Categories
Web

Zeldman rant

Zeldman’s on a rant…again

You know according to Zeldman’s estimation of the web, you aren’t here. You’re not reading this. This isn’t usable. None of the web except the infamous Zeldman orange is usable. The web is going to hell – quickly. Better cancel your DSL or cable modem right now. Tell Google it’s failing.

(Found reference at Scripting News)

Categories
Technology

Boy was I wrong about AOL

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

At first I thought the reports of Red Hat and AOL in discussions were a joke. However, I found out otherwise.

I like my friend Andy’s view of the possibility at O’Reilly – chances are this is going to be a mix that won’t favor either open source or technical innovation. AOL may be business savvy (and known to be rather ruthless in this respect), but the company is also a technology killer.

John Robb thinks that AOL should package and distribute Radio as an alternative to .NET. John, apples and oranges. Radio ain’t .NET. And remember what I said about AOL being a technology killer. Radio is Userland’s baby – you sure you want to hand it over to the really, really big BigCo Suits? What’s the price of success?

Two monopolies are not better than one. A world with AOL and Microsoft sharing dominion is no better than Microsoft having dominion alone.

Categories
Technology

Love and Kisses, Bill

Love and Kisses, Bill

[1/17/2002 11:52:40 AM | Shelley Powers] Bill Gates sent an email (copy at the Register) about how the company is going to have to get tougher on security. I stole a copy of it from the Register to present here, along with my own crystal ball interpretation (not actual fact, you understand) of how the memo looked with edits (which I’ll probably get in trouble for and have to pull so read quickly):


From: Bill Gates
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:22 PM
To: Microsoft and Subsidiaries: All FTE
Subject: Trustworthy computing whatever you do, don’t leak this to the press 😉

Every few years I have sent out a memo talking about the highest priority for Microsoft that keep getting leaked to the press. Two years ago, it was the kickoff of our .NET strategy. Before that, it was several memos about the importance of the Internet to our future and the ways we could make the Internet truly useful for people, which got leaked to the press (hint) . Over the last year it has become clear that ensuring .NET is a platform for Trustworthy Computing is more important than any other part of our work. If we don’t do this, people simply won’t be willing — or able — to take advantage of all the other great work we do. Trustworthy Computing is the highest priority for all the work we are doing. We must lead the industry to a whole new level of Trustworthiness in computing. And whatever we do, we must not leak this to the press (hint, hint).

When we started work on Microsoft .NET more than two years ago, we set a new direction for the company — and articulated a new way to think about our software — and found a new way to charge people lots of money. Rather than developing standalone applications and Web sites, today we’re moving towards smart clients with rich user interfaces interacting with Web services. We’re driving attempting to ownthe XML Web services standards so that systems from all vendors can share information, while working to make Windows the best client and server for this new era , and our foot firmly planted on Linux’s neck.

There is a lot of excitement about what this architecture makes possible. It allows the dreams about e-business that have been hyped over the last few years to become a reality. It enables people to collaborate in new ways, including how they read, communicate, share annotations, analyze information and meet. It provides us a new way to make a shit-load of money..

However, even more important than any of these new capabilities is the fact that it is designed from the ground up to deliver Trustworthy Computing. And if you don’t leak this line to the press, you’re all fired. What I mean by this is that customers will always be able to rely on these systems to be available and to secure their information.Big Bill is watching you….and your little doggie, too. Trustworthy Computing is computing that is as available, reliable and secure as electricity, water services and telephony. And don’t anyone mention Enron in the same breath with electricity, okay?

Today, in the developed world, we do not worry about electricity and water services being available. With telephony, we rely both on its availability and its security for conducting highly confidential business transactions without worrying that information about who we call or what we say will be compromised. Computing falls well short of this, ranging from the individual user who isn’t willing to add a new application because it might destabilize their system, to a corporation that moves slowly to embrace e-business because today’s platforms don’t make the grade. And they’re not buying Windows XP because they heard it’s buggy as hell..

The events of last year — from September’s terrorist attacks to a number of malicious and highly publicized computer viruses — reminded every one of us how important it is to ensure the integrity and security of our critical infrastructure, whether it’s the airlines or computer systems. Computing is already an important part of many people’s lives. Within ten years, it will be an integral and indispensable part of almost everything we do. Microsoft and the computer industry will only succeed in that world if CIOs, consumers and everyone else sees that Microsoft has created a platform for Trustworthy Computing. Me: I didn’t need to add anything to this one for it to creep me out.

Every week there are reports of newly discovered security problems in all kinds of software, from individual applications and services to Windows, Linux, Unix and other platforms. We have done a great job of having teams work around the clock to deliver security fixes for any problems that arise. Our responsiveness has been unmatched no one else creates such buggy software — but as an industry leader we can and must do better. Our new design approaches need to dramatically reduce the number of such issues that come up in the software that Microsoft, its partners and its customers create. We need to make it automatic for customers to get the benefits of these fixes. We must scare people into letting us in to their systems.. Eventually, our software should be so fundamentally securepervasive that customers can’t hide from it never even worry about it.

No Trustworthy Computing platform exists today. It is only in the context of the basic redesign we have done around .NET that we can achieve this. The key design decisions we made around .NET include the advances we need to deliver on this vision. Visual Studio .NET is the first multi-language tool that is optimized for the creation of secure code, so it is a key foundation element. We want people to feel that they have to have .NET or their computers will turn to green goo.

I’ve spent the past few months working with Craig Mundie’s group and others across the company to define what achieving Trustworthy Computing will entail, and to focus our efforts on building trust into every one of our products and services. Key aspects include:

Availability: Our products should always be available when our customers need them. System outages should become a thing of the past because of a software architecture that supports redundancy and automatic recovery. Self-management should allow for service resumption without user intervention in almost every case.

Security: The data our software and services store on behalf of our customers should be protected from harm and used or modified only in appropriate ways to be decided by us, of course. Security models should be easy for developers to understand and build into their applications using our tools and technologies, of course.

Privacy: Users should be in control of how their data is used * giggle, snort *. Policies for information use should be clear to the user represented by a sharp and quick eyed lawyer. Users should be kept out of in control of when and if they receive information to make best use of their time. It should be easy for users to specify appropriate use of their information including controlling the use of email they send.

Trustworthiness is a much broader concept than security, and winning our customers’ trust involves more than just fixing bugs and achieving “five-nines” availability. It’s a fundamental challenge that spans the entire computing ecosystem, from individual chips all the way to global Internet services. It’s about smart software, services and industry-wide cooperation. It’s about us achieving world domination, which we won’t if people keep hearing about these damn security leaks..

There are many changes Microsoft needs to make as a company to ensure and keep our customers’ trust at every level – from the way we develop software, to our support efforts, to our operational and business practices. As software has become ever more complex, interdependent and interconnected, our reputation as a company has in turn become more vulnerable. We’re getting hammered boys and girls, and this is really tweaking my nose. Flaws in a single Microsoft product, service or policy not only affect the quality of our platform and services overall, but also our customers’ view of us as a company. Which kind of sucks at this time.

In recent months, we’ve stepped up programs and services that help us create better software and increase security for our customers. Last fall, we launched the Strategic Technology Protection Program, making software like IIS and Windows .NET Server secure by default, and educating our customers on how to get — and stay — secure. Ooo. That sound’s good. Make sure you leak that one. The error-reporting features built into Office XP and Windows XP are giving us a clear view of how to raise the level of reliability. We know what our customers are doing at all times now.. The Office team is focused on training and processes that will anticipate and prevent security problems. In December, the Visual Studio .NET team conducted a comprehensive review of every aspect of their product for potential security issues. We will be looking for scapegoats conducting similarly intensive reviews in the Windows division and throughout the company in the coming months.

At the same time, we’re in the process of brainwashing training all our developers in the latest secure coding techniques. We’ve also published books like “Writing Secure Code,” by Michael Howard and David LeBlanc, which includes subliminal messages that open source is evil gives all developers the tools they need to build secure software from the ground up. In addition, we must have even more highly trained sales, service and support people, along with offerings such as security assessments and broad security solutions. I encourage everyone at Microsoft to look at what we’ve done so far and think about how they can contribute.

But we need to go much further if we’re going to own the world.

In the past, we’ve made our software and services more required by compelling for users by adding new features and functionality, and by making our platform richly proprietaryextensible. We’ve done a terrific job at that, but all those great features won’t matter unless customers buy trust our software. So now, when we face a choice between adding features and resolving security issues, we need to choose making money security. Our products should emphasize security right out of the box, and we must constantly refine and improve that security as threats evolve. A good example of this is the changes we made in Outlook to avoid email borne viruses. If we discover a risk that a feature could compromise someone’s privacy, that problem gets solved first. If there is any way we can better protect our butts important data and minimize downtime, we should focus on this. These principles should apply at every stage of the development cycle of every kind of software we create, from operating systems and desktop applications to global Web services.

Going forward, we must develop technologies and policies that help businesses better manage ever larger networks of PCs, servers and other intelligent devices, knowing that their critical business systems are safe from harm and safely in out grasping little hands. Systems will have to become self-managing and inherently resilient and ours, all ours. We need to prepare now for the kind of software that will make this happen, and we must be the kind of company that people can rely on to deliver it or else.

This priority touches on all the software work we do. By delivering on Trustworthy Computing , customers will get dramatically more value out of our advances than they have in the past. The challenge here is one that Microsoft is uniquely suited to solve. This is for internal use only, you understand. Whatever you do, don’t leak this to the press 😉 * wink *

Bill The First

Categories
RDF SVG

RDF to SVG tool

Found at Eclectic – an RDF to SVG tool. You’ve heard about RDF before in this weblog — consider it a meta-language for describing data on the web (and elsewhere). Though you can represent RDF in various forms, the most commonly used technique is XML. SVG is Scalable Vector Graphics and is a way of describing 2D graphics in XML.

Nice tool, though the batch job doesn’t terminate cleanly in W2K. However, it does the job. I was able to create this SVG diagram from one of my RDF documents in five minutes — from download to install to image capture to post.

The tool is based on Jena, an open source Java API that processes RDF and that HP sponsors. Unfortunately, RDF2SVG isn’t open source at this time. No biggie. Fun tool, and useful.

Categories
Technology

Open Source Essay

I read an essay, Greg Ritter wrote on open source. If you follow my weblog, then you might remember Greg as the person who convinced me that I must burn less, reason more – a resolution that lasted about 1 day.

Greg wrote his essay, titled Open Source Zealots Don’t Get it in response to a News Forge item from Richard Stallman (found at Camworld – this is getting complicated), about sending Word files as attachments.

Well, I agree with Greg — zealots usually don’t get it. But I think that Greg lost the point along the way, as he stopped condeming zealots, and started condeming the entire open source movement, throwing in open standards somewhere towards the end in a rather interesting segue related to itches and scratching, and people wanting to work on software that interests them when they’re doing it for free.

I’m not going to get into the usual spiel of the important part that open source played with the establishment of the Internet, Internet protocols, and the web; or open source’s contribution to Unix (not just Linux); or open source’s contributions to specifications and technologies that many of the products you really like, use. And I’m not going into, again, the fact that open source and closed source projects can co-exist on the same planet, and are complimentary development paradigms. We’ve been there, done that before.

But I am curious about one thing — we throw around terms such as “open source zealots” but I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone use a similar term for closed or proprietary source code adherants; terms such as “closed source zealot” or “proprietary software bigot”. Calling Microsoft an asshole company that’s out to rule the world, doesn’t count. I’m talking about using the term for people who do a blanket condemnation of open source because of the actions of a few; or that condemn open source because it doesn’t have the polish of proprietary software (such as Word or PhotoShop); or condemn open source efforts that aren’t making some company a ton of money.

I’m also curious about something else: Why do people assume that open source advocates are somehow not consumer oriented? Forget the zealots – I’m talking about the average person who helps to create most of the open source in use today. There are people who spend hours a week writing documentation for open source efforts, or providing help on online forums.

Oh the hell with being reasonable. Especially when I read the following:


If consumers want these kinds of tools that are of interest to consumers, but not of use to the geeks who know programming languages, then the consumers are either going to have to learn to code themselves (ain’t gonna happen; we all have other careers) or the consumer will need to pay to have someone else develop them.

Well, the software developers of the products that you condemn as unsatisfactory earlier in your essay — products such as Gimp, StarOffice, GNOME — are doing their best to provide viable “consumer” products. They don’t have the big bucks backing them for the most part; so they have to manage as they can, when they can.

Still, considering that your premise is that geeks aren’t consumers of this type of technology and therefore won’t work on it, followed by your condemnation of the products that you all just got through saying we’uns don’t like to work on, I am confused. Most likely you are, also, after trying to read that last sentence.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, Greg — geeks really like to be complimented. I know, unbelievable but true. There’s few things that thrill us more than to have people who use our software tell us how much they love it. Doesn’t matter if we’re paid for it or not, we want people to like our software. If anything, we’re the ultimate consumer driven profession.

As a geek I hate bugs in my software; I really hate it when someone doesn’t like an architecture I’ll design for a new system; it cuts me to the quick when someone doesn’t like what I build, code, design, develop. Sure I’ve been tweaking the Radio 8.0 folks the past couple of days (and having a bit of fun doing it, I must say) but that’s because of the incredibly excessive hyping that’s going on with the product release. I respect the effort and the accomplishment of what the company has built; just not the hype coming with it. Dave Winer’s a geek (in the complimentary sense) — who just happens to be buried in “…Radio Weblog” at the moment.

And as geeks we want to develop products people need, want, use, and like. The openess or not of the source code has nothing to do with it; that’s just visibility.

I’m curious, Greg — what do you think will happen to the state of technology if all open source efforts stopped? If the folks who labor on technology and standards and open protocols and specs, just stopped one day? Maybe they’ll decide that they should get a career like yours.

You work for Blackboard, what do you think will happen to your company’s product? How much of that product is dependent on efforts that originated in open source? Is it web-based? What programming language is used? What operating system? Unless Blackboard is a pure-Windows based system written entirely in some home brewed programming language and isn’t using any form on Internet communication or open specification such as XML, your product is beholden to the open source effort. To people, supposedly, that don’t have careers To people that don’t listen to consumers.

To all them open source zealots and geeks — damn their altruistic hide.