A great piece of DBMS history conveyed through the story of IDMS.
« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
A great piece of DBMS history conveyed through the story of IDMS.
11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Here is a profile of Gary Kildall from the Internet Archive's movie library .
10:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
If a picture speaks a thousand words, I sometimes wonder how many words we attribute to a multimedia clip? Especially one that is now openly accessible to many who don't quite understand the high degree of: "Back To The Future" quotient of most of what we see today.
The Internet Archive initiative is building up an amazing collection of content that includes this "must watch" movie about the somewhat forgotten hypercard development environment.
As I watched the hypercard movie I obtained clear reassurance that my vision of Web 2.0 as critical infrastructure for a future Semantic Web isn't unfounded. The solution building methodology espoused by hypercard is exactly how Semantic Web applications will be built, and this will be done by orchestrating the componentary of Web 2.0.
When watching this clip make the following mental adjustments:
Web 2.0 is a reflection of the web taking its first major step out of the technology stone age (certainly the case relative to the hypercard movie and "pre web" application development in general).
03:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Dare Obasanjo ponders about: SOA, AJAX and REST: The Software Industry Devolves into the Fashion Industry .
I absolutely understand the frustration expressed in Dare's post. An additional comment from my perspective is that this devolution has been in motion for a while and it is an integral part of the Misinformation and Disinformation based marketing strategies of many companies.
Misinformation and Disinformation only work when the target audience is apathetic (unfortunately the sad reality to date!). The bad news for marketing strategies that assume perpetuation of the aforementioned apathy is that the Internet is fundamentally reducing the cost of knowledge acquisition; by implication today's naive customer is tomorrow's knowledgeable decision maker. Vendors have a choice: build valuable products, and then market these products by disseminating knowledge. If a competitor's product is better than yours, get back to the labs (developers are actually stimulated and motivated by constructive challenges; especially as any developer worth his or her salt intrinsically believes they are the best at their craft deep down; and so they should!).
In the imminent future (Internet time) I expect to see the Wikisphere, Blogosphere, and other Web 2.0 (and beyond) realms bring clarity to the futility of Misinformation and Disinformation based marketing and PR (see my post about the Wikipedia induced inflection on Marketing and PR ).
BTW -- Does anyone know what's the difference between an ESB and a Universal Server? Likewise, the difference between a Virtual Database and an EII solution?
10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
A great piece that reminds us of Apple Computer's contributions to desktop computing history.
03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
What You'll Wish You'd Known Paul's advice to high school students.
04:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
It finally dawned on me what OpenSearch does. Basically you tell it about different search engines by showing it how to query something in each, and get back an RSS return. Then when you search for some term, say foo+bar, it performs the search in all the engines you have configured it for. So it's a way to group a bunch of search engines together and command them all to look for the same thing. It is clever. It is something that hasn't been done before, to my knowledge. That's the good news. The bad news is that Amazon is a leading patent abuser. So as good as this idea is, it's bad for all the rest of us, unless they tell us that they're granting us some kind of license to use the idea. [via Scripting News]
05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Over at BB, Cory posts on Mark Pilgrim's hack "Butler" which strips out most Google ads, removes copying restrictions in Google Print, adds alternative search results to nearly every Google service, and generally does things which I can only imagine will keep give big G fits. It is still in geek stage - it requires "Greasemonkey" and Firefox - but man, it sure sounds like fun.
01:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Wikis, Blogs, and Search Engines are collectively fuelling a huge inflection across the interrelated realms of Technology Marketing and PR.
When putting together a post yesterday about "Virtualization", I instinctively looked to Gurunet's "answers.com" service for information on the subject: Enterprise Information Integration (EII). Woe and behold! Here is what I found at the tail end of the answers.com article on this subject:
This article needs cleanup.
This article needs to be edited to conform to a higher standard of article quality. After the article has been cleaned up, you may remove this message. For help, see How to Edit a Page and the style and How-to Directory .
Now, I knew this was Wikipedia content repurposed by "answers.com", and I proceeded to clean up the article. The wikified article took a while to complete, because true to the "Wikipedia" ethos, I had to contribute knowledge as opposed to the original weenie marketing gunk. Its naturally easier to cut and paste marketing fluff for a misguided quick win attempt than it is to embed links, add knowledge, and discern Wiki Markup (but "Wiki" don't play that!).
This little exercise has broader implications for marketing as a whole, especially for the IT sector. The end of days for "Misinformation based Marketing" are nigh! Wikis, Blogs, Search Engines, Web Services, and Social Networking are rapidly destroying the historically prohibitive costs associated with customer pursuit of facts.
I am very confident that product quality will soon overshadow market share as the key determinant for both product selection on the part of customers (this is no longer a pipe dream!). I also have increased hope that IT product development and associated product marketing by technology vendors will veer in the same direction.
02:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Via the always-on network I stumbled across a great article by Pip Coburn that posed the following question: "should Microsoft benefit from the mess it helped create?".
The article discusses most of the key issues, but it should also have included and discussed he following question: "should Microsoft benefit from the mess that we let them create?". By "we" I mean the extensive pool of Microsoft product consumers, developers, and partners etc.
I have worked with Microsoft products (as a developer and user) for more years than I would like to remember; I have personally experienced the journey from Windows 2.0 to Windows XP (and played around with Longhorn).
I added my question to this dialog as without it's resultant perspective, history will simply repeat itself. If IT technology decision makers don't change their product selection and acquisition habits, then why should Microsoft or any other vendor change their ways? Especially when a perpetual promise-under deliver-repromise cycle works absolutely fine. This isn't rocket science, it basic common sense (but we know that common sense ain't that common).
Microsoft like most software companies seek significant portions of their revenue growth from product upgrades. In a sense, it inherently implies that these products will always be millions of miles away from the "silver bullet" promises espoused in the pre product release marketing and PR hype. Sadly, there was a time when Marketing and PR hype used to be about new features; a time when there was a clear line between a new feature and a fundamental product bug.
Buying products from any company simply because they have the largest market share is dumb! All it does is encourage other vendors to focus on product market share rather than product quality, which ultimately results in the following:
Microsoft isn't a unique source of this problem, but hey! They are the largest Software Company (the one with the vital market share), and their software products are on some 80-90% of desktops on this planet, and the planet isn't at its most productive at the current time, and no matter how you look at it, this loss of productivity has something to do with the increased nuisance of desktop computing.
If Microsoft could just focus on its core competence (BTW - I can't quite pint point this anymore since they are in every software market that exists today), it would have at least have an iota of a chance in hell of cleaning up this mess.
12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Recent Comments