Missing dot drops Sweden off the Internet

What was essentially a typo last night resulted in the temporary disappearance from the Internet of almost a million Web sites in Sweden - every address with a .se top-level down name. Problems that affect an entire top-level zone have very wide-ranging effects as can be seen by the .se incident. … Imagine the same thing happening to the .com domain, which has over 80 million domain names." The total blackout of .se lasted for about an hour and a half, Pingdom says, although aftershocks are expected to continue. "The .SE registry used an incorrectly configured script to update the .se zone, which introduced an error to every single .se domain name," says Pingdom. "We have spoken to a number of industry insiders and what happened is that when updating the data, the script did not add a terminating '.' to the DNS records in the .se zone. According to Web monitoring company Pingdom, which happens to be based in Sweden, the disablement of an entire top-level domain "is exceptionally rare. … Usually it's a single domain name that has been incorrectly configured or the DNS servers of a single Web host having problems.

That trailing dot is necessary in the settings for DNS to understand that '.se" is the top-level domain. Thanks to well-functioning surveillance system .SE discovered the error immediately and a new file with the DNS data (zone file) was produced and distributed within one hour. … The false information that was sent out affected accessibility to all .se domains for a short time. It is a seemingly small detail, but without it, the whole DNS lookup chain broke down." Sweden's Internet Infrastructure Foundation, which administers .se, issued this statement: "The cause was an incorrect software update, which, despite our testing procedures were not detected. However, there may still be some name servers that have not changed out of misinformation against the real." A spokesperson for .se, Maria Eklund told a Swedish press outlet that the issues may not be completely resolved before Wednesday. "This little mistake is going to affect Internet traffic for two days," she told the newspaper. (Speculation that it's really the fault of newly "internationalized" ICANN begins in 3 … 2 … 1.)

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.

One by one, carriers succumb to Google Voice

Ever since its launch this summer, Google Voice has presented carriers with some potentially thorny issues. Google Voice was designed in part to make it easier for users to change mobile carriers without sacrificing their phone numbers and also to give users several add-on features that are not offered by carriers. The biggest potential pitfall for carriers is that widespread adoption of Google Voice could render their networks "dumb pipes" that don't offer users any value-added services.

For example, Google Voice can provide simultaneous ringing for both landline and wireless devices using the same phone number and it can serve as a hub for SMS as it lets users send text messages from any of their devices or even right over the Web on their computer. However, America's top two wireless telcos this week indicated that they had no problem supporting Google Voice on their networks. Net neutrality proponents such as the media advocacy group Free Press have met Google Voice with enthusiasm, as they think it could give users the ability to seamlessly switch carriers if their current carrier is too restrictive of what they can and cannot use on their mobile devices. During a joint press conference with Google on Tuesday, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam said that all Verizon phones based on the open-source Android platform would give users access to the Google Voice application. How Google Voice could change the wireless industry Although AT&T didn't mention Google Voice specifically as an application that it would allow onto its network, it's very likely that Google Voice will soon be available to iPhone users since it doesn't present the direct threat to cellular service revenues that other VoIP applications and services do.

AT&T, meanwhile, said Tuesday that it was changing its tune and allowing iPhone users to utilize VoIP applications such as Skype on the AT&T 3G network. The reason for this is that when you make a call using Google Voice, it initially goes through the standard public switch telephone network to the Google cloud, where it is then sent out as a VoIP call. But even if Google Voice won't harm carriers' ability to charge users for cell phone minutes, Gartner analyst Peggy Schoener does think it could harm carriers' profitability if users come to rely upon it for services. "It is a threat to their business model to some degree," she says. "But right now the demand for openness is trumping that. So while Google Voice will enable users to save money on typically expensive long-distance calls, it won't be an alternative to using up minutes from your standard wireless carrier in the way that Skype is. Carriers are looking at how the world is shaping up and they have to demonstrate openness and cooperation with industry newcomers." FCC action in the background While neither Verizon nor AT&T will say it out loud, one factor in their decision to allow Google Voice onto their networks could be the more active approach that the Federal Communications Commission has taken this year under new chairman Julius Genachowski.

More recently, Genachowski has also proposed new network neutrality rules that would bar carriers from blocking or degrading lawful Web traffic and that would force carriers to be more open about their traffic management practices. For example, this summer the FCC asked Google, Apple and AT&T to explain why the Google Voice application was not yet been made available for the iPhone. ABI Research analyst Jeff Orr thinks that the government's more aggressive stance toward regulating the wireless industry has been a key factor in the telcos' decision to allow Google Voice on their networks despite whatever misgivings about the application they may have. "I think that they're looking at the talk going around at the FCC looking for net neutrality, and they figure that they'll need to back off and pick the battles they want to fight," he says. "By allowing Google Voice and other VoIP applications onto their networks they say to the FCC that they can monitor their own practices and that there's not a need for legislation mandating net neutrality." Schoener agrees that FCC action is part of the reason why carriers are showing more openness on their networks right now, but she also thinks that carriers are being forced by market trends to embrace more openness as well. For instance, the past decade has seen large Internet companies such as Google and Skype become major market players with the clout to push for net neutrality regulations. "There's not a direct cause and effect between the FCC's actions and the carriers' decisions," she says. "But the FCC's stance is a part of the current trend that openness is better, and the telcos figure they can be better off in the long run if they embrace it rather than playing hardball."

Rivals mock Microsoft's free security software

Although one of the top consumer security vendors welcomed Microsoft's Security Essentials to the market, another dismissed the new free software as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff." Earlier today, Microsoft launched Security Essentials , its free antivirus and antispyware software suite, which has been in development for almost a year. "I think it's a good thing that they're in the market," said Carol Carpenter, the general manager of Trend Micro's consumer division. "We look forward to the competition ... and I think Microsoft's targeting of developing countries and the unprotected is a good approach." Microsoft has pitched Security Essentials, which replaced the now-defunct for-a-fee Windows OneCare, as basic software suitable for users who can't, or won't, pay for security software. And now they've decided to go for the free market, but that's a very crowded market. Not everyone, however, agreed with Carpenter. "Security Essentials won't change anything," said Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering. "Microsoft has a really bad track record in security," he added, ticking off several ventures into consumer security that the giant has tried, including Windows Defender, an anti-spyware tool bundled with Windows Vista and Windows 7; the released-monthly Malicious Software Removal Tool; and OneCare. "Like OneCare, Security Essentials is a poor product," said Meggers. "It has very average detection rates. There's not much room to grow there." In a company blog, another Symantec employee called Security Essentials a "rerun" of OneCare , and said: "At the end of the day, Microsoft Security Essentials is a rerun no one should watch." It's no surprise that top-tier security vendors like Trend Micro and Symantec dismissed Security Essentials today.

At the time, a Symantec executive said it was a capitulation by Microsoft, which was tacitly admitting it couldn't compete . But Meggers' take today was even more bearish. "We don't like the notion of 'basic,'" he said. "That makes me very worried, because the risk on the Web today is far too high for 'basic.' Tossing a bunch of little basic tools into the computing environment doesn't make it safe." Even Carpenter had some unkind words for Microsoft. "It's better to use something than to use nothing, but you get what you pay for," she said. "But I don't think it will worry the main security vendors. They did the same thing last year, when Microsoft announced the upcoming demise of OneCare and said it would ship a free, streamlined product. If I were a free, focused security company, trying to get my upsell over time, like AVG [Technologies], then I'd be concerned." Symantec's Meggers also wondered what took Microsoft so long to come up with Security Essentials. "It takes them an entire year to remove features from OneCare, to make something even worse than OneCare?" Meggers asked. "I could have done that with three developers in three months." And that's a good clue that Microsoft won't be able to keep up with the likes of Symantec, Trend Micro and McAfee, Meggers added. "Look how long it took them to build it. When was the last time that Microsoft innovated?" The free Security Essentials can be downloaded for Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 from the Microsoft Web site. Security needs constant innovation.

Microsoft rallies businesses to start Win 7 migrations now

In a last promotional run-up to the Windows 7 release next month, Microsoft is urging business customers to start their upgrades now with examples of customers already using the software, and another acknowledgement that the company learned lessons from how it handled Vista's release three years ago. Additionally, many customers, as has been typical with a major Windows release, opted to wait for the release of the first service pack for Vista to even consider upgrading, and then many others did not move to the OS at all. Microsoft has devoted an unprecedented level of time and attention to making sure business customers will have a smooth migration and reap financial benefits from the new OS, said Microsoft Senior Director of Product Management Gavriella Schuster, in what is likely to be the last of a series of interviews with reporters as the company prepares to release Windows 7 worldwide on Oct. 23. "The real difference that I think people are seeing with Windows 7 is a different level of quality," Schuster said. "We've never reached this level of quality before in terms of performance, reliability, ease of deployment, the tools around it." As she has in previous interviews, Schuster reiterated Microsoft's mea culpa about how the company handled preparing its business customers, ISVs (independent software vendors) and other partners for the release of Vista, which was made available to them in November 2006. At the time, drivers for key hardware and peripherals were not available, and major applications were not compatible.

Schuster assured customers that moving to Windows 7 will be a far smoother process and will set a precedent for how the company will handle desktop OS releases in the future. We have put a lot of effort in really resolving the customer friction point before we come to them [with the OS]. We are being much more proactive and we're saying to customers, 'You don't have to wait.'" Microsoft introduced case studies Monday showing that some customers have taken this advice - among them, Starwood Hotels and Resorts, the city of Miami and Dutch IT services firm Getronics - and are reporting cost-saving benefits because of this decision, Schuster said. In fact, with a release-to-manufacturing version of Windows 7 already in the hands of many business customers, they can begin to move to the OS now. "In the past customers have had to wait for ISV support, they've needed to wait for a service pack release [to deploy Windows]," she said. "Shame on us, we've learned our lesson. Microsoft has a lot riding on Windows 7 after the overall disappointment of Windows Vista and is hoping the OS will jump-start business spending on desktop software. But analysts have said that many companies still using Windows XP don't really have a choice when it comes to migrating to Windows 7 - the question is more of when they will move than if they will. Many companies put a freeze on IT spending in general in the past year during the recession, and while conditions have improved, companies remain cautious about where they put their money.

Overall, customers who have moved already are saving on the time of IT labor devoted to PC management in the range of US$89-$160 per year because of new features in Windows 7, according to the findings of case studies Microsoft released Monday. The OS allows administrators to set policies across multiple desktops for updating software and other features through back-end connections to Microsoft server software that manage these processes, Schuster said. In particular, the city of Miami said it would save $54 per PC per year on power management because of new features in Windows 7 for setting group policies. Microsoft also has changed its plans for a software package that helps customers deploy Windows across multiple desktops, she said. Originally, Microsoft had planned to release a beta of MED-V 2 sometime in the first quarter of 2010, but decided to add Windows 7 support earlier due to customer demand for it, she said. Microsoft plans to release Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP) 2009 R2 in late October 2009, adding Windows 7 support for all components of the suite except for Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization (MED-V). That support will come in the first quarter of 2010 with MED-V 1.1 Service Pack 1, Schuster said.