text:
Category Archives: Hewlett Packard
Xsigo: Hardware Play for Oracle, Not SDN
When I wrote about Xsigo earlier this year, I noted that many saw Oracle as a potential acquirer of the I/O virtualization vendor. Yesterday morning, Oracle made those observers look prescient, pulling the trigger on a transaction of undisclosed value.
Chris Mellor at The Register calculates that Oracle might have paid about $800 million for Xsigo, but we don't know. What we do know is that Xsigo's financial backers were looking for an exit. We also know that Oracle was willing to accommodate it.
For the Love of InfiniBand, It's Not SDN
Some think Oracle bought a software-defined networking (SDN) company. I was shocked at how many journalists and pundits repeated the mantra that Oracle had moved into SDN with its Xsigo acquisition. That is not right, folks, and knowledgeable observers have tried to rectify that misconception.
I've gotten over a killer flu, and I have a residual sinus headache that sours my usually sunny disposition, so I'm no mood to deliver a remedial primer on the fundamentals of SDN. Suffice it to say, readers of this forum and those familiar with the pronouncements of the ONF will understand that what Xsigo does, namely I/O virtualization, is not SDN. That is not to say that what Xsigo does is not valuable, perhaps especially to Oracle. Nonetheless, it is not SDN.
Incidentally, I have seen a few commentators throwing stones at the Oracle marketing department for depicting Xsigo as an SDN player, comparing it to Nicira Networks, which VMware is in the process of acquiring for a princely sum of $1.26 billion. It's probably true that Oracle's marketing mavens are trying to gild their new lily by covering it with splashes of SDN gold, but, truth be told, the marketing team at Xsigo began dressing their company in SDN garb earlier this year, when it became increasingly clear that SDN was a lot more than an ephemeral science project involving OpenFlow and boffins in lab coats.
Why Confuse? It'll be Obvious Soon Enough
At Network Computing, Howard Marks tries to get everybody onside. I encourage you to read his piece in its entirety, because it provides some helpful background and context, but his superbly understated money quote is this one: "I've long been intrigued by the concept of I/O virtualization, but I think calling it software-defined networking is a stretch."
In this industry, words are stretched and twisted like origami until we can no longer recognize their meaning. The result, more often than not, is befuddlement and confusion, as we witnessed yesterday, an outcome that really doesn't help anybody. In fact, I would argue that Oracle and Xsigo have done themselves a disservice by playing the SDN card.
As Marks points out, "Xsigo's use of InfiniBand is a good fit with Oracle's Exadata and other clustered solutions." What's more, Matt Palmer, who notes that Xsigo is "not really an SDN acquisition," also writes that "Oracle is the perfect home for Xsigo." Palmer makes the salient point that Xsigo is essentially a hardware play for Oracle, one that aligns with Oracle's hardware-centric approaches to compute and storage.
Oracle: More Like Cisco Than Like VMWare
Oracle could have explained its strategy and detailed the synergies between Xsigo and its family of hardware-engineered "Exasystems" (Exadata and Exalogic) — and, to be fair, it provided some elucidation (see slide 11 for a concise summary) — but it muddied the waters with SDN misdirection, confusing some and antagonizing others.
Perhaps my analysis is too crude, but I see a sharp divergence between the strategic direction VMware is heading with its acquisition of Nicira and the path Oracle is taking with its Exasystems and Xsigo. Remember, Oracle, after the Sun acquisition, became a proprietary hardware vendor. Its focus is on embedding proprietary hooks and competitive differentiation into its hardware, much like Cisco Systems and the other converged-infrastructure players.
VMware's conception of a software-defined data center is a completely different proposition. Both offer virtualization, both offer programmability, but VMware treats the underlying abstracted hardware as an undifferentiated resource pool. Conversely, Oracle and Cisco want their engineered hardware to play integral roles in data-center virtualization. Engineered hardware is what they do and who they are.
Taking the Malocchio in New Directions
In that vein, I expect Oracle to look increasingly like Cisco, at least on the infrastructure side of the house. Does that mean Oracle soon will acquire a storage player, such as NetApp, or perhaps another networking company to fill out its data-center portfolio? Maybe the latter first, because Xsigo, whatever its merits, is an I/O virtualization vendor, not a switching or routing vendor. Oracle still has a networking gap.
For reasons already belabored, Oracle is an improbable SDN player. I don't see it as the likeliest buyer of, say, Big Switch Networks. IBM is more likely to take that path, and I might even get around to explaining why in a subsequent post. Instead, I could foresee Oracle taking out somebody like Brocade, presuming the price is right, or perhaps Extreme Networks. Both vendors have been on and off the auction block, and though Oracle's Larry Ellison once disavowed acquisitive interest in Brocade, circumstances and Oracle's disposition have changed markedly since then.
Oracle, which has entertained so many bitter adversaries over the years — IBM, SAP, Microsoft, SalesForce, and HP among them — now appears ready to cast its "evil eye" toward Cisco.
Posted in Big Switch Networks, Brocade, Cisco, Cloud Computing, Converged Infrastructure, Data Center, Hewlett Packard, HP, IBM, M&A, Microsoft, NetApp, network infrastructure, Nicira Networks, Open Networking Foundation, OpenFlow, Oracle, SDN, Software-Defined Networks, Storage Networking, Sun Microsystems, Venture Capital, Virtualization, VMware, Xsigo
Some Thoughts on VMware's Strategic Acquisition of Nicira
If you were a regular or occasional reader of Nicira Networks CTO Martin Casado's blog, Network Heresy, you'll know that his penultimate post dealt with network virtualization, a topic of obvious interest to him and his company. He had written about network virtualization many times, and though Casado would not describe the posts as such, they must have looked like compelling sales pitches to the strategic thinkers at VMware.
Yesterday, as probably everyone reading this post knows, VMware announced its acquisition of Nicira for $1.26 billion. VMware will pay $1.05 billion in cash and $210 million in unvested equity awards. The ubiquitous Frank Quattrone and his Quatalyst Partners, which reportedly had been hired previously to shop Brocade Communications, served as Nicira's adviser.
Strategic Buy
VMware should have surprised no one when it emphasized that its acquisition of Nicira was a strategic move, likely to pay off in years to come, rather than one that will produce appreciable near-term revenue. As Reuters and the New York Times noted, VMware's buy price for Nicira was 25 times the amount ($50 million) invested in the company by its financial backers, which include venture-capital firms Andreessen Horowitz, Lightspeed,and NEA. Diane Greene, co-founder and former CEO of VMware — replaced four years ago by Paul Maritz — had an "angel" stake in Nicira, as did as Andy Rachleff, a former general partner at Benchmark Capital.
Despite its acquisition of Nicira, VMware says it's not "at war" with Cisco. Technically, that's correct. VMware and its parent company, EMC, will continue to do business with Cisco as they add meat to the bones of their data-center virtualization strategy. But the die was cast, and Cisco should have known it. There were intimations previously that the relationship between Cisco and EMC had been infected by mutual suspicion, and VMware's acquisition of Nicira adds to the fear and loathing. Will Cisco, as rumored, move into storage? How will Insieme, helmed by Cisco's aging switching gods, deliver a rebuttal to VMware's networking aspirations? It won't be too long before the answers trickle out.
Still, for now, Cisco, EMC, and VMware will protest that it's business as usual. In some ways, that will be true, but it will also be a type of strategic misdirection. The relationship between EMC and Cisco will not be the same as it was before yesterday's news hit the wires. When these partners get together for meetings, candor could be conspicuous by its absence.
Acquisitive Roads Not Traveled
Some have posited that Cisco might have acquired Nicira if VMware had not beaten it to the punch. I don't know about that. Perhaps Cisco might have bought Nicira if the asking price were low, enabling Cisco to effectively kill the startup and be done with it. But Cisco would not have paid $1.26 billion for a company whose approach to networking directly contradicts Cisco's hardware-based business model and market dominance. One typically doesn't pay that much to spike a company, though I suppose if the prospective buyer were concerned enough about a strategic technology shift and a major market inflection, it might do so. In this case, though, I suspect Cisco was blindsided by VMware. It just didn't see this coming — at least not now, not at such an early state of Nicira's development.
Similarly, I didn't see Microsoft or Citrix as buyers of Nicira. Microsoft is distracted by its cloud-service provider aspirations, and the $1.26 billion would have been too rich for Citrix.
IBM's Moves and Cisco's Overseas Cash Horde
One company I had envisioned as a potential (though less likely) acquirer of Nicira was IBM, which already has a vSwitch. IBM might now settle for the SDN-controller technology available from Big Switch Networks. The two have been working together on IBM's Open Data Center Interoperable Network (ODIN), and Big Switch's technology fits well with IBM's PureSystems and its top-down model of having application workloads command and control virtualized infrastructure. As the second network-virtualization domino to fall, Big Switch likely will go for a lower price than did Nicira.
On Twitter, Dell's Brad Hedlund asked whether Cisco would use its vast cash horde to strike back with a bold acquisition of its own. Cisco has two problems here. First, I don't see an acquisition that would effectively blunt VMware's move. Second, about 90 percent of Cisco's cash (more than $42 billion) is offshore, and CEO John Chambers doesn't want to take a tax hit on its repatriation. He had been hoping for a "tax holiday" from the U.S. government, but that's not going to happen in the middle of an election campaign, during a macroeconomic slump in which plenty of working Americans are struggling to make ends meet. That means a significant U.S.-based acquisition likely is off the table, unless the target company is very small or is willing to take Cisco stock instead of cash.
Cisco's Innovator's Dilemma
Oh, and there's a third problem for Cisco, mentioned earlier in this prolix post. Cisco doesn't want to embrace this SDN stuff. Cisco would rather resist it. The Cisco ONE announcement really was about Cisco's take on network programmability, not about SDN-type virtualization in which overlay networks run atop an underyling physical network.
Cisco is caught in a classic innovator's dilemma, held captive by the success it has enjoyed selling prodigious amounts of networking gear to its customers, and I don't think it can extricate itself. It's built a huge and massively successful business selling a hardware-based value proposition predicated on switches and routers. It has software, but it's not really a software company.
For Cisco, the customer value, the proprietary hooks, are in its boxes. Its whole business model — which, again, has been tremendously successful — is based around that premise. The entire company is based around that business model. Cisco eventually will have to reinvent itself, like IBM did after it failed to adapt to client-server computing, but the day of reckoning hasn't arrived.
On the Defensive
Expect Cisco to continue to talk about the northbound interface (which can provide intelligence from the switch) and about network programmability, but don't expect networking's big leopard to change its spots. Cisco will try to portray the situation differently, but it's defending rather than attacking, trying to hold off the software-based marauders of infrastructure virtualization as long as possible. The doomsday clock on when they'll arrive in Cisco data centers just moved up a few ticks with VMware's acquisition of Nicira.
What about the other networking players? Sadly, HP hasn't figured out what to about SDN, even though OpenFlow is available on its former ProCurve switches. HP has a toe dipped in the SDN pool, but it doesn't seeming willing to take the initiative. Juniper, which previously displayed ingenuity in bringing forward QFabric, is scrambling for an answer. Brocade is pragmatically embracing hybrid control planes to maintain account presence and margins in the near- to intermediate-term.
Arista Networks, for its part, might be better positioned to compete on networking's new playing field. Arista Networks' CEO Jayshree Ullal had the following to say about yesterday's news:
"It's exciting to see the return of innovative networking companies and the appreciation for great talent/technology. Software Defined Networking (SDN) is indeed disrupting legacy vendors. As a key partner of VMware and co-innovator in VXLANs, we welcome the interoperability of Nicira and VMWare controllers with Arista EOS."
Arista's Options
What's interesting here is that Arista, which invariably presents its Extensible OS (EOS) as "controller friendly," earlier this year demonstrated interoperability with controllers from VMware, Big Switch Networks, and Nebula, which has built a cloud controller for OpenStack.
One of Nebula's investors is Andy Bechtolsheim, whom knowledgeable observers will recognize as the chief development officer (CDO) of, and major investor in, Arista Networks. It is possible that Bechtolsheim sees a potential fit between the two companies — one building a cloud controller and one delivering cloud networking. To add fuel to this particular fire, which may or may not emit smoke, note that the Nebula cloud controller already features Arista technology, and that Nebula is hiring a senior network engineer, who ideally would have "experience with cloud infrastructure (OpenStack, AWS, etc. . . . and familiarity with OpenFlow and Open vSwitch."
Open or Closed?
Speaking of Open vSwitch, Matt Palmer at SDN Centralwill feel some vindication now that VMware has purchased a company whose engineering team has made significant contributions to the OVS code. Palmer doubtless will cast a wary eye on VMware's intentions toward OVS, but both Steve Herrod, VMware's CTO, and Martin Casado, Nicira's CTO, have provided written assurances that their companies, now combining, will not retreat from commitments to OVS and to Open Flow and Quantum, the OpenStack networking project.
Meanwhile, GigaOm's Derrick Harris thinks it would be bad business for VMware to jilt the open-source community, particularly in relation to hypervisors, which "have to be treated as the workers that merely carry out the management layer's commands. If all they're there to do is create virtual machines that are part of a resource pool, the hypervisor shouldn't really matter."
This seems about right. In this brave new world of virtualized infrastructure, the ultimate value will reside in an intelligent management layer.
PS: I wrote this post under a slight fever and a throbbing headache, so I would not be surprised to discover belatedly that it contains at least a couple typographical errors. Please accept my apologies in advance.
Posted in Arista Networks, Big Switch Networks, Brocade, Business models, Cisco, Citrix, Cloud Computing, Converged Infrastructure, Data Center, Hewlett Packard, HP, HP Networking, IBM, Insieme, Juniper, M&A, Microsoft, network infrastructure, Nicira Networks, OpenFlow, OpenStack, SDN, Software-Defined Networks, Venture Capital, Virtualization, VMware
Infrastructure Virtualization Versus Converged Infrastructure
Posted on July 17, 2012 | 1 comment
While writing about software-defined networking (SDN) and what it makes possible, I have been thinking about how its essential premise, and the premise behind infrastructure virtualization, conflicts with visions of converged infrastructure promulgated by the leading systems vendors in the information-technology (IT) industry.
According to the Wikipedia definition, converged infrastructure encompasses servers, storage, networking gear, and software for IT infrastructure management, automation, and orchestration. Accordingly, converged infrastructure leverages pooled IT resources to facilitate automated resource provisioning in support of dynamic application workloads.
Hardware Pedigrees in Software World
Leading vendors, most with more hardware than software pedigrees, have sought to offer proprietary converged-infrastructure offerings that closely integrate the hardware elements with software-based management attributes. In this regard, we can cite vendors such as Cisco (with a storage assist from EMC or NetApp), Hewlett-Packard, Dell, Hitachi Data Systems, Oracle (though networking remains on open question there), and, perhaps to a lesser extent, IBM.
Now, let's think about SDN and where it ultimately leads. Cisco would like us to believe that SDN, if it leads anywhere, will eventually take us to network programmability, with a heavy emphasis on the significance of a northbound API (or APIs). Cisco says that the means — in this case, SDN — are not as important as the desired ends, networking programmability, and many of Cisco's enterprise customers will doubtless agree.
SDN End Games
Another SDN outcome is network virtualization, which admittedly can also be achieved through other means. But an interesting aspect of SDN's approach to network virtualization, with its decoupling of the network's control and data planes, is that it results in the abstracting of software-based network intelligence from the underlying hardware-based network brawn. It's a software paradigm taken to a logical extreme, with server-based software running at the network edge controlling an abstracted pool of no-frills networking hardware.
Indeed, this is one end game for SDN, first playing out in the data centers of the major cloud service providers that guide the affairs of the Open Networking Foundation (ONF), and then — at some indeterminate future point too difficult to forecast without a Ouija board and a bottle of scotch — also at large enterprises worldwide.
Let's elaborate further. SDN facilitates network virtualization, which in turn is harnessed and orchestrated by cloud-management software, which also manages virtualized compute and storage infrastructure. As we've seen already in the compute world of servers, it's getting increasingly difficult for a vanity hardware vendor to earn a buck in a virtualized world. Many service providers have found that they can get boxes that satisfy their needs, at lower prices, directly from ODMs that often build servers for name-brand OEMs. Storage is being virtualized, too.
Network's Turn
And now it is the network's turn.
In such a world, how much longer will it make sense for customers to achieve converged infrastructure from single-source vendors that equip their hardware with proprietary fripperies and hooks to facilitate lock-in? Again, we can see these trend playing out at large service providers. Some have begun buying their networking hardware off the rack from ODMs, saving not only on capital expenditures (certainly the case for servers), but also on operating expenses relating to the ongoing management of network infrastructure. It's true that they're trading one sort of complexity for another, pushing it up the stack and into software rather than an operational hardware, but it's a trade-off they're clearly willing to make, probably because they have the resources and skill sets to make it work (and pay).
Obviously that is not a recipe for everybody, certainly not for most enterprises today. But times are changing, and it isn't inconceivable to foresee a day when the enterprise will be able to avail itself of third-party private-cloud software and management tools that will allow it to exploit a similar model of virtualized infrastructure.
Prescience Pays Off
In the big picture, as far as the established networking vendors are concerned, the ONF's conception of SDN is about more than just OpenFlow, and even about more than network programmability. It's about how SDN supports a model of network virtualization, in service to infrastructure virtualization, that significantly enfeebles hardware-based business models. Some of these hardware-oriented vendors will not successfully pivot to a model of virtualized infrastructure and software primacy.
On the other hand, some vendors have had the prescience to see this trend approaching on the horizon; they understand its inevitability, and they have positioned themselves better than others to survive, and perhaps even thrive, after the eventual market transition.
We'll look at one of those vendors in a subsequent post.
Posted in Business models, Cisco, Cloud Computing, Converged Infrastructure, Data Center, Enterprise Networking, Hewlett Packard, HP Networking, network infrastructure, Open Networking Foundation, OpenFlow, SDN, Software-Defined Networks, Virtualization
Understanding Cisco's Relationship to SDN Market
Analysts and observers have variously applauded or denounced Cisco for its network-Cisco ONE programmability pronouncements last week. Some pilloried the company for being tentative in its approach to SDN, contrasting the industry giant's perceived reticence with its aggressive pursuit of previous emerging technology markets such as IP PBX, videoconferencing, and converged infrastructure (servers).
Conversely, others have lauded Cisco's approach to SDN as far more aggressive than its lackluster reply to challenges in market segments such as application-delivery controllers (ADCs) and WAN optimization, where F5 and Riverbed, respectively, demonstrated how a tightly focused strategy and expertise above the network layer could pay off against Cisco.
Different This TIme
But I think they've missed a very important point about Cisco's relationship to the emerging SDN market. Analogies and comparisons should be handled with care. Close inspection reveals that SDN and the applications it enables represent a completely different proposition from the markets mentioned above.
Let's break this down by examining Cisco's aggressive pursuit of IP-based voice and video. It's not a mystery as to why Cisco chose to charge headlong into those markets. They were opportunities for Cisco to pursue its classic market adjacencies in application-related extensions to its hegemony in routing and switching. Cisco also saw video as synergistic with its core network-infrastructure business because it generated bandwidth-intensive traffic that filled up existing pipes and required new, bigger ones.
Meanwhile, Cisco's move into UCS servers was driven by strategic considerations. Cisco wanted the extra revenue servers provided, but it also wanted to preemptively seize the advantage over its former server partners (HP, Dell, IBM) before they decided to take the fight to Cisco. What's more, all the aforementioned vendors confronted the challenge of continuing to grow their businesses and public-market stock prices in markets that were maturing and slowing.
Cisco's reticence to charge into WAN optimization and ADCs also is explicable. Strategically, at the highest echelons within Cisco, the company viewed these markets as attractive, but not as essential extensions to its core business. The difficulty was not only that Cisco didn't possess the DNA or the acumen to play in higher-layer network services — though that was definitely a problem — but also that Cisco did not perceive those markets as conferring sufficiently compelling rewards or strategic advantages to warrant the focus and resources necessary for market domination. Hence, we have F5 Networks and its ADC market leadership, though certainly F5's razor-sharp focus and sustained execution factored heavily into the result.
Now, let's look at SDN. For Cisco, what sort of market does it represent? Is it an opportunity to extend its IP-based hegemony, like voice, video, and servers? No, not at all. Is it an adjunct market, such as ADCs and WAN optimization, that would be nice to own but isn't seen as strategically critical or sufficiently large to move the networking giant's stock-price needle? No, that's not it, either.
So, what is SDN's market relationship to Cisco?
Simply put, it is a potential existential threat, which makes it unlike IP PBXes, videoconferencing, compute hardware, ADCs, and WAN optimization. SDN is a different sort of beast, for reasons that have been covered here and elsewhere many times. Therefore, it necessitates a different sort of response — carefully calculated, precisely measured, and thoroughly plotted. For Cisco, the ONF-sanctioned approach to SDN is not an opportunity that the networking giant can seize, but an incipient threat to the lifeblood of its business that it must blunt and contain — and, whatever else, keep out of its enterprise redoubt.
Did Cisco achieve its objective? That's for a subsequent post.
Posted in ADCs, Cisco, Converged Infrastructure, Data Center, Dell, Enterprise Networking, F5 Networks, Hewlett Packard, HP, IBM, network infrastructure, Open Networking Foundation, OpenFlow, Riverbed Technology, SDN, Software-Defined Networks, Telepresence, Videoconferencing, WAN Optimization
Juniper Steers QFabric Toward Midmarket
In taking its QFabric to mid-sized data centers, Juniper Networks has made the right decision. In my discussions with networking cognoscenti at customer organizations large and small, Juniper's QFabric technology often engenders praise and respect. It also was perceived as beyond the reach, architecturally and financially, of many shops.
Now Juniper is attempting to get to those mid-market admirers that previously saw QFabric as above their station.
Quest for Growth
To be sure, Juniper targeted the original QFabric, the QFX 3000-G, at large enterprises and high-end service providers, addressing applications such as high-performance computing (HPC), high-frequency trading in financial services, and cloud services. In a blog post discussing the downsized QFabric QFX3000-M, R.K. Anand, EVP and general manager of Juniper's Data Center Business Unit, writes, " . . . the beauty of the "M" configuration is that it's ideal for satellite data centers, new 10GbE pods and space-constrained data center environments."
Juniper is addressing a gap here, and it's a wise move. Still, some wonder whether it has come too late. It's a fair question.
In pursuing the midmarket, Juniper is ratcheting up its competitive profile against the likes of Cisco Systems and HP, which also have been targeting the mid market for growth, a commodity in short supply in the enterprise-networking space these days.
Analysts are concerned about maturation and slow growth in the networking market, as well as increasing competition and "challenging" — that's an analyst-speak euphemism for crappy –macroeconomic conditions.
Belated . . . Or Just Too Late
At its annual shindig for analysts, Juniper did little to allay those concerns, though the company understandably put an optimistic spin on its product strategy, competitive positioning, and ability to execute. Needham and Company analyst Alex Henderson summarized proceedings as follows:
"Despite an upbeat tone to Juniper's strategy positioning and its new product development story, management reset its long term revenue and margin targets to a lower level. Juniper lowered its revenue growth targets to 9-12% from a much older growth target of 20% plus. In addition, management lowered gross margin target to 63-66% from the prior target of 65-67%."
Like its competitors, Juniper is eager to find growth markets, preferably those that will support robust margins. A smaller QFabric won't necessarily provide a panacea for Juniper's market dilemma, but it certainly won't hurt.
It also gives Juniper's channel partners reason to call on customers that might have been off their radar previously. As Dhritiman Dasgupta, senior director of Enterprise System and Routing at Juniper, told The VAR Guy, the channel is calling the new QFX-3000-M "their version" of the product.
We'll have to see whether Juniper's QFabric for mid-sized data centers qualifies as a belated arrival or as a move that simply came too late.
Posted in Cisco, Data Center, Enterprise Networking, Hewlett Packard, HP, HP Networking, Juniper, network infrastructure, Telecommunications
Dell's Steady Progression in Converged Infrastructure
With its second annual Dell Storage Forum in Boston providing the backdrop, Dell made a converged-infrastructure announcement this week. (The company briefed me under embargo late last week.)
The press release is available on the company's website, but I'd like to draw attention to a few aspects of the announcement that I consider noteworthy.
First off, Dell now is positioned to offer its customers a full complement of converged infrastructure, spanning server, storage, and networking hardware, as well as management software. For customers seeking a single-vendor, one-throat-to-choke solution, this puts Dell on parity with IBM and HP, while Cisco still must partner with EMC or with NetApp for its storage technology.
Bringing the Storage
Until this announcement, Dell was lacking the storage ingredients. Now, with what Dell is calling the Dell Converged Blade Data Center solution, the company is adding its EqualLogic iSCSI Blade Arrays to Dell PowerEdge blade servers and Dell Force10 MXL blade switching. Dell says this package gives customers an entire data center within a single blade enclosure, streamlining operations and management, and thereby saving money.
Dell's other converged-infrastructure offering is the Dell vStart 1000. For this iteration of vStart, Dell is including, for the first time, its Compellent storage and Force10 networking gear in one integrated rack for private-cloud environments.
The vStart 1000 comes in two configurations: the vStart 1000m and the vStart 1000v. The packages are nearly identical — PowerEdge M620 servers, PowerEdge R620 management servers, Dell Compellent Series 40 storage, Dell Force10 S4810 ToR Networking and Dell Force10 S4810 ToR Networking, plus Brocade 5100 ToR Fibre-Channel Switches — but the vStart 1000m comes with Windows Server 2008 R2 Datacenter (with the Hyper-V hypervisor), whereas the vStart 1000v features trial editions of VMware vCenter and VMware vSphere (with the ESXi hypervisor).
An an aside, it's worth mentioning that Dell's inclusion of Brocade's Fibre-Channel switches confirms that Dell is keeping that partnership alive to satisfy customers' FC requirements.
Full Value from Acquisitions
In summary, then, is Dell delivering converged infrastructure with both its in-house storage options, demonstrating that it has fully integrated its major hardware acquisitions into the mix. It's covering as much converged ground as it can with this announcement.
Nonetheless, it's fair to ask where Dell will find customers for its converged offerings. During my briefing with Dell, I was told that mid-market was the real sweet spot, though Dell also sees departmental opportunities in large enterprises.
The mid-market, though, is a smart choice, not only because the various technology pieces, individually and collectively, seem well suited to the purpose, but also because Dell, given its roots and lineage, is a natural player in that space. Dell has a strong mandate to contest the mid-market, where it can hold its own against any of its larger converged-infrastructure rivals.
Mid-Market Sweet Spot
What's more, the mid-market — unlike cloud-service providers today and some large enterprise in the not-too-distant future — are unlikely to have the inclination, resources, and skills to pursue a DIY, software-driven, DevOps-oriented variant of converged infrastructure that might involve bare-bones hardware from Asian ODMs. At the end of the day, converged infrastructure is sold as packaged hardware, and paying customers will need to perceive and realize value from buying the boxes.
The mid-market would seem more than receptive to the value proposition that Dell is selling, which is that its converged infrastructure will reduce the complexity of IT management and deliver operational cost savings.
This finally leads us to a discussion of Dell's take on converged infrastructure. As noted in an eChannelLine article, Dell's notion of converged infrastructure encompasses operations management, services management, and applications management. As Dell continues down the acquisition trail, we should expect the company to place greater emphasis on software-based intelligence in those areas.
That, too, would be a smart move. The battle never ends, but Dell — despite its struggles in the PC market — is now more than punching its own weight in converged infrastructure.
Posted in Brocade, Cisco, Cloud Computing, Converged Infrastructure, Data Center, Dell, EMC, Enterprise Networking, Hewlett Packard, HP, IBM, M&A, Microsoft, NetApp, network infrastructure, PCs, Storage, Storage Networking, Virtualization, VMware
Putting an ONF Conspiracy Theory to Rest
We know that the Open Networking Foundation (ONF) is controlled by the six major service providers that constitute its board of directors.
It is no secret that the ONF is built this way by design. The board members wanted to make sure that they got what they wanted from the ONF's deliberations, and they felt that existing standards bodies, such as the IETF and IEEE, were gerrymandered and dominated by vendors with self-serving agendas.
The ONF was devised with a different purpose in mind — not to serve the interests of the vendors, but to further the interests of the service-provider community, especially the service providers who sit on the ONF's board of directors. In their view, conventional networking was a drag on their innovation and business agility, obstructing progress elsewhere in their data centers and IT operations. Whereas compute and storage resources had been virtualized and orchestrated, networking remained a relatively costly and unwieldy fiefdom ruled by "masters of complexity" rummaging manually through an ever-expanding bag of ad-hoc protocols.
Organizing for Clout
Not getting what they desired from their networking vendors, the service providers decided to seize the initiative. Acting on its own, Google already had done just that, designing and deploying DIY networking gear.
The study of political elites tells us that an organized minority comprising powerful interests can impose its will on a disorganized majority. In the past, as individual companies, the ONF board members had been unable to counter the agendas of the networking vendors. Together, they hoped to effect the change they desired.
So, we have the ONF, and it's unlike the IETF and the IEEE in more ways than one. While not a standards body — the ONF describes itself as a "non-profit consortium dedicated to the transformation of networking through the development and standardization of a unique architecture called Software-Defined Networking (SDN)" — there's no question that the ONF wants to ensure that it defines and delivers SDN according to its own rules And at its own pace, too, not tied to the product-release schedules of networking vendors.
In certain respects, the ONF is all about consortium of customers taking control and dictating what it wants from the vendor community, which, in this case, should be understood to comprise not only OEM networking vendors, but also ODMs, SDN startups, and purveyors of merchant silicon.
Vehicle of Insurrection?
Just to ensure that its leadership could not be subverted, though, the ONF stipulated that vendors would not be permitted to serve on its board of directors. That means that representatives of Cisco, Juniper, and HP Networking, for example, will never be able to serve on the ONF board.
At least within their self-determined jurisdiction, the ONF's board members call all the shots. Or do they?
Commenting on my earlier post regarding Cisco's SDN counterstrategy, a reader, who wished to remain anonymous (Anon4This1), wrote the following:
Regarding this point: "Ultimately, [Cisco] does not control the ONF."
That was one of the key reasons for the creation of the ONF. That is, there was a sense that existing standards bodies were under the collective thumb of large vendors. ONF was created such that only the ONF board can vote on binding decisions, and no vendors are allowed on the board. Done, right? Ah, well, not so fast. The ONF also has a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). For most decisions, the board actually acts on the recommendations of the TAG. The TAG does not have the same membership restrictions that apply to the ONF board. Indeed, the current chairman of the TAG is none other than influential Cisco honcho, Dave Ward. So if the ONF board listens to the TAG, and the TAG listens to its chairman… Who has more control over the ONF than anyone? https://www.opennetworking.org/about/tag
Board's Iron Grip
If you follow the link provided by my anonymous commenter, you will find an extensive overview of the ONF's Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Could the TAG, as constituted, be the tail that wags the ONF dog?
My analysis leads me to a different conclusion. As I see it, the TAG serves at the pleasure of the ONF board of directors, individually and collectively. Nobody on the TAG does so without the express consent of the board of directors. Moreover, "TAG term appointments are annual and the chair position rotates quarterly." Whereas Cisco's Dave Ward serves as the current chair, his term will expire and somebody else will succeed him.
What about the suggestion that the "board actually acts on recommendations of the TAG," as my commenter asserts. In many instances, that might be true, but the form and substance of the language on the TAG webpage articulates clearly that the TAG is, as its acronym denotes, an advisory body that reports to (and "responds to requests from") the ONF board of directors. The TAG offers technical guidance and recommendations, but the board makes the ultimate decisions. If the board doesn't like what it's getting from TAG members, annual appointments presumably can be allowed to expire and new members can succeed those who leave.
Currently, two networking-gear OEMs are represented on the ONF's TAG. Cisco is represented by the aforementioned David Ward, and HP is represented by Jean Tourrilhes, an HP-Labs researcher in Networking and Communication who has worked with OpenFlow since 2008. These gentlemen seem to be on the TAG because those who run the ONF believe they can make meaningful contributions to the development of SDN.
No Coup
It's instructive to note the company affiliations of the other six members serving on TAG. We find, for instance, Nicira CTO Martin Casado, as well as Verizon's Dave McDysan, Google's Amin Vahdat, Microsoft's Albert Greenberg, Broadcom's Puneet Agarwal, and Stanford's Nick McKeown, who also is known as a Nicira co-founder and serves on that company's board of directors.
If any company has pull, then, on the ONF's TAG, it would seem to be Nicira Networks, not Cisco Systems. After all, Nicira has two of its corporate directors serving on the ONF's TAG. Again, though, both gentlemen from Nicira are highly regarded and esteemed SDN proponents, who played critical roles in the advent and development of OpenFlow.
And that's my point. If you look at who serves on the ONF's TAG, you can clearly see why they're in those roles and you can understand why the ONF board members would desire their contributions.
The TAG as a vehicle for an internal coup d'etat at the ONF? That's one conspiracy theory that I'm definitely not buying.
Posted in Broadcom, Cisco, Cloud Computing, Data Center, Google, Hewlett Packard, HP, HP Networking, Juniper, Microsoft, network infrastructure, Nicira Networks, Open Networking Foundation, OpenFlow, SDN, Software-Defined Networks, Virtualization


text:
New York Drops Lawsuit Against Church Members Who Protested Outside Abortion Clinic
Click here to view original web page at www.christianpost.com
New York Attorney General Letitia James has dropped a lawsuit against a group of pro-life sidewalk counselors, including 10 church members, accused of harassing people at an abortion clinic.
In a dismissal agreement released Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the state agreed to dismiss its complaints against around a dozen sidewalk counselors in return for no counterclaims being filed. The state will have to pay the litigation costs of the lawsuit.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, whose organization helped represent one of the sidewalk counselors, considered the dismissal a "great victory."
"The New York attorney general's lawsuit was politically motivated and patently frivolous. Our client, Scott Fitchett, did nothing wrong by exercising his First Amendment right to preach the gospel on a public sidewalk," Staver said in a statement .
Fitchett is a pre-K teacher who spends his Saturdays sharing the Gospel throughout New York City, including outside Choices Women's Medical Center of Jamaica, New York.
In 2017, then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a complaint against the sidewalk counselors, alleging that they were engaging in unlawful harassment of people at the Choices Women's Medical Center of Jamaica, New York. In addition to Fitchett, Rev. Kenneth Griepp and 10 members of [email protected] Rock in Brooklyn were among the defendants. They were represented by the Thomas More Society.
The lawsuit claimed that since 2012, protesters have "subjected incoming patients to a barrage of unwanted physical contact, as well as verbal abuse, threats of harm, and lies about the clinic's hours and its services." The lawsuit further accused the defendants of "approaching patients to harangue them, sometimes pinning them against the clinic's exterior wall or parking meters, and even forcing them into the street and oncoming traffic as they try to escape the protesters."
"Some protesters go so far as to touch or grab at patients to get their attention and force printed anti-choice materials on them," the lawsuit added.
Thomas More Society Senior Counsel Martin Cannon said in a statement that his clients are "peaceful, law-abiding Christians who care deeply for the innocent children in the womb […]
PLEASE Help Us Fight the Good Fight
Today's Goliath is the Mainstream Media Industrial Complex that brainwashes the masses.
Our mission is very straightforward: To counter the false narratives and nefarious agendas destroying America today. It isn't easy for obvious reasons; despite incredible growth over the last year we are still a very tiny fish in a huge media pond. But we're fighting and we will continue to do so, Lord willing, for as long as we possibly can. The battle for America's present and future is too important for us to back down to the giants that stand in our way.
We need help. I don't want to say "desperately," but the need is definitely great. If you have the means, please donate through our GivingFuel page or via PayPal. Your generosity is what keeps these sites running and allows us to get the truth to the masses. We've had great success in growing but we know we can do more with your assistance.
Thank you, and God Bless!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Tag: Bleeding Kansas
Historian Wilentz' Response to Senator Tom Cotton on the Issue of Slavery
U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (Rep., AR) recently has been criticizing The 1619 Project 'of the New York Times. The Project, he said, was "a racially divisive, revisionist account . . . that denies the noble principles of freedom and equality on which the nation was founded" although slavery "was the necessary evil upon which the union was built."[1] The latter comment was made by the Senator in a recent interview by Tucker Carlson of FoxNews, in which Cotton claimed to draw support from prominent American historians, one of whom was Sean Wilentz of Princeton University.
Wilentz' Response to Cotton[2]
Although four other American historians and I have "fundamental publicized objections to the project, . . . these in no way mitigate Cotton's serious misrepresentations of the historical record for evident political gain."
"Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, has introduced a bill in Congress that would punish school districts that use The New York Times's 1619 Project in their curriculum by withholding federal funding. In so doing, he announced in a newspaper interview that America's schoolchildren need to learn that the nation's Founders said slavery 'was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.' His statement is as preposterous as it is false: presuming to clarify American history, Cotton has grievously distorted it."
"None of the delegates who framed the Constitution in 1787 called slavery a 'necessary evil.' Some of them called slavery an evil, but not a necessary one. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, for example, declared to the Constitutional Convention that he would 'never concur in upholding domestic slavery,' that 'nefarious institution' based on 'the most cruel bondages'—'the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.' The great majority of the Framers joined Morris in fighting to ensure that slavery would be excluded from national law."
"James Madison, the most influential delegate at the convention, explicitly repudiated the idea of building the union on slavery, stating that it would be 'wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.' Though himself a slaveholder, Madison wanted to guarantee that the Constitution, while it might tolerate slavery in the states where it existed, would neither enshrine human bondage in national law nor recognize it as legitimate."
"A minority of the Framers, from the lower South, disagreed, but they believed slavery was no evil at all. 'If slavery be wrong,' Charles Pinckney of South Carolina declared, 'it is justified by the example of all the world.' Far from a necessary evil, Pinckney thought slavery was a necessary good, as it had been for time immemorial. 'In all ages,' he claimed, 'one half of mankind have been slaves.'"
"There was, to be sure, one delegate who resembled Senator Cotton's description: Pinckney's cousin, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, also from South Carolina. At one point in the convention debates, a perturbed Cotesworth Pinckney registered a complaint, seeming to desire, Madison noted, 'that some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.' That would have based the Union firmly on the constitutional right of slavery. And Cotesworth Pinckney did come close to calling slavery a necessary evil, noting that without it the Carolina economy could not survive (which was technically correct). But the convention majority, far from agreeing with anything he said, dismissed his objection out of hand."
"The Constitution was hardly an antislavery document. Through fierce debates and by means of backroom deals, the lower South slaveholders managed to win compromises that offered some protection to slavery in the states: the notorious three-fifths clause giving an allotment of House seats and Electoral College votes based on a partial counting of enslaved persons; a twenty-year delay in authorizing Congress to abolish the nation's involvement in the Atlantic slave trade; and a fugitive slave clause. Most importantly, the Constitution by implication barred the new federal government from directly interfering with slavery in the states where it already existed."
"But neither did the Constitution, as Senator Cotton wrongly claims, establish slavery as necessary to the Union. It's true that a few proslavery delegates threatened that their states would refuse to join the Union unless their demands were met. This occurred with particular force with regard to the Atlantic slave trade. A majority of convention delegates wanted to empower the national government to abolish the horrific trade, striking the first blow against it anywhere in the Atlantic world in the name of a sovereign state. Appalled, the lower South delegates, led by South Carolina's oligarchs, threatened to bolt if the convention touched the slave trade in any way, but the majority called their bluff."
"In the end, the proslavery delegates carved out the compromise that prevented abolishing the trade until 1808, salvaging a significant concession, though there could be little doubt that the trade was doomed. Even with this compromise, the leading Pennsylvania abolitionist Benjamin Rush hailed the slave trade clause as 'a great point obtained from the Southern States.' His fellow Pennsylvanian and a delegate to convention, James Wilson, went so far as to say that the Constitution laid 'the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.'"
"History, of course, proved Wilson wrong—but not completely wrong. With the rise of the cotton economy, based on the invention of the cotton gin, which Wilson could not have foreseen, American slavery was far from stymied, but grew to become the mightiest and most expansive slavery regime on earth, engulfing further territories—including Cotton's own Arkansas."
"The Framers' compromises over slavery had little to do with it, however. The problem was not primarily constitutional but political: so long as a substantial number of Northerners remained either complacent about slavery's future, indifferent to the institution's oppression, or complicit in the growth of the new cotton kingdom, the Constitution would permit the spread of human bondage."
"Even so, in fact, the Constitution contained powerful antislavery potential. By refusing to recognize slavery in national law, the Framers gave the national government the power to regulate or ban slavery in areas under its purview, notably the national territories not yet constituted as separate states. The same year that the Framers met, the existing Congress banned slavery from the existing territories north of the Ohio River under the Northwest Ordinance, a measure reflected in the Constitution, which the new Congress quickly affirmed when it met in 1789. Later antislavery champions, including Abraham Lincoln, always considered the Northwest Ordinance to be organic to the Constitution; proslavery advocates came to regard it as an illegitimate nullity."
"In time, as antislavery sentiment built in the North, the condition of slavery in the territories and in connection with the admission of new states became the major flashpoint of conflict, from the Missouri crisis of 1819–1821 to the guerrilla warfare of 'Bleeding Kansas.' Proslavery champions like John C. Calhoun of South Carolina invented an argument that denied the Congress any power over slavery in the territories; Lincoln and his fellow Republicans refuted that argument. And upon Lincoln's election as president in 1860, this constitutional issue was enough to spark the secession that led to the Civil War and Emancipation."
Senator Cotton has some mistaken things to say about that history, too. The Framers, he asserts, built the Constitution 'in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.' This absurdly imputes to the Framers powers of clairvoyance. Although Lincoln sometimes suggested that the Framers had purposefully designed slavery's abolition—even Lincoln could wishfully exaggerate—the Constitution hardly ensured slavery's doom. It took Lincoln's and the antislavery Republicans' concerted political efforts to vindicate the Constitution's antislavery elements that set the stage for what Lincoln in his 'House Divided' speech of 1858 called 'ultimate extinction.'"
"Far from establishing a Union based on what Senator Cotton calls the 'necessary evil' of slavery, the Founders fought bitterly over human enslavement, producing a document that gave slavery some protection even as it denied slavery national status and gave the federal government the power to restrict its growth—and so hasten its demise. The slaveholders, unable to abide that power, eventually seceded in an effort to form a new slaveholders' republic, with a new Constitution built entirely on slavery: its cornerstone, as the Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens declaimed, was 'the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.'"
"As far as a Union founded on the 'necessary evil' of slavery is concerned, Cotton appears unaware of how profoundly the Constitution of the United States of America differed from that of the Confederate States of America."
Wilentz' Longer Account of the U.S. History of Slavery[3]
In November 2019, Wilentz, delivering the fourth annual Lecture in honor of Philip Roth, drew upon the novelist's insight that history was "the relentless unfolding of the unforeseen" or "where everything unexpected in its own time is chronicled on the page [of history] as inevitable." For "the centrality of slavery to American history," Wilentz says, "the United States was defined, from the start, neither by American slavery alone or by American antislavery but in their conflict" and "few things if any in modern history were more unexpected than the eradication of human bondage in the Atlantic world."
This was so even though "the ideals that propelled the American Revolution shared crucial origins with the ideals that propelled antislavery. Yet American slavery did not die out as most expected" with "revolutionary America" as a "hotbed of antislavery politics." In fact, slavery "expanded, turning the American South into the most dynamic and ambitious slavery regime in the world" with "slaveowners [stiffening ] their resolve to affirm their property rights in human beings" and coming "perilously close to establishing an American empire of slavery."
These ideas of Wilentz help us understand why he and the other four prominent American historians dissented from at least one of the major premises of The Project of 1619, which will be discussed in a future post.[4]
Although I was a history major many years ago at Grinnell College, I do not have the intimate knowledge of the slavery and antislavery conflicts that are discussed by Professor Welentz. Nevertheless, I wonder whether he is overreacting to Senator Cotton's comment.
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia convened in 1787 to consider whether and how to amend the existing Articles of Confederation after Alexander Hamilton's report on the unsuccessful attempt to do so at the Annapolis Conference of 1786 coupled with his forceful criticism of those Articles and recommendation of the calling of a convention to "render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union."[5]
For the first two months or so of the Constitutional Convention there were debates between delegates from large and small states, between those favoring states-rights and those wanting a strong national government. "By the end of June the convention seemed in danger of dissolving, with nothing accomplished." That, however, was prevented when the Convention accepted a proposal by Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut ("the Great Compromise") for equal representation of the states in the Senate and proportional representation by population in the House. Thereafter other compromises were reached, including counting three-fifths of the slaves for representation in the House.[6]
In other words, many compromises were necessary in order to obtain agreement on the new Constitution before it could be submitted to the states for ratification. Some of those compromises accommodated slavery while others did not. As Wilentz said, the Constitution "gave slavery some protection even as it denied slavery national status and gave the federal government the power to restrict its growth—and so hasten its demise." In short, compromises with the evil of slavery were necessary in order to create the new Constitution.
[1] Evaluation of the Report of the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights and Its Endorsement by Secretary Pompeo, dwkcommentaries.com (Aug. 3, 2020); Senator Cotton Continues Criticism of The 1619 Project, dwkcommenataries.com (Aug. 10, 2020).
[2] Wilentz, What Tom Cotton Gets So Wrong About Slavery and the Constitution, N.Y. Review of Books (Aug. 3, 2020).
[3] Wilentz, American Slavery and 'the Relentless Unforeseen,' N.Y. Review of Books (Nov. 19, 2019).
[4] See Historian Wilentz and New York Times Editor Exchange Views About The 1619 Project, dwkcommentaries.com (forthcoming Aug. –, 2020).
[5] Williams, Current & Freidel, A History of the United States [To 1876], pp. 170-72 (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1959.) (This is my book from college and comments from others with more detailed knowledge of the Constitutional Convention are solicited.)
[6] Id. at 172-77.
Posted on August 11, 2020 August 11, 2020 Categories History, Law, PoliticsTags abolition of slave trade until 1808, Alexander Hamilton, Annapolis Conference (1786), Arkansas, Articles of Confederation, Atlantic slave trade, Benjamin Rush, Bleeding Kansas, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, Constitutional Convention (1787), electoral college, Emancipation of the slaves, FoxNews, Fugitive slave clause, Gouverneur Morris, Grinnell College, James Madison, James Wilson, John C. Calhoun, New York Times, Northwest Ordinance, Oliver Ellsworth, Philip roth, President Abraham Lincoln, Princeton University, s, Sean Wilentz, Senate, slavery, The 1619 Project, the Great Compromise, Tucker Carlson, U., U.S. Civil War, U.S. Constitution, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton3 Comments on Historian Wilentz' Response to Senator Tom Cotton on the Issue of Slavery
An Enjoyable Thanksgiving Day In Nebraska City, Nebraska
On a beautiful, sunny, crisp Thanksgiving Day this year my wife, two of her sisters and I were in Nebraska City, 40 miles south of Omaha on the western bank of the Missouri River near the southeastern corner of the State of Nebraska.[1]
Lied Lodge & Center
Lied Lodge
The main reason for going there was to have a delicious and enjoyable holiday meal at the handsome Lied Lodge & Conference Center as shown in the above photographs courtesy of the Arbor Day Foundation; the center photo shows at the end of the central atrium the tapestry that says "Plant trees!" in many different languages. Here are the details of the Thanksgiving Day buffet menu:
Appetizers: shrimp, crab claws, oysters, mussels, fruits, cheeses and various salads.
Entries: slow-roasted turkey, prime rib, glazed butternut squash, apple sage stuffing, whipped potatoes, baked yams, vegetable medley, baby carrots and rolls.
Desserts: pumpkin, pecan and fruit pies; cupcakes; and other classic items.
The Lodge & Center is owned and operated by the Arbor Day Foundation, which seeks to "inspire people to plant, nurture and celebrate trees." In so doing, the Foundation celebrates the life and vision of one of the town's most famous citizens, J. Sterling Morton.
The day in Nebraska City also unexpectedly became a fascinating lesson in late 19th and early 20th century U.S. history.
Julius Sterling Morton[2]
Sterling & Caroline Morton, ca. 1854
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of that year created the two territories with those names and opened them for settlement.[3] Enticed by the prospect of owning land in this new Territory, Morton at age 22 came to Nebraska City, really a village of less than 2,000 and the Territory's first city, with his wife, Caroline ("Carrie") Ann Joy French Morton, an accomplished artist, musician and gardener.[4] Mr. Morton, who was a graduate of Union College, started the Territory's first newspaper, the Nebraska City News, and served as its Editor.
He also immediately bought land in the town, presumably under the Preemption Act of 1841 permitting "squatters" who were living on federal government-owned land to purchase up to 160 acres at a very low price (not less than $1.25 per acre), before the land was to be offered for sale to the general public.
As a nature lover with a passion for horticulture, Morton was appalled by the lack of trees in Nebraska, but soon planted various kinds of trees on his own property. In order to attract people to the Territory (and then State in 1867), Mr. Morton endeavored to encourage others in the area to plant trees. He did that first as Editor of the local newspaper and then as President of the Territory's Agricultural Board. In 1872, he proposed that the state declare April 10 as Arbor Day, and his proposal was accepted. On that day in 1872, it is said that Nebraskans planted one million trees. In 1885, Nebraska declared his birthday, April 22, as Arbor Day and made it a legal holiday.
He voiced his love of trees when he said, "There is no aristocracy in trees. They are not haughty. They will thrive near the humblest cabin on our fertile prairies, just as well and become just as refreshing to the eye and as fruitful as they will in the shadow of a king's palace."
Morton also was engaged in public service as a member of the Nebraska Territorial House of Representatives (1855-1858); Acting Governor of the Territory (1858-1859); and Secretary of the Nebraska Territory (1858-1861). In 1860 Morton won an election to Congress, but lost a challenge to his election in the Republican-controlled House. He also ran four unsuccessful campaigns for governor after Nebraska became a state in 1867.
J. Sterling Morton
In 1893 President Grover Cleveland, with widespread acclaim, appointed Morton as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. In his four years in that position he expanded and improved the Department's programs while turning back to the Treasury over 20% of its appropriated funds.[5]
Before our Thanksgiving dinner at the Lodge, my wife and I went out on its north-facing balcony to see the beautiful valley full of trees and a test plot of hybrid hazelnut bushes. We were surprised to see on the opposite hill a strikingly handsome pillared white house peaking out through the trees as shown in the top photographs (the middle one is courtesy of the Arbor Day Foundation.) We then discovered that this was the 52-room mansion of Mr. Morton that is a reasonable facsimile of the White House in Washington, D.C. as shown in the third photograph.
The mansion is now called the Arbor Lodge in the Arbor Lodge State Historical Park and Arboretum, which we drove by after dinner. Unfortunately the Lodge was not open for visitors that day to see its Victorian and Edwardian furnishings, Tiffany skylight and collection of artifacts of early Nebraska history.
Sterling and Joy Morton had four sons: Joy (1855-1934), Paul (1857-1911), Mark (1858-1951), who was involved in various family businesses, including the Morton Salt company; and Carl (1865-1901), who was a businessman with another family business, the Argo Starch Co., and with the Glucose Sugar Co. Mrs. Morton died in 1881; J. Sterling Morton, in 1902.
Joy Morton[6]
Joy Morton
Sterling and Joy Morton's first son, Joy Morton, was born in Nebraska City in 1855. At age 15 he began to manage the family farm and estate and to work in a local bank. Later he worked for railroads in Nebraska and Illinois before joining a Chicago salt distribution company in 1880. By 1899 he had acquired majority control of the firm and renamed it "Joy Morton & Company," and in 1910 he incorporated it as the subsequently famous Morton Salt Company. He was its president until 1930 when he became its chairman of the board, a position he held until his death in 1934. His brother Mark also was involved in the salt company.
While driving around the town of Nebraska City this Thanksgiving Day I was amused to see these large signs for Morton-family businesses brightly painted on the brick wall of a downtown building: "Morton Salt" and "Morton–Gregson Co." The latter was a hog packing plant that was organized in 1901 and after financial problems was sold in 1917 to Wilson & Company.
Carrying on his parents' interest in trees and gardening, Joy Morton in 1922 established The Morton Arboretum on 178 acres of land adjacent to his estate in Lisle, Illinois, roughly 26 miles west of Chicago, to display woody plants that grow in temperate zones around the world, to educate the public about them and to conduct research on their management and preservation.[7]
After his father's death in 1902, Joy Morton redesigned and enlarged the family mansion in Nebraska City into its current size and used it as his family's summer home until after 1922 when he donated the mansion (now the Arbor Lodge) and surrounding property to the State of Nebraska to be its first state park.
Paul Morton[8]
Paul Morton
Paul Morton was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1857 and grew up in Nebraska City.
After turning 18, he moved to Chicago, where he worked for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad, attaining the position of General Freight Agent. He then was an officer and director of Colorado Fuel and Iron Company before he joined the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway, where he became a Vice President.
Paul, like his father, was a Bourbon (and then a Gold) Democrat, but that Party's nomination of Bryan in 1896, he said later, "left him out." As a result he voted for McKinley that year and in 1900 worked openly for the election of McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt. Indeed, Morton said he "had always been a staunch supporter of Roosevelt."
The close connection between Paul Morton and Roosevelt is shown after the Republican convention had nominated Roosevelt as its vice presidential candidate in June 1900. Roosevelt visited Chicago as a guest of Morton in order for both of them to board the latter's private Santa Fe railroad car to go to Oklahoma with two Republican National Committeemen and three fellow Rough Riders for a reunion of the Rough Riders Regiment as Morton and Roosevelt had done the prior year for another such reunion in Las Vegas. When and how the two of them first became acquainted are intriguing questions I was unable to answer.
In September 1900, as discussed in a prior post, he and two other railroad executives accompanied candidate Roosevelt on his campaign train from Quincy, Illinois to Chicago. The other railroad executives on the train were my maternal great-great-uncle, William Carlos Brown, then General Manager of the Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad; and Theodore P. Shonts, then the President of the Illinois & Iowa Railroad.
I have not been able to discover the substance of the conversations the four of them had on the train, but perhaps they discussed the issue of federal regulation of business, especially railroads. The three railroaders presumably were present at the end of the train ride in Chicago on Labor Day to hear candidate Roosevelt's "The Labor Question" speech, in which he said he had been "thrown into intimate contact with railroad men [and] . . . gradually came to the conclusion that [they] . . . were about the finest citizens there were anywhere around." Teddy must have included these three railroad executives in that illustrious group.
Four years later, Roosevelt, now the President after the 1901 assassination of McKinley, appointed Paul Morton to be Secretary of the Navy. An article about the appointment said that the President and Morton had a "strong friendship," that Morton and his father had voted for McKinley and Roosevelt in 1900 and that Paul "some weeks ago decided to accept the Republican faith."
Though he knew next to nothing about naval affairs, the Senate confirmed Morton's nomination in December 1904.
A problem for Morton emerged early the next year when the Interstate Commerce Commission asked the Justice Department to investigate charges that Morton had acted illegally as an officer of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe when it paid rebates to the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, Morton's prior employer, from 1902 though 1904. Morton subsequently admitted the rebates had been paid even though he had no knowledge of them at the time and even though he had instructed subordinates to not pay any rebates. These charges never resulted in his prosecution, but they did force Morton to resign quietly on June 30, 1905.
In all of this, President Roosevelt supported Morton and had Morton with him on a private railroad car trip early the next month and later that month had Morton for a private over-night visit at Roosevelt's Sagamore Hill home at Oyster Bay, New York.
Indeed, Roosevelt in his 1913 Autobiography refers to this period when he said that with the help of "a first-class railway man, Paul Morton …. I was able to stop the practice of [railroad rebates]. Mr. Morton volunteered to aid the Government in abolishing rebates" by testifying before the ICC that the Santa Fe had granted rebates because all railroads did so. In so doing, he had "shown courage and sense of obligation to the public . . . in order that we might successfully put an end to the practice . . . because of the courage and patriotism he had shown. . . . [Some people] "wished me to prosecute him, although such prosecution would have been a piece of unpardonable ingratitude and treachery on the part of the public toward him. . . . I stood by him; and later he served me as Secretary of the Navy, and a capital Secretary he made too."
In any event, Morton immediately after leaving the Navy became the President of the Equitable Life Assurance Society in New York City, and in 1909, he was appointed as the vice chairman of a commission to reorganize the Navy. Paul Morton died in 1911.
After leaving Nebraska City and doing research for this post, I discovered that this town, current population of nearly 7,300, also is home to the Mayhew Cabin, the only site in the state of the Underground Railroad in the 19th century, and the Missouri River Lewis and Clark Center, which focuses on the natural history achievements of that 1804-1806 expedition. The town sounds worth another visit to see these sights as well as the interior of the Arbor Lodge.
-===============================================================
[1] As a non-Nebraskan, I earnestly solicit comments and corrections. I also give thanks to Amy Stouffer, Marketing Director of the Arbor Day Foundation, for her assistance.
[2] This section is based upon Anderson, Julius Sterling Morton, Forest History Today at 31 (Fall 2000); Wikipedia, Julius Sterling Morton; Will Be in the Cabinet: J. Sterling Morton for Secretary of Agriculture, N. Y. Times (Feb. 18, 1893); Morton A Man of Strength, N. Y. Times (Feb. 19, 1893); John R. Thomas and Congressman Harter Praise Mr. Morton, N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 1893); The Cabinet Selections, N.Y. Times (Feb. 20, 1893); Editorial, Julius Sterling Morton, N.Y. Times (Feb. 20, 1893); Praise for the New Cabinet, N.Y. Times (Feb. 23, 1893); Editorial, Mr. Cleveland's Cabinet, N.Y. Times (Feb. 23, 1893); Mr. Cleveland's Cabinet, N.Y. Times (Feb. 26, 1893); Julius Sterling Morton of Nebraska, N.Y. Times (Mar. 5, 1893); Gold Democrats Banquet, N.Y. Times (Jan. 9, 1897); Elections in Other States, N.Y. Times (Oct. 31, 1897); Palmer Democrats Speak, N.Y. Times (May 13, 1900); Abram S. Hewitt on Bryan, N.Y. Times (July 1, 1900); Bryan's Impeded Veracity, N.Y. Times (Oct. 8, 1900); Anti-Imperialists' July 4 Manifesto, N.Y. Times (July 4, 1901); J. Sterling Morton Dead, N.Y. Times (April 28, 1902). I have not yet read James C. Olson, J. Sterling Morton—Pioneer Statesman and Founder of Arbor Day (1942).
[3] The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 allowed the future white male settlers of the territories determine through popular sovereignty whether each would allow slavery within its borders. The principal supporter of the Act was Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois who saw the Act as a compromise to gain Southern support in order to promote the eventual construction of a transcontinental railroad from Chicago The opponents of the Act saw it as a betrayal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had banned slavery in Kansas. In opposition to the Act, the Republican Party was created to stop the expansion of slavery. In the famous 1858 debates between Senator Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, the latter argued that Douglas was part of a conspiracy to nationalize slavery and that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the first step in that direction. OI course, two years later (1860), Lincoln was the Republicans' successful presidential candidate. In the meantime, after passage of the Act, pro- and anti-slavery adherents flooded into Kansas to vote slavery up or down, leading to a low-intensity civil war that became known as "Bleeding Kansas." In 1860 the Kansas territorial legislature passed, over a governor's veto, a bill banning slavery and in 1861 Kansas entered the Union as a State. In Nebraska the territorial legislature in 1861 passed, over a governor's veto, a similar bill prohibiting slavery although Nebraska limited the vote to "free white males," a provision that delayed Nebraska's becoming a state until 1867 after the elimination of this provision.
[4] I have not read In Memory of Caroline Joy French Morton, Wife of J. Sterling Morton (1882); Margaret V. Ott's biography of Mrs. Morton: Sterling's Carrie: Caroline Ann Joy French, Mrs. J. Sterling Morton, 1833-1881 (1992).
[5] Grover Cleveland and Morton were prominent conservative or Bourbon Democrats, opposing imperialism and U.S. overseas expansion and supporting the gold standard for U.S. currency. Public support for this philosophy was damaged by the Panic of 1893 when Cleveland refused to expand the money supply with silver. This lead to the Party's granting its 1896 presidential nomination to Nebraskan William Jennings Bryan after his "Cross of Gold" speech urging silver as an additional backing for the currency. In response, some of the Bourbon Democrats formed their own unsuccessful political party (National Democratic Party) to advance their policies; but their presidential and vice presidential candidates were badly defeated in the 1896 election. These conservative Democrats often were referred to as the "Gold Democrats" for their support of the gold standard. In 1900 Democrat Morton endorsed Republican William McKinley because Morton detested Bryan's bimetallism and admired Teddy Roosevelt, the Republican vice presidential candidate; Morton deemed these reasons more important than his strong disagreement with McKinley's trade protectionism.
[6] This section is based upon Wikipedia, Joy Morton and Wepman, Joy Morton, American National Biography Online. I have not yet read Ballowe, A Man of Salt and Trees: The Life of Joy Morton (2009).
[7] Now 1,700 acres, the Arboretum's current mission "is to collect and study trees, shrubs, and other plants from around the world, to maintain living collections on display across naturally beautiful landscapes for people to study, enjoy and learn how to grow them in ways that enhance the environment." The town of Lisle, by the way, now calls itself "The Arboretum Village."
[8] This section is based upon Wikipedia, Paul Morton; University of Virginia Miller Center, Paul Morton (1904-1905) Secretary of the Navy; The Governor's [Roosevelt's] Western Trip, N. Y. Times (June 26, 1900); Governor [Roosevelt] Goes West, N. Y. Times (June 30, 1900); Roosevelt in Chicago, N. Y. Times (July 1, 1900); Roosevelt Going West, N. Y. Times (July 2, 1900); Roosevelt Leaves Chicago, N. Y. Times (Sept. 2, 1901); Changes in Cabinet Officially Announced, N. Y. Times (June 25, 1904); Morton Enlisted in Navy, N.Y. Times (June 26, 1904); Mr. Morton's Case, N. Y. Times (June 23, 1905); Morton's Rebate Testimony, N. Y. Times (June 23, 1905); Bryan on Roosevelt, N. Y. Times (June 25, 1905) ; President at Home Again, N. Y. Times (July 7, 1905); Knapp Praises Morton, N.Y. Times (July 9, 1905); Taft To Run the Canal, N.Y. Times (July 23, 1905); Theodore Roosevelt, Autobiography (1913).
Posted on December 8, 2014 November 18, 2017 Categories History, Law, Personal, Politics, UncategorizedTags Abraham Lincoln, Arbor Day, Arbor Day Foundation, Arbor Lodge, Arbor Lodge Historical Park and Arboretum, Argo Starch Co., Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, Bleeding Kansas, Bourbon Democrats, Carl Morton, Caroline Ann Joy French Morton, Chicago Burlington and Quincy Railroad, Colorado Fuel and Iron Company, Equitable Life Assurance Society, Glucose Sugar Co., Gold Democrats, Grover Cleveland, Illinois & Iowa Railway, Joy Morton, Julius Sterling Morton, Kansas Territory, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lied Lodge & Conference Center, Mark Morton, Mayhew Cabin, Missouri Compromise, Missouri River Lewis and Clark Center, Morton Salt Company, Morton-Gregson Co., Nebraska City Nebraska, Nebraska City News, Nebraska Territory, Paul Morton, Preemption Act of 1841, Rough Riders, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of the Navy, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, slavery, The Morton Arboretum, Theodore P. Shonts, Theodore Roosevelt, Underground Railroad, Union College, William Carlos Brown, William Jennings Bryan, William McKinleyLeave a comment on An Enjoyable Thanksgiving Day In Nebraska City, Nebraska


text:
We and our partners use cookies to understand how you use our site, improve your experience and serve you personalized content and advertising. Read about how we use cookies and your choices here. By continuing to use this site, you accept these cookies.
Update Consent
Tech Mobile
Two big reasons why the 2020 iPhone might be worth the wait
Apple's most recent patent filing reveals plans to beef up Touch ID and bring it back to the iPhone in 2020 along with 5G connectivity. Also, the most important updates to Apple's new MacBooks.
Vanessa Hand Orellana
May 27, 2019 2:45 a.m. PT
Vanessa Hand Orellana CNET Senior Editor
As head of wearables at CNET, Vanessa reviews and writes about the latest smartwatches and fitness trackers. She joined the team seven years ago as an on-camera reporter for CNET's Spanish-language site and then moved on to the English side to host and produce some of CNET's videos and YouTube series. When she's not testing out smartwatches or dropping phones, you can catch her on a hike or trail run with her family.
In today's roundup, we're dissecting Apple's latest patent filing, which reveals new details of a revamped Touch ID that could come to the next generation of iPhones. We're also breaking down all the most important changes to the new MacBook Pros, including what the company's doing about the keyboard. And in case that wasn't enough, Apple also sent out WWDC invites this week revealing some potential clues about what it will announce at its next developers' conference.
Video: Apple's latest patent hints at iPhone 12 feature
Apple could bring Touch ID back to the next iPhone
There have been plenty of rumors about an in-screen fingerprint scanner on the next iPhone, dating back to the pre-Face ID days. But Apple's latest patent all but confirms the company's plans to bring back Touch ID in the future. Just maybe not all that soon.
Yes, I also want to receive the CNET Insider newsletter, keeping me up to date with all things CNET.
Thanks for signing up!Personalize my inbox
An error occurred. Please check your email and try again
The latest patent, published in Patently Apple, shows how the company plans to embed pinhole cameras behind the screen of the phone, which would be capable of creating a 3D map of your fingerprint regardless of where you position your finger.
Apple likely wouldn't be replacing Face ID anytime soon, but this new in-screen Touch ID could be used as a supplementary form of biometric identification to make your iPhone even more secure.
What's exciting about this patent is that it shows pictures of a working prototype, meaning Apple is pretty far along in the development process. The bad news is that it likely wouldn't be ready to go into mass production until the 2020 cycle. This is also the year Apple is rumored to be bringing 5G connectivity to the iPhone after reaching a settlement with Qualcomm to use its 5G chips. And 2020 can't come soon enough.
This year's iPhone 11 is rumored to have few major changes, aside from a three-camera array on the back and reverse wireless charging. An in-screen fingerprint scanner might have helped entice users to upgrade with the next iPhone release.
Apple's new MacBook Pros get a power boost
Apple announced its new MacBook Pros this week with important but practically imperceptible upgrades. On the outside they could be easily confused with last year's models, but they're now powered by Intel's ninth-generation Core i7 and Core i9 CPUs, in both six-core and eight-core versions, making them the first MacBooks with an eight-core processor, the most powerful ever.
As for the keyboard on the new machines, they still have the traditional butterfly switch mechanism that has caused so many keyboard issues for Apple in previous models, but this time around it's using a new material Apple says will help solve its sticky key problem.
Apple was vague about details regarding the changes in material, but a few days later, repair site iFixit had already published its own teardown of the machine detailing the changes. According to the report, Apple seems to have swapped out the silicone membrane found underneath each key that helps protect against dust and other "contaminants." iFixit also said that the "metal dome" -- what gets pushed down when you press a key, then pops back up when you release -- also may have been changed, but it is less certain of that switch.
But even with the full teardown, it's hard to know how these subtle changes will affect the performance of these new keyboards and the jury's still out on Apple's latest fix.
Apple MacBook Air for 2018 is new inside and out
Apple's plan to fix its keyboard issue for good
The new material wasn't Apple's only attempt at fixing its keyboard problems. The same day the company launched the new MacBook Pros, it also announced it would be extending its Keyboard service program to replace all MacBooks' faulty keyboards from 2015 onward, and that the repair program would be sped up to get users back up and running faster.
In 2015, Apple switched from the traditional scissor mechanism to a butterfly-switch keyboard. This new solution debuted on the 12-inch Retina Macbook and allowed Apple to build a thinner machine. Soon after, users began to complain about unresponsive or sticky keys and letters or characters that would repeat unexpectedly when typing or would just flat-out refuse to type.
After years of brushing the issue aside, Apple finally acknowledged in June of last year that " a very small percentage of keyboards" were experiencing issues and offered free repairs.
But the fix only covered first-generation and second-generation keyboards, and repairs could take over a week. The news now extends the repair program to all models, including third-generation keyboards as well as the ones in the newest MacBooks. And those who've already paid for repairs can contact Apple for a refund.
Apple sends out official WWDC 2019 invites
We've known the dates of Apple's next developers' conference for a while now: the first week in June, just like every other year. But this week the company sent out the official invitations for its opening keynote, which is set to take place at the McEnery Convention Center in San Jose on June 3 at 10 a.m. PT.
This is where the company usually announces its new software updates for iOS, MacOS, WatchOS and TVOS, and this year will be no exception. But the details of each update are still vague, which is why the invite is important. Apple often likes to hide clues as Easter eggs hinting at what it will announce in the invitation. And if you like teasers, CNET editor Patrick Holland disusses what Apple's WWDC 2019 invite teases about the next iOS and MacOS in this article.
More Apple news from this week
MacBook Pro keyboard: iFixit teardown reveals what Apple changed in latest update
Apple iOS 13: New features, release date and rumor roundup
The current-generation iPad 9.7 drops to $24
USFranceGermanyJapanKorea


Time Magazine just released its annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world. This year the list includes Texas Tech climate scientist and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe.
The Texas Standard's David Brown recently spoke with Hayhoe about science, her faith, and making TIME's list.
Hayhoe says she felt honored to be chosen, and was encouraged that a climate scientist made the list, but felt her faith may have set her apart from other climatologists.
Asked about the perception that climate science might be at odds with evangelical Christianity, Hayhoe argued the dichotomy simply isn't real.


Hotel Stuttgart Winnenden, Germany – Booking.com is high definition wallpaper and size this wallpaper is 1280 x 1280 from booking.com. You can make Hotel Stuttgart Winnenden, Germany – Booking.com For your Desktop picture, Tablet, Android or iPhone and another Smartphone device for free.
We hope you can find what you need here. We always effort to show a picture with HD resolution or at least with perfect images. 80 Cool Parkplatz Märchengarten wir haben budget can be beneficial inspiration for those who seek an image according specific categories; you can find it in this site. Finally all pictures we have been displayed in this site will inspire you all..


transjilly KittanaHot jasmin. MargoTigress. GabyRay. schnuckimaus.
GameWRedheadPrincessXAmazingLianaLisaLoove .AmazingLianaKateBeckerRedheadPrincessXLiviaRomance .CassidyShineSieraBlissCuteAlexa19BelleBlackXX .CassidyShineCAROLINEPAESDollyBrandyChianna .AMPELOS1SAPPYMayasanYourNurseeKarishBrown .GameWBembiaNaughtySharonAdrianhotcum .SieraBlissGameWxIVANKAPERRYxGrandMusclex .a0LilMatthewxIVANKAPERRYxhotpinto4uRubiLizeth .secretOFvictoriaTristanFlipXXXCharlotteLynnredchery .SieraBlissAsianLeonBentleyJayCAROLINEPAES .GabyRayxXCoupleLatinXxBigCock10InchesxLisaLoove .
OhMiFoxDizzyJaneLiviaRomancespecialislepus .AlishaOceannXMikaLinXDanceDangerLiviaRomance .SamanthaDoll19MayasanGameWAsianStarBB .AnthonyHillBentleyJayBelleBlackXXa0LilMatthew .DollyBrandymeryy4uLolaPetitTAISHMARA .TAISHMARACharlotteLynnAlesiaXJayKaren .AsianStarBBMayasanNaughtySharonBentleyJay .CathalinaSHEMALEAsianLeonSUNSHINEUSZalmaBella .SadoLatinCoupleredcheryAlessia9999SheylinW .StarsDimanaxUrSweetestSinx1DustinPowersJeff21xxx .GabyRayKarishBrownBembiaErikaQuinn .