whether or not the status quo in the United States is taking this country to places where we want it to go. I think next year I’m going to cancel my XM subscription and put that money into supporting Free Talk Live. I don’t agree with 100% of the show’s positional statements but I am excited about the freedom activism and think it’s healthy to expose myself to the ideas being exchanged. And I love it when Paula calls in and talks about how she is getting “Washington” to take care of various doomsday problems that she’s discovered.

Mark and Ian broadcast from Keene, New Hampshire, which long term, is the state I plan to move to.