You said, "Photoshop and Illustrator are classic examples of what I consider bad user interfaces, because things that should be simple and obvious, aren't". I agree.
I did, by the way, say, "Overall I give photoshop a "5" (out of ten) for their ergonomics...". Yes, I still consider a steep digital graphics curve my responsibility to climb, but I'm not letting Photoshop skate completely.;-)
"Think" is more web centric, but has many tips and insights,
and is an accessible read cover to cover.
"Design" is a bit more pompous, and I don't agree with all
points, but I give it high marks for making you take a different
look at things you'd always taken for granted (Microsoft asked
me a question at my interview from this book, btw).
A few more thoughts: don't confuse usability with user
responsibility. If a task if tediously complex, it's going to be
difficult to design a thin elegant easy-to-use interface. For
example, photoshop can be amazingly obtuse to use, but there's a
reason. Overall I give photoshop a "5" (out of ten) for their
ergonomics, but I give them a "10" for what their application can
do. I consider it partially my responsibility to climb that
learning curve to do real work in digital graphics.
On the other hand, the unusable applications out there are
infinite. My favorite example is Windows Media Player. I
still have to figure out what to do just to play
a CD with WMP. (And what's with the disappearing window?)
(Here's an interesting non-software example of horrible
design: my parents have an RCA TV, not that old, but not HD. It
has Videos 1, 2, 3 input, Cable/Air input, and VCR. There's a
"SETUP" button on the front panel that lets you change the signal
input from Cable/Air to VCR (or something like that), but
the only way you can get Video 1, 2, or 3 is by
tuning the TV channel to 91, 92, or 93
respectively. Until I found the manual and got to page 60 I was
convinced the TV was broken.)
My favorite example of transcendental usability: Google.
(Also, I am opposite as to who I like to write for: I cringe
when writing for other professional software developers, they're
some of the biggest whiners about "what should be". I do however
delight in writing software for clients. If you do it right,
it's a genuine high.)
One time at work, I was working on code when a rumbling
spread across the floor, up and down the building -- people were
losing access to their machines, in our MAJOR CORPORATION! Some
virus had invaded the corporate network, machines were in
infinite recycle loops.
Until the noise was loud enough, I hadn't noticed. I was
working on my code on my linux box. And, it was code compatible
to be used on the same project everyone else was developing on
their Windows boxes. Interesting.
Ultimately, the mono culture in my office got me too because
of my dependency on shared drives running on infected Windows
machines. It took at least one day to get machines half way back
to normal.
I hate Microsoft, but I think Geer's prediction, and point,
are well made without blaming or pointing at Microsoft. I Unix
or Linux monoculture could be susceptible to the same result
(though I think with much more expended effort to achieve the
same catastrophic result).
Anyway, how about a little bit of balance in your outlook?
That's going to be difficult, I don't use outlook.;-)
After seeing all of the replies to my post, I may concede one "negative" and consider it positive: the >1,000,000 rows for Excel. I still don't want it in an IT shop when it really should be a database, but as pointed out by others, often these are outgrowths of something created outside IT purview. Is a spreadsheet ever okay with >million rows? Let the users decide, I agree, the higher limit is better.
I stand by my original post on most other points. I'm not saying features are crap (your words), I'm pointing out Microsoft's tendency to jump back and forth, creating "improvements" which are merely different presentations. I've never been satisfied with user ergonomics in general, but I'm also not convinced (yet) the new Office addresses usability. YMMV.
As for being "the most negative person in computing", you must not be reading a lot of/. posts...;-)
I have worked IT for almost thirty years, I think I've earned the right to the negativity. There are improvements over these last thirty years, but I think the biggest drag on progress over the last twenty years has been Microsoft's focus on world domination (I know, I've sat in on meetings there) and complete (almost) ignorance of real world computing needs.
Here's a laundry list, but I don't think the stains will
come out:
For example, the Home ribbon in Word offers shortcuts
for the clipboard (cut, copy, paste) and font formatting (font
and font size, underlines and superscripts and so on) -- the kind
of everyday tasks most of us use in Word. If you click inside a
table, Word presents a special ribbon with just table options.
When you move away from the table, the ribbon disappears. It's a
good example of providing help right when you need it and staying
out of the way when you don't.
This is an extension of the abstration of the chevron menus...
alter the user's environment based on usage. It doesn't work.
I've used environments like this and it takes getting used to.
You think it was confusing trying to show people how to use
Microsoft products when the pulldown menus changed seemingly
randomly? Wait until their "ribbons" change based on cursor
position.
For instance, the Heading 3 style icon shows a small,
plain (that is, not bold) font. These style buttons work in
tandem with a "what you see is what you get" feature. Select some
text (or an entire document) and hover over the Heading 3 style
icon, and Word immediately applies the Heading 3 style in a
"preview" mode...
Hover mode for tooltips, maybe. But this will confuse users.
I think it's clever, but I don't need clever.
Also:..., The preview mode is also available with other
icons in the ribbon, such as font and font size, but oddly not
for the paragraph-control icons.... So, a potentially
confusing behavior (feature) of the new WORD is inconsistent.
So, for those who recognize and like the style "preview" can be
confused by the styles not given preview stature for their icons.
Excel 2007 now supports over 1 million rows and
over 16,000 columns per worksheet.
WTF? If I've got anyone in IT putting 1,000,000 rows in a
spreadsheet, I'm seriously considering demoting them. If you're
going to have a million rows, get a database.
(From the Slashdot article): And the apps all work
together better than before. From the article: 'The major change
in Beta 2 was the introduction of Office SharePoint Server.' This
means that Sharepoint Server is required, but it also means more
& better collaboration and advanced search abilities are
supported.".
Microsoft trots this out every new release. It's never turned
out to be true, it won't be true this time. Microsoft
does however get the added benefit of requiring
yet another additional piece of software (SharePoint Server)
tying customers more tightly with the Microsoft leash.
NOTE: do not confuse greater interaction
functionality with work together better. This is
an important distinction.
Go read the seven page article. It describes an ugly mess of
a new suite of products. When customers ask for simpler, noone
listens, at least not Microsoft. For example, you want
simplicity? You now must choose from one of
seven bundling options (sounds like the new
Vista): Basic; Home and Student; Standard; Small Business;
Professional; Professional Plus; and
Enterprise.
The listed prices range from $149 (student) to $499
(Professional Plus) with no price listed for the required
SharePoint Server (volume licensing only). Oh, subtract $170 or
so for the upgrade version.
If you or your company considers this, get ready for more
incompatiblities with previous generations, and retro
installation of plugins. That's okay within a company (to some),
but think carefully about the impedance mismatch with the rest of
the world.
At first blush this may seem a happy development, and it
will have been if it contributes to the ulimate demise of any
future Image Constraint Token or consideration thereof
in the future.
I predict one of two things:
the entertainment, as hinted in the article, will get
cold feet an renege on what turns out to be a gentleman's
agreement only, and goes ahead with the ICT anyway.
ICT isn't introduced, and some percentage of the shipped
players and/or TV's will have something forked up because the
manufacturers had incomplete information, and ICT hampers some
percentage of what will be very irritated consumers.
Of course, we'll all be on point and have been handed yet
one more piece of a puzzle to understand (I read
the article, I'm not totally sure it makes sense to me) and be
able to guide friends and family to informed decisions about what
equipment to buy and how to make it work. (To friends and family: "You'll have to make sure the TV and player you buy has HDMI so you'll get to see the pretty pictures. No, wait!, You might not need HDMI afterall. Of course, you'll have to have it by the year 2010.") I'm pretty close to
recommending people who have working equipment to stay with what
they have. (Of course, that recommendation has the pitfall of
putting them in harm's way when suddenly new transmissions and
DVDs they've been persuaded to buy don't work with what they
have.)
The entertainment industry has successfully lobbied to enact laws to satisfy their need to control this technology, and now they're showing they can't even manage that!
Seems like I'm ending most of my posts the same way these
recent days...:
A friend's computer shared by the entire household was
unendingly compromised. We restored XP many times from scratch
but the result was always the same, within a month XP was toes up
again.
We did manage to trace the culprit pretty certainly to one of
the kid's AOL sessions. No emphasis and teaching was enough to
stop a trusting click to wreak trojan horse havoc. (I don't
blame the kid, she was using in good faith and only talked to
friends, and only clicked when she was assured they were "being
good". Unfortunately, in the world of XP running with admin
privelege, this is not enough.)
We finally bought a separate computer with discrete accounts,
and only one had admin access. The kids' accounts were
non-admin. This new machine remains uncompromised, but with a
price.
The non-admin accounts, while unable as expected to install
software, have random and mysterious failures. I've been able to
track some down to exactly what I (and most) feared --
applications which expect to have admin access.
Not one example was legitimate in the sense the failure point was
performing work requiring admin access, it was just presumptive
development by the application. (Interestingly, one of the
applications that works fine in admin access but not in non-admin
access is Windows Media Player 10.)
Unfortunately this turns out to be a common symptom running
non-admin in XP. Lots of applications will work fine. Lots
won't.
The machine remains partitioned as described, but the ultimate
result has been the kids gravitating back to the unprotected
computer for unfettered access. I expect that machine will
continue to need its periodic re-imaging.
These problems in XP aren't rare and are artifacts of an
infrastructure with security tacked on in ugly layers again and
again, all as afterthoughts. I hope Vista proves better at this,
but wonder how many applications will continue as problematic
because of a murky and muddled and shifting security
architecture.
For the record, I'm simply amazed Microsoft has gotten away
with this for so long... it's ample empirical evidence more deals
on shop architectures are being made on the golf course and not
around the white boards.
And, also for the record, Microsoft has the money and power to
fix this once and for all. I'm sure some will defend Microsoft's
incremental work on this, but for too many years my observation
has been Micosoft using their money to buy additional fingers with
which they point at others to blame rather than work to solve
comprehensively the security and system integrity problems.
Bottom line:
I still recommend PC owners create
separate non-admin accounts with only one admin account.
Applications that won't/can't play nice I recommend they
uninstall and ask for their money back. This isn't optimal, but
it keeps the machine healthy longer.
My laptops have failed around key components. And
virtually all of them suffered one or more of:
power adaptor connector failure. I don't know why these are made
the way they are, but there's got to be a better way. Nothing is
more susceptible to failure than a rigid plastic and metal plug
embedded in the connector receptacle. And, no matter how careful
you are someone or something else will come
along and give it a good knock. (One machine I have had this
break twice, and both times the entire
motherboard was replace (under warranty, thank
goodness).)
screens. These need to be more modular and repairable. The
most common problem I've seen is a rogue ribbon connector working
its way loose from constant opening and closing of the laptop,
sometimes even breaking. (Also, for improved resolution, it'd be
nice to see this as a DIY option.)
battery failures
heat and meltdown failures
keyboard failures (this would really be nice to standardize
and modularize! As of now, my solution is, unless I
have to use the laptop keyboard, I hook up a
wireless keyboard -- it turns out to be a great solution, but
kind of invalidates the notion of "laptop".)
Of the above, battery failure is easy... they usually are
modular and easy to replace, though way pricier than necessary
(IMO).
The monitor and adaptor problems are trickier. I think for
there to be a future in upgradeable and modular laptops, these
would have to be improved (snap in video screens, ruggedized
connector ports?).
Laptops are highly specialized and customized marvels of
engineering and required trick engineering just to get all of the
pieces in the box (ever try disassembling one and getting it all
back together?).
As components are increasingly tiny in size, and laptops do
become more modular, they'll have to become less proprietary and
more open architecture -- something I'm not sure manufacturers
are wont to do. (I'm thinking laptop manufacturers are more
interested in branding, and not pushing sale and profit out to
component makers.)
Until laptops as an integrated unit can withstand the everyday
rigors and liver longer, "upgrading" (other than memory and maybe
disk) may be throwing good money after bad.
I agree, it is easy to copy and paste, and with the
proliferation of blogs, on-line stories, etc., realizing and
detecting inversely proportionately becomes harder.
What makes this issue so difficult to address, and so difficult
to write about, is that it's not so much about gray blogs, but
rather, various shades of grey blogs. The difference between
someone simply quoting blogs and someone trying to tweak the
system is not a clear cut matter, but a separation of degrees.
Quoting, even liberal quoting, is expected by blogs. It's a part
of researching a story and covering ongoing stories as well as
sharing information. If done properly, it can not only be used to
create a new work, but also drive valuable traffic to the
original site. In the blogging world, being the source is often a
badge of honor.
Disclaimer: I have no financial or other
motive of profit in recommending this book.
The recommended books are good choices, but the underlying
principles guiding Linux originate from Unix. The first sea
change influential Unix book for me was The
Unix Programming Environment by Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike.
This book is a must read, and a must have. Unix at my office
was a mere curiousity, an available "time share" (not kidding,
that's what people at my office called it) that noone used (we
were mostly a COBOL/mainframe shop).
I tinkered with this new and interesting world and immediately
saw something unique(s). And, Kernighan/Pike lit the fire under
me. By page 50 or so they've described Unix philosophy dead-on
(they should know), and I couldn't start creating in the Unix
environment fast enough.
The first thing I did was create an on-line self updating
corporate documentation system (the old one was paper and
microfiche), and I never looked back.
Add this book to your collection, read it! You won't be
sorry.
I haven't seen any posting about something that I think likely. Microsoft would have to charge exceedingly high Pay As You Go rates to match their current revenue stream.
When you consider that most people barely use their computers, or the power therein. I've been around many home installations where, when confronted with the task of creating a document or spreadsheet from scratch, users are dumbfounded even to find where the program is!
I'd liken it to the what I call "EXCEL" spreadsheet syndrom. There is an amazing power in EXCEL (and WORD, etc.), but virtually noone uses more than 5% of its functionality. While spreadsheets are nice for calculating mortgage payments, it's hardly "computing" anymore.
Same for WORD... people want a new page, they hit ENTER enough times until the cursor moves the next page.
No, people (the vast majority) own computers and use them mainly for chatting, internet surfing, and e-mail. Now if Microsoft intends to charge PAYG for THAT, that becomes insidious. If a user's IE is up and running on the screen upon boot, and the user is fixing breakfast and doing chores for hours before sitting down in front of the machine, is there a charge?
If WMP finishes a song and is just sitting there, silent, is there a charge?
I sometimes just cringe when I envision the conference room meetings where this kind of stuff is dreamed up. I know "making money" is what businesses do, but customer service used to be a main ingredient in that mix. Nowadays it doesn't even appear on the radar.
Music should be simple to enjoy. Music doesn't need
safeguarding the way the industry jealously guards their Jewel
Crowns.
I do "support" outside my everyday professional experience for
family and friends, and describing "how to" is a minefield and
Media Player 11/Urge don't help.
I've not verified what the article says, but the warning is
WMP11 is more than an update, it's an upgrade, i.e., the only way
to recover from it to previous versions is with System Restore.
WTF?
I guess that helps me decide, I'm not going to load it, I'm
going to steer anyone who's interested away from it, and anyone
who has questions about it, I'll turn away.
I won't single out Microsoft for the miserable state of music
and the ability to enjoy today. Everyone seems to be trying
their best to squeeze money from entertainment. I'm not opposed
to paying for entertainment, but I come from an older generation
where:
my vinyl and CDs played on my downstairs turntable and CD
player, and my upstairs equipment.
and played in my car (the CDs)
and at my friends' houses
and could be ripped to computers and played on mp3 players.
were simple (though even ripping got more complicated)
I remember early on with CDs the promise of things to come.
Heck, my first CD player actually had a DIN connector on the back
of it which was referenced in the manual only as "for future
use". I dreamed of liner notes running to the TV, lyrics, lots
of cool stuff. It never happened.
And when did album info become available?
When the public contributed it via the early public CDDB
database. That was a great thing, but was (and still is) fraught
with errors and the fickleness of description by the first
contributor in.
This was the first of many betrayals by the music industry,
and I've not seen any push back that looks promising.
WMP11 is just one more non-contributor to the music-enjoying
demographic. They're all selling themselves as providing an
entertainment "experience". They're all full of
shit.
Once again, fingers pointed at some conduit when the true
culprit still seems to be Microsoft's OS. If I were to click the
link in gaim, on a linux machine (assume for the sake of
argument, this browser is platform independent and would work on
a linux box)?
Probably not, because the typical default access for a linux
user is unpriveleged (I've been working intensively in the linux
environment, and I'll bet I've not been logged in as a priveleged
user (i.e., root) more than two or three times a year during that
span). But, an extremely significant percentage (I'll bet it's
over 80%) of Windows users continue to be logged in with
administrative priveleges -- most without knowing and
understanding what that even means.
Until there's a more consistent and pervasive culture (come on
Microsoft, help out with this... how about a PSA campaing?, you
can afford it) where users have non-administrative logins,
there's little to be done. I still see people on older machines
where they haven't even bothered to configure users for their
older Windows machines... and don't have the slightest concept of
partitioned separate logins for distinct different users.
This isn't entirely IM's fault.
(In the meantime, if you're a serious PC user and you want
some piece of mind, spring for the extra $500 for your own
machine and make it yours and yours only. It's how I've set up
friends who use their computers for business/profession who've
nearly given up on PC technology what with (shared home) machines
popping porn,
running slowly, and going Toes Up on them. Sigh.)
It depends on what your goal is for teaching, but by your words, "I will be teaching an intro to Java and an intro to Python course", using an IDE will mask much of what could be valuable in learning, to the extent students don't even "get" some of the important underlying principles.
I've seen kids of friends who ostensibly have taken "programming" classes, and virtually all of them are IDE based curricula. And every one of these kids lacked the most basic understanding of programming. They could cobble together a simple form, but lacked skills to extend much beyond.
Sometimes it's the school/teacher's fault. I know of one example where a teacher had to teach java, and had never used java before. The kid I know who took the class constantly complained about how stupid the teacher was (he mentioned she had a "Java for Dummies" book for herself). She not only didn't know and understand java, but picked an inferior IDE (I won't start any flame wars by naming it, but it was lesser known, and lacking in features).
Admittedly I'm from old school, I started with a 3Gl (PL/I) as an introduction, and my second course was assembly. Things are obviously different today, but I'm glad I understand technology at the level I was required to learn it. I don't think I'd have insights for solutions today without that background.
Since you're asking for opinions:
If you want students who'll come back later and thank you, try to emphasize the language and its semantics in your curriculum, and sprinkle in a little exposure to IDE late in the course (that indeed will server a useful purpose).
Good luck.
YMMV.
better problem if examples (real) were given
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Is this really a problem? Nathan would lend more weight to
his argument and coined term "CVS Copout" had he given at least
one concrete example. First, Nathan explains this "copout" isn't
really a problem for big and well-supported applications and
projects like Firefox (duh).
So, he cites:
At the complete other end of the
spectrum is a kind of app that we all love to hate, the audio
player. The task of the audio player is so complex that almost
all of them rely on a mountain of I/O and processing libraries to
support the dozens of sound formats, metadata, synchronization
and modification, effects, and management that we all expect.
But that level of complexity just about guarantees that when a
bug hits Rhythmbox and robs it of its ability to play *.m4b files
(to make up an example), the mass market won't see *.m4b playback
in Rhythmbox again for six or more months.
So his "example" of this problem is by his own admission, made
up. It would be nice to hear of a real life example when airing
grievances to an international audience.
Finally, Nathan proposes it better to make available for alpha
and beta testing the development branches of CVS projects. I
thought in many cases that was already true. Regardless, that
idea would provide relief to a tiny fraction of the population,
still there isn't anything (IMO) wrong with the idea.
As for his made up example, he submits that if perhaps there
were a bug that stopped Rhythmbox from playing mp4 files it could
be four to 6 months before the pipeline provided relief. I doubt
it. For mainstream and widely adopted and popular formats I see
fixes turn around in a couple days... e.g., when gaim suddenly
lost contact with Yahoo chat protocols, a new release was
available the NEXT DAY.
Giving a problem a name and identifying it is the first step
to solving it. Is this one?
If you've been reading the recent slashdot articles, and seen the decisive actions governments are considering, it's only a matter of time before these terrorists are reined in. All they need to do is quickly enact legislation that, among other things:
requires all throwaway cellphones to be registered with the government
outlaw anonymous e-mail accounts
(and, from recent article) require all terrorists to register and provide any and all encryption keys
(and, also from recent article) prohibit terrorists from using and having access to any network tools.
Just as these tools are useful diagnostic tools they are
also handy tools for commiting crimes as described under this
proposed law. That's the nature of networks and tools to manage
them. To deem these tools and availability of such a crime
because they could be used to commit a crime is insane.
This is akin to the recent proposal that all encryption key
owners make their keys available to law enforcement. The
expected eventual end result will be cautious users relinquishing
valuable resources with criminals holding the trump card. This
too is insane.
So, when an administrator gets the call to investigate what
appears to be suspicious behavior, where do they go to
troubleshoot the problem? Heck, peel away all the layers of this
onion and it wouldn't be surprising to find hackers are behind
this... get the government to suspend priveleges using FUD, and
run rampant over the network infrastructure.
There is a hint of sanity from the article:
People who distribute networking vulnerability scanning tools
such as nmap or Nessus could also be caught up in part (b),
Clayton warned.
"The effect will be that people will stop offering these tools on
their sites. Why should the only place to fetch Perl and nmap be
from hacker sites in Eastern Europe, where the risk is that they
carry Trojans? This makes the Internet less safe," argued
Clayton.
I only hope the government will listen to that reasoning.
A recent slashdot story asked the question, "Is the
internet that fragile?" When I see stories like this, it reminds
me and should remind everyone of the other
fragile technology(ies), Microsoft and their baggage.
Consider that many on-line applications for jobs require cover
letters and resumes as WORD attachments. Now, consider the
temporary suggested workaround:
As a temporary
mitigation method, Symantec is recommending that Microsoft Word
document e-mail attachments be blocked at the network perimeter.
"Furthermore, extreme caution should be exercised while
processing Microsoft Word attachments received as an unexpected
e-mail Attachment," company officials said.
This is disruptive and lose-lose, either organizations heed
the advice, and now for as long as it takes to fix Microsoft's
problem applicants will have their documents blocked, or some of
these hackers profuse their new hack and compromise
organization's infrastructure.
Microsoft has made our bed, and now we all must sleep in it
(ick). It's unacceptable that such an exploit could so easily
take control and wreak damage. Why can a simple e-mail get in
and twiddle with what should be administration-priveleged system
resources? I know the recommendation is everyone accessing their
XP as non-administration users, but how do you enforce that,
especially when for so long so many of the out-of-the-box
configurations make administration rights the default login?
I must say I admire Microsoft's savvy more each day in their
EULA -- crafted to absolve Microsoft of any responsibility for
bad things happening to users because of Microsoft's software.
It must be reassuring to offer a product and not have to assume
responsibility. What a unique privelege
Of course, a good outcome from this would be to reconsider the
global transport of exchanging documentation (e.g., resumes and
cover letters, etc.) to something a little less Micrsoft, a
little more open, and a little less prone to exploits. That
can't happen soon enough.
I've done many dual boot laptops, but the last laptop I bought I wasn't in the mood for jumping through all of the hoops (especially wireless drivers).
On a whim I downloaded the vmware virtual machine software, and in less than an hour had a fully functional full color, wireless working, all peripherals working, full Xserver resolution laptop. It was WONDERFUL. And worth every penny!
What started out as an experiment for another way yielded other unexpected benefits. Suddenly I could run a fully loaded linux in the vmware server, and communicate with it from XP! Suddenly what used to require two machines I was able to do on the one.
Some of the configuration required some good indepth linux knowledge and a few google visits. If you can tweak, it's worth the investment.
Good luck. (And feel free to send e-mail if you have specific questions, I'll gladly fill you in on some of the tweaks)
Semantec and its technology is annoying. Microsoft and its
technology is annoying. Both have insidious business tactics
(lifetime subscription, or die?).
I have a hard time picking which of these two companies is
telling the truth here. Okay, it's slashdot, I'll align
(reluctantly) with Semantec. A paragraph from an article:
"These claims are unfounded because Microsoft
actually purchased intellectual property rights for all
elevant technologies from Veritas in 2004," the company said.
The courts will have to arbitrate, but I wonder that Microsoft
went into that contract under a huge smoke screen, all smarmy and
friendly -- Semantec probably thought they were getting a
backstage pass, a partnership to be the virus,
etc., technology provider with Microsoft for the long anticipated
Vista.
Vista: (from definition 2., Merriam Webster): an extensive
mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)
Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare
with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you
look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of
Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would
enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what
it was called?, etc.).
If I were a technology company, I'd only take one of two
paths: I'd either formulate a strategy such that when my
products are mature and interesting enough to Microsoft, I'd sell
the technology and company outright (hello Visio), or I'd
absolutely refuse to work with them at all. Anything in between
seems to be a kiss of betrayal.
Of course a company always has to consider the heavy price
that might be paid by not cooperating at all with Microsoft.
Remember Netscape? And Microsoft has demonstrated the price to
pay for that kind of bullying ("Janet Reno can go to
Hell.") is one they're willing to absorb.
Well, a rambling post, but no solution to the Microsoft
juggernaut. Hang in there Google!
There have been other outages, major, which have had
significant impact. It's a good question: is the internet that
fragile?
In many ways it probably is. At the same time, the
infrastructure seems resilient enough. The world so far hasn't
laced up life-and-death critical systems to the internet such
that a failure could cause loss of life. Well, that is, if you
don't include:
What mechanisms exist for more than resiliency, i.e.,
instant self-healing? Could terrorists with a little knowledge
and a few well-placed EMP generators disable major segments of
the internet?
Unlike phones and the phone networks which were built with
lots of oversight and regulation (Universal Service was a big
driver for this (aside: now that everything is profit driven,
don't expect phone service at that farm house at the end of that
long country road anymore... noone HAS to provide it)), I'm not
aware of what safeguards back up the
internet. In my entire lifetime, I've not one time experienced a
phone outage, not once! Power outages, etc., the phone companies
have backups to backups to ensure service (though there is the
occasional and hard to manage for ditch digging incident).
While large pieces of the internet are built upon the phone
companies' infrastructure, other pieces aren't, and there are
significant additional layers of complexity not in the phone
companies' purview (switches, routers, coax cable from cable
companies).
That question, "is the internet that fragile?", is probably
the biggest reason I've never opted to switch my phone service to
VOIP yet. I'd hate to be the one (tiny chance, I know) who needs
to make that one 911 call and not be able to do so because the
internet is unavailable (which happens occasionally here, which
is also too often).
Encryption keys don't kill people, people kill people.
If owning (not divulging) encryption keys is criminalized,
only criminals will own encryption keys.
These "rules" will only push the envelope of how and what
criminals (or terrorists, etc.) use to hide their activities.
And at the same time, they will add one more burden to the
general population to manage and ensure the government is
informed of their encryption infrastructure. Nuts.
The most effective infiltration into terrorist infrastructure
is still social engineering. I'd rather the money spent creating
and managing something like this spent training and hiring
translators, covert agents, etc.
A convincing point about the futility of this proposed rule
comes from the article:
Clayton, on the other hand, argues that terrorist cells
do not use master keys in the same way as governments and businesses.
"Terrorist cells use master keys on a one-to-one basis, rather
than using them to generate pass keys for a series of
communications. With a one-to-one key, you may as well just
force the terrorist suspect to decrypt that communication, or
use other methods of decryption," said Clayton.
I am one of the broadband-connected Tivo owners and
counter to Tivo's Kent's thesis, I don't prefer
to watch the long ads Tivo stocks. I long ago abandoned those as
mostly uninteresting and targetless (i.e., of ten video ads,
rarely would even one be close to interesting for me).
An interesting note in the article: TiVo owners tend to
fast forward about 70% of the ads when viewing pre-recorded
content. That's about right in my experience, but why?
I use the 30 second skip, and it helps get past the real
annoyances in a show, which is usually the commercials. But I've
found that there are some well done commercials and those are the
30% that I watch. If they're not insultingly stupid, and are
cleverly written (not hard to do -- spring for the writers), I
watch. Some I watch every time I see them
(Caveman FedEx commercial anybody?).
I think Tivo and others may be missing something here, people
watching TV do appreciate a "breather" every once in a while, and
if the commercial breaks are filled with quality pseudo
entertainment, people will watch it. And
vendors will get market share.
If Tivo and others really wanted to get ahead of the curve I'd
suggest targeted commercial breaks, i.e., instead of the broad
spectrum network advertising during commercial breaks, overlay
them with targeted and well-crafted shorts designed to catch the
eye of that tivo's owner tastes. I think this is easily done,
and would bet the 70% "skip" factor for commercial breaks would
drop significantly. I don't mind targeted advertising, it can
still be annoying but it's more likely to show me something I can
use and would be interested in buying.
On the other hand, the notion of interactivity in the TV
landscape so far has consistently been beat down as intrusive and
annoying to TV viewers. I have seen all of the extra features
Tivo has added (mostly third party) in the last couple of years,
and they're mostly fluff, add little value, and some of the
harder sell "features" are downright annoying. I'd be interested
to see the usage metrics for these new "interactive"
improvements.
I still think when people settle in to watch TV, they're there
to watch, not participate.
I haven't heard anyone comment about what I think is a great feature in this toolkit:
Browser history management:
No, AJAX applications don't need to break the browser's back button. GWT lets you make your site more usable by easily adding state to the browser's back button history.
I know this is something you can hack together if you're writing your own hand-crafted js, but this will be a nice feature -- I haven't looked at the toolkit yet, but I wonder how easy to use this will be.
Have any of the other frameworks provided this mechanism?
Slashdot Mirror
You said, "Photoshop and Illustrator are classic examples of what I consider bad user interfaces, because things that should be simple and obvious, aren't". I agree.
I did, by the way, say, "Overall I give photoshop a "5" (out of ten) for their ergonomics...". Yes, I still consider a steep digital graphics curve my responsibility to climb, but I'm not letting Photoshop skate completely. ;-)
"Think" is more web centric, but has many tips and insights, and is an accessible read cover to cover.
"Design" is a bit more pompous, and I don't agree with all points, but I give it high marks for making you take a different look at things you'd always taken for granted (Microsoft asked me a question at my interview from this book, btw).
A few more thoughts: don't confuse usability with user responsibility. If a task if tediously complex, it's going to be difficult to design a thin elegant easy-to-use interface. For example, photoshop can be amazingly obtuse to use, but there's a reason. Overall I give photoshop a "5" (out of ten) for their ergonomics, but I give them a "10" for what their application can do. I consider it partially my responsibility to climb that learning curve to do real work in digital graphics.
On the other hand, the unusable applications out there are infinite. My favorite example is Windows Media Player. I still have to figure out what to do just to play a CD with WMP. (And what's with the disappearing window?)
(Here's an interesting non-software example of horrible design: my parents have an RCA TV, not that old, but not HD. It has Videos 1, 2, 3 input, Cable/Air input, and VCR. There's a "SETUP" button on the front panel that lets you change the signal input from Cable/Air to VCR (or something like that), but the only way you can get Video 1, 2, or 3 is by tuning the TV channel to 91, 92, or 93 respectively. Until I found the manual and got to page 60 I was convinced the TV was broken.)
My favorite example of transcendental usability: Google.
(Some runners up: Picasa; Amazon.com (one-click), wish list, etc.)
(Also, I am opposite as to who I like to write for: I cringe when writing for other professional software developers, they're some of the biggest whiners about "what should be". I do however delight in writing software for clients. If you do it right, it's a genuine high.)
One time at work, I was working on code when a rumbling spread across the floor, up and down the building -- people were losing access to their machines, in our MAJOR CORPORATION! Some virus had invaded the corporate network, machines were in infinite recycle loops.
Until the noise was loud enough, I hadn't noticed. I was working on my code on my linux box. And, it was code compatible to be used on the same project everyone else was developing on their Windows boxes. Interesting.
Ultimately, the mono culture in my office got me too because of my dependency on shared drives running on infected Windows machines. It took at least one day to get machines half way back to normal.
I hate Microsoft, but I think Geer's prediction, and point, are well made without blaming or pointing at Microsoft. I Unix or Linux monoculture could be susceptible to the same result (though I think with much more expended effort to achieve the same catastrophic result).
That's going to be difficult, I don't use outlook. ;-)
After seeing all of the replies to my post, I may concede one "negative" and consider it positive: the >1,000,000 rows for Excel. I still don't want it in an IT shop when it really should be a database, but as pointed out by others, often these are outgrowths of something created outside IT purview. Is a spreadsheet ever okay with >million rows? Let the users decide, I agree, the higher limit is better.
I stand by my original post on most other points. I'm not saying features are crap (your words), I'm pointing out Microsoft's tendency to jump back and forth, creating "improvements" which are merely different presentations. I've never been satisfied with user ergonomics in general, but I'm also not convinced (yet) the new Office addresses usability. YMMV.
As for being "the most negative person in computing", you must not be reading a lot of /. posts... ;-)
I have worked IT for almost thirty years, I think I've earned the right to the negativity. There are improvements over these last thirty years, but I think the biggest drag on progress over the last twenty years has been Microsoft's focus on world domination (I know, I've sat in on meetings there) and complete (almost) ignorance of real world computing needs.
Cheers.
Here's a laundry list, but I don't think the stains will come out:
This is an extension of the abstration of the chevron menus... alter the user's environment based on usage. It doesn't work. I've used environments like this and it takes getting used to. You think it was confusing trying to show people how to use Microsoft products when the pulldown menus changed seemingly randomly? Wait until their "ribbons" change based on cursor position.
Hover mode for tooltips, maybe. But this will confuse users. I think it's clever, but I don't need clever. Also: ..., The preview mode is also available with other
icons in the ribbon, such as font and font size, but oddly not
for the paragraph-control icons.... So, a potentially
confusing behavior (feature) of the new WORD is inconsistent.
So, for those who recognize and like the style "preview" can be
confused by the styles not given preview stature for their icons.
WTF? If I've got anyone in IT putting 1,000,000 rows in a spreadsheet, I'm seriously considering demoting them. If you're going to have a million rows, get a database.
Microsoft trots this out every new release. It's never turned out to be true, it won't be true this time. Microsoft does however get the added benefit of requiring yet another additional piece of software (SharePoint Server) tying customers more tightly with the Microsoft leash.
NOTE: do not confuse greater interaction functionality with work together better. This is an important distinction.
Go read the seven page article. It describes an ugly mess of a new suite of products. When customers ask for simpler, noone listens, at least not Microsoft. For example, you want simplicity? You now must choose from one of seven bundling options (sounds like the new Vista): Basic; Home and Student; Standard; Small Business; Professional; Professional Plus; and Enterprise.
The listed prices range from $149 (student) to $499 (Professional Plus) with no price listed for the required SharePoint Server (volume licensing only). Oh, subtract $170 or so for the upgrade version.
If you or your company considers this, get ready for more incompatiblities with previous generations, and retro installation of plugins. That's okay within a company (to some), but think carefully about the impedance mismatch with the rest of the world.
At first blush this may seem a happy development, and it will have been if it contributes to the ulimate demise of any future Image Constraint Token or consideration thereof in the future.
I predict one of two things:
Of course, we'll all be on point and have been handed yet one more piece of a puzzle to understand (I read the article, I'm not totally sure it makes sense to me) and be able to guide friends and family to informed decisions about what equipment to buy and how to make it work. (To friends and family: "You'll have to make sure the TV and player you buy has HDMI so you'll get to see the pretty pictures. No, wait!, You might not need HDMI afterall. Of course, you'll have to have it by the year 2010.") I'm pretty close to recommending people who have working equipment to stay with what they have. (Of course, that recommendation has the pitfall of putting them in harm's way when suddenly new transmissions and DVDs they've been persuaded to buy don't work with what they have.)
The entertainment industry has successfully lobbied to enact laws to satisfy their need to control this technology, and now they're showing they can't even manage that!
Seems like I'm ending most of my posts the same way these recent days...:
Sigh.
A friend's computer shared by the entire household was unendingly compromised. We restored XP many times from scratch but the result was always the same, within a month XP was toes up again.
We did manage to trace the culprit pretty certainly to one of the kid's AOL sessions. No emphasis and teaching was enough to stop a trusting click to wreak trojan horse havoc. (I don't blame the kid, she was using in good faith and only talked to friends, and only clicked when she was assured they were "being good". Unfortunately, in the world of XP running with admin privelege, this is not enough.)
We finally bought a separate computer with discrete accounts, and only one had admin access. The kids' accounts were non-admin. This new machine remains uncompromised, but with a price.
The non-admin accounts, while unable as expected to install software, have random and mysterious failures. I've been able to track some down to exactly what I (and most) feared -- applications which expect to have admin access. Not one example was legitimate in the sense the failure point was performing work requiring admin access, it was just presumptive development by the application. (Interestingly, one of the applications that works fine in admin access but not in non-admin access is Windows Media Player 10.)
Unfortunately this turns out to be a common symptom running non-admin in XP. Lots of applications will work fine. Lots won't.
The machine remains partitioned as described, but the ultimate result has been the kids gravitating back to the unprotected computer for unfettered access. I expect that machine will continue to need its periodic re-imaging.
These problems in XP aren't rare and are artifacts of an infrastructure with security tacked on in ugly layers again and again, all as afterthoughts. I hope Vista proves better at this, but wonder how many applications will continue as problematic because of a murky and muddled and shifting security architecture.
For the record, I'm simply amazed Microsoft has gotten away with this for so long... it's ample empirical evidence more deals on shop architectures are being made on the golf course and not around the white boards.
And, also for the record, Microsoft has the money and power to fix this once and for all. I'm sure some will defend Microsoft's incremental work on this, but for too many years my observation has been Micosoft using their money to buy additional fingers with which they point at others to blame rather than work to solve comprehensively the security and system integrity problems.
- Bottom line:
I still recommend PC owners create separate non-admin accounts with only one admin account. Applications that won't/can't play nice I recommend they uninstall and ask for their money back. This isn't optimal, but it keeps the machine healthy longer.Sigh.
My laptops have failed around key components. And virtually all of them suffered one or more of:
Of the above, battery failure is easy... they usually are modular and easy to replace, though way pricier than necessary (IMO).
The monitor and adaptor problems are trickier. I think for there to be a future in upgradeable and modular laptops, these would have to be improved (snap in video screens, ruggedized connector ports?).
Laptops are highly specialized and customized marvels of engineering and required trick engineering just to get all of the pieces in the box (ever try disassembling one and getting it all back together?).
As components are increasingly tiny in size, and laptops do become more modular, they'll have to become less proprietary and more open architecture -- something I'm not sure manufacturers are wont to do. (I'm thinking laptop manufacturers are more interested in branding, and not pushing sale and profit out to component makers.)
Until laptops as an integrated unit can withstand the everyday rigors and liver longer, "upgrading" (other than memory and maybe disk) may be throwing good money after bad.
I agree, it is easy to copy and paste, and with the proliferation of blogs, on-line stories, etc., realizing and detecting inversely proportionately becomes harder.
What makes this issue so difficult to address, and so difficult to write about, is that it's not so much about gray blogs, but rather, various shades of grey blogs. The difference between someone simply quoting blogs and someone trying to tweak the system is not a clear cut matter, but a separation of degrees.
Quoting, even liberal quoting, is expected by blogs. It's a part of researching a story and covering ongoing stories as well as sharing information. If done properly, it can not only be used to create a new work, but also drive valuable traffic to the original site. In the blogging world, being the source is often a badge of honor.
Disclaimer: I have no financial or other motive of profit in recommending this book.
The recommended books are good choices, but the underlying principles guiding Linux originate from Unix. The first sea change influential Unix book for me was The Unix Programming Environment by Brian Kernighan and Rob Pike.
This book is a must read, and a must have. Unix at my office was a mere curiousity, an available "time share" (not kidding, that's what people at my office called it) that noone used (we were mostly a COBOL/mainframe shop).
I tinkered with this new and interesting world and immediately saw something unique(s). And, Kernighan/Pike lit the fire under me. By page 50 or so they've described Unix philosophy dead-on (they should know), and I couldn't start creating in the Unix environment fast enough.
The first thing I did was create an on-line self updating corporate documentation system (the old one was paper and microfiche), and I never looked back.
Add this book to your collection, read it! You won't be sorry.
I haven't seen any posting about something that I think likely. Microsoft would have to charge exceedingly high Pay As You Go rates to match their current revenue stream.
When you consider that most people barely use their computers, or the power therein. I've been around many home installations where, when confronted with the task of creating a document or spreadsheet from scratch, users are dumbfounded even to find where the program is!
I'd liken it to the what I call "EXCEL" spreadsheet syndrom. There is an amazing power in EXCEL (and WORD, etc.), but virtually noone uses more than 5% of its functionality. While spreadsheets are nice for calculating mortgage payments, it's hardly "computing" anymore.
Same for WORD... people want a new page, they hit ENTER enough times until the cursor moves the next page.
No, people (the vast majority) own computers and use them mainly for chatting, internet surfing, and e-mail. Now if Microsoft intends to charge PAYG for THAT, that becomes insidious. If a user's IE is up and running on the screen upon boot, and the user is fixing breakfast and doing chores for hours before sitting down in front of the machine, is there a charge?
If WMP finishes a song and is just sitting there, silent, is there a charge?
I sometimes just cringe when I envision the conference room meetings where this kind of stuff is dreamed up. I know "making money" is what businesses do, but customer service used to be a main ingredient in that mix. Nowadays it doesn't even appear on the radar.
I'm thinking of changing my sig to sigh.
Music should be simple to enjoy. Music doesn't need safeguarding the way the industry jealously guards their Jewel Crowns.
I do "support" outside my everyday professional experience for family and friends, and describing "how to" is a minefield and Media Player 11/Urge don't help.
I've not verified what the article says, but the warning is WMP11 is more than an update, it's an upgrade, i.e., the only way to recover from it to previous versions is with System Restore. WTF?
I guess that helps me decide, I'm not going to load it, I'm going to steer anyone who's interested away from it, and anyone who has questions about it, I'll turn away.
I won't single out Microsoft for the miserable state of music and the ability to enjoy today. Everyone seems to be trying their best to squeeze money from entertainment. I'm not opposed to paying for entertainment, but I come from an older generation where:
I remember early on with CDs the promise of things to come. Heck, my first CD player actually had a DIN connector on the back of it which was referenced in the manual only as "for future use". I dreamed of liner notes running to the TV, lyrics, lots of cool stuff. It never happened.
And when did album info become available? When the public contributed it via the early public CDDB database. That was a great thing, but was (and still is) fraught with errors and the fickleness of description by the first contributor in.
This was the first of many betrayals by the music industry, and I've not seen any push back that looks promising.
WMP11 is just one more non-contributor to the music-enjoying demographic. They're all selling themselves as providing an entertainment "experience". They're all full of shit.
Once again, fingers pointed at some conduit when the true culprit still seems to be Microsoft's OS. If I were to click the link in gaim, on a linux machine (assume for the sake of argument, this browser is platform independent and would work on a linux box)?
Probably not, because the typical default access for a linux user is unpriveleged (I've been working intensively in the linux environment, and I'll bet I've not been logged in as a priveleged user (i.e., root) more than two or three times a year during that span). But, an extremely significant percentage (I'll bet it's over 80%) of Windows users continue to be logged in with administrative priveleges -- most without knowing and understanding what that even means.
Until there's a more consistent and pervasive culture (come on Microsoft, help out with this... how about a PSA campaing?, you can afford it) where users have non-administrative logins, there's little to be done. I still see people on older machines where they haven't even bothered to configure users for their older Windows machines... and don't have the slightest concept of partitioned separate logins for distinct different users.
This isn't entirely IM's fault.
(In the meantime, if you're a serious PC user and you want some piece of mind, spring for the extra $500 for your own machine and make it yours and yours only. It's how I've set up friends who use their computers for business/profession who've nearly given up on PC technology what with (shared home) machines popping porn, running slowly, and going Toes Up on them. Sigh.)
It depends on what your goal is for teaching, but by your words, "I will be teaching an intro to Java and an intro to Python course", using an IDE will mask much of what could be valuable in learning, to the extent students don't even "get" some of the important underlying principles.
I've seen kids of friends who ostensibly have taken "programming" classes, and virtually all of them are IDE based curricula. And every one of these kids lacked the most basic understanding of programming. They could cobble together a simple form, but lacked skills to extend much beyond.
Sometimes it's the school/teacher's fault. I know of one example where a teacher had to teach java, and had never used java before. The kid I know who took the class constantly complained about how stupid the teacher was (he mentioned she had a "Java for Dummies" book for herself). She not only didn't know and understand java, but picked an inferior IDE (I won't start any flame wars by naming it, but it was lesser known, and lacking in features).
Admittedly I'm from old school, I started with a 3Gl (PL/I) as an introduction, and my second course was assembly. Things are obviously different today, but I'm glad I understand technology at the level I was required to learn it. I don't think I'd have insights for solutions today without that background.
Since you're asking for opinions: If you want students who'll come back later and thank you, try to emphasize the language and its semantics in your curriculum, and sprinkle in a little exposure to IDE late in the course (that indeed will server a useful purpose).
Good luck.
YMMV.
Is this really a problem? Nathan would lend more weight to his argument and coined term "CVS Copout" had he given at least one concrete example. First, Nathan explains this "copout" isn't really a problem for big and well-supported applications and projects like Firefox (duh).
So, he cites:
So his "example" of this problem is by his own admission, made up. It would be nice to hear of a real life example when airing grievances to an international audience.
Finally, Nathan proposes it better to make available for alpha and beta testing the development branches of CVS projects. I thought in many cases that was already true. Regardless, that idea would provide relief to a tiny fraction of the population, still there isn't anything (IMO) wrong with the idea.
As for his made up example, he submits that if perhaps there were a bug that stopped Rhythmbox from playing mp4 files it could be four to 6 months before the pipeline provided relief. I doubt it. For mainstream and widely adopted and popular formats I see fixes turn around in a couple days... e.g., when gaim suddenly lost contact with Yahoo chat protocols, a new release was available the NEXT DAY.
Giving a problem a name and identifying it is the first step to solving it. Is this one?
If you've been reading the recent slashdot articles, and seen the decisive actions governments are considering, it's only a matter of time before these terrorists are reined in. All they need to do is quickly enact legislation that, among other things:
Sheeesh, how simple can this be?
Just as these tools are useful diagnostic tools they are also handy tools for commiting crimes as described under this proposed law. That's the nature of networks and tools to manage them. To deem these tools and availability of such a crime because they could be used to commit a crime is insane.
This is akin to the recent proposal that all encryption key owners make their keys available to law enforcement. The expected eventual end result will be cautious users relinquishing valuable resources with criminals holding the trump card. This too is insane.
So, when an administrator gets the call to investigate what appears to be suspicious behavior, where do they go to troubleshoot the problem? Heck, peel away all the layers of this onion and it wouldn't be surprising to find hackers are behind this... get the government to suspend priveleges using FUD, and run rampant over the network infrastructure.
There is a hint of sanity from the article:
I only hope the government will listen to that reasoning.
A recent slashdot story asked the question, "Is the internet that fragile?" When I see stories like this, it reminds me and should remind everyone of the other fragile technology(ies), Microsoft and their baggage.
Consider that many on-line applications for jobs require cover letters and resumes as WORD attachments. Now, consider the temporary suggested workaround:
This is disruptive and lose-lose, either organizations heed the advice, and now for as long as it takes to fix Microsoft's problem applicants will have their documents blocked, or some of these hackers profuse their new hack and compromise organization's infrastructure.
Microsoft has made our bed, and now we all must sleep in it (ick). It's unacceptable that such an exploit could so easily take control and wreak damage. Why can a simple e-mail get in and twiddle with what should be administration-priveleged system resources? I know the recommendation is everyone accessing their XP as non-administration users, but how do you enforce that, especially when for so long so many of the out-of-the-box configurations make administration rights the default login?
I must say I admire Microsoft's savvy more each day in their EULA -- crafted to absolve Microsoft of any responsibility for bad things happening to users because of Microsoft's software. It must be reassuring to offer a product and not have to assume responsibility. What a unique privelege
Of course, a good outcome from this would be to reconsider the global transport of exchanging documentation (e.g., resumes and cover letters, etc.) to something a little less Micrsoft, a little more open, and a little less prone to exploits. That can't happen soon enough.
I've done many dual boot laptops, but the last laptop I bought I wasn't in the mood for jumping through all of the hoops (especially wireless drivers).
On a whim I downloaded the vmware virtual machine software, and in less than an hour had a fully functional full color, wireless working, all peripherals working, full Xserver resolution laptop. It was WONDERFUL. And worth every penny!
What started out as an experiment for another way yielded other unexpected benefits. Suddenly I could run a fully loaded linux in the vmware server, and communicate with it from XP! Suddenly what used to require two machines I was able to do on the one.
Some of the configuration required some good indepth linux knowledge and a few google visits. If you can tweak, it's worth the investment.
Good luck. (And feel free to send e-mail if you have specific questions, I'll gladly fill you in on some of the tweaks)
Semantec and its technology is annoying. Microsoft and its technology is annoying. Both have insidious business tactics (lifetime subscription, or die?).
I have a hard time picking which of these two companies is telling the truth here. Okay, it's slashdot, I'll align (reluctantly) with Semantec. A paragraph from an article:
The courts will have to arbitrate, but I wonder that Microsoft went into that contract under a huge smoke screen, all smarmy and friendly -- Semantec probably thought they were getting a backstage pass, a partnership to be the virus, etc., technology provider with Microsoft for the long anticipated Vista.
Vista: (from definition 2., Merriam Webster): an extensive mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)
Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what it was called?, etc.).
If I were a technology company, I'd only take one of two paths: I'd either formulate a strategy such that when my products are mature and interesting enough to Microsoft, I'd sell the technology and company outright (hello Visio), or I'd absolutely refuse to work with them at all. Anything in between seems to be a kiss of betrayal.
Of course a company always has to consider the heavy price that might be paid by not cooperating at all with Microsoft. Remember Netscape? And Microsoft has demonstrated the price to pay for that kind of bullying ("Janet Reno can go to Hell.") is one they're willing to absorb.
Well, a rambling post, but no solution to the Microsoft juggernaut. Hang in there Google!
There have been other outages, major, which have had significant impact. It's a good question: is the internet that fragile?
In many ways it probably is. At the same time, the infrastructure seems resilient enough. The world so far hasn't laced up life-and-death critical systems to the internet such that a failure could cause loss of life. Well, that is, if you don't include:
Oh, wait, I guess people have started doing that.
What mechanisms exist for more than resiliency, i.e., instant self-healing? Could terrorists with a little knowledge and a few well-placed EMP generators disable major segments of the internet?
Unlike phones and the phone networks which were built with lots of oversight and regulation (Universal Service was a big driver for this (aside: now that everything is profit driven, don't expect phone service at that farm house at the end of that long country road anymore... noone HAS to provide it)), I'm not aware of what safeguards back up the internet. In my entire lifetime, I've not one time experienced a phone outage, not once! Power outages, etc., the phone companies have backups to backups to ensure service (though there is the occasional and hard to manage for ditch digging incident).
While large pieces of the internet are built upon the phone companies' infrastructure, other pieces aren't, and there are significant additional layers of complexity not in the phone companies' purview (switches, routers, coax cable from cable companies).
That question, "is the internet that fragile?", is probably the biggest reason I've never opted to switch my phone service to VOIP yet. I'd hate to be the one (tiny chance, I know) who needs to make that one 911 call and not be able to do so because the internet is unavailable (which happens occasionally here, which is also too often).
Encryption keys don't kill people, people kill people.
If owning (not divulging) encryption keys is criminalized, only criminals will own encryption keys.
These "rules" will only push the envelope of how and what criminals (or terrorists, etc.) use to hide their activities. And at the same time, they will add one more burden to the general population to manage and ensure the government is informed of their encryption infrastructure. Nuts.
The most effective infiltration into terrorist infrastructure is still social engineering. I'd rather the money spent creating and managing something like this spent training and hiring translators, covert agents, etc.
A convincing point about the futility of this proposed rule comes from the article:
Your best solution, if you can find people with enough sway would be looking into getting your IT Exec fired. Really.
I am one of the broadband-connected Tivo owners and counter to Tivo's Kent's thesis, I don't prefer to watch the long ads Tivo stocks. I long ago abandoned those as mostly uninteresting and targetless (i.e., of ten video ads, rarely would even one be close to interesting for me).
An interesting note in the article: TiVo owners tend to fast forward about 70% of the ads when viewing pre-recorded content. That's about right in my experience, but why?
I use the 30 second skip, and it helps get past the real annoyances in a show, which is usually the commercials. But I've found that there are some well done commercials and those are the 30% that I watch. If they're not insultingly stupid, and are cleverly written (not hard to do -- spring for the writers), I watch. Some I watch every time I see them (Caveman FedEx commercial anybody?).
I think Tivo and others may be missing something here, people watching TV do appreciate a "breather" every once in a while, and if the commercial breaks are filled with quality pseudo entertainment, people will watch it. And vendors will get market share.
If Tivo and others really wanted to get ahead of the curve I'd suggest targeted commercial breaks, i.e., instead of the broad spectrum network advertising during commercial breaks, overlay them with targeted and well-crafted shorts designed to catch the eye of that tivo's owner tastes. I think this is easily done, and would bet the 70% "skip" factor for commercial breaks would drop significantly. I don't mind targeted advertising, it can still be annoying but it's more likely to show me something I can use and would be interested in buying.
On the other hand, the notion of interactivity in the TV landscape so far has consistently been beat down as intrusive and annoying to TV viewers. I have seen all of the extra features Tivo has added (mostly third party) in the last couple of years, and they're mostly fluff, add little value, and some of the harder sell "features" are downright annoying. I'd be interested to see the usage metrics for these new "interactive" improvements.
I still think when people settle in to watch TV, they're there to watch, not participate.
I haven't heard anyone comment about what I think is a great feature in this toolkit:
I know this is something you can hack together if you're writing your own hand-crafted js, but this will be a nice feature -- I haven't looked at the toolkit yet, but I wonder how easy to use this will be.
Have any of the other frameworks provided this mechanism?