Sageza's Amok Analysts

JavaONE: Bright Future or Riding off into the Sunset?

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:42:18 PDT

Today, I set my alarm early, 6:00 AM early. The reason was to catch Caltrain #313 @ 6:57 AM so I can make it Moscone Center in time for Sun Microsystems� keynote at JavaONE. As I made my way to the train station, I pondered what I was going to see and hear at JavaONE � an event that is very long in tooth, at least in Internet years.

Today�s keynote was spun around what 14 years has brought, and there has been plenty of good brought by Java. In 1996, who realistically could believe that literally billions of remote access devices would have Java as an embedded capability? Perhaps a few die-hard believers would have, but the scale that Java has achieved since its launch is beyond remarkable. Today we witnessed mobile phones, Blue Ray players, televisions, web sites, and CPUs, but precious little mention of �computers� except when seeing development tools. This morning�s guests included eBay, Research in Motion, Sony, Verizon, Intel, and Jagex (of Runescape fame). As shocking as this would be from a 1996 perspective, in 2009, it is testimony to what Java has accomplished.

The notion of communities of consumers was prevalent throughout, whether they were Java developers, eBay buyers and sellers, Blackberry users, or Blue-Ray viewers at home (conveniently networked with numerous others through their PS3). While an obvious extension of the notion of Networked Computing, I wonder just how far the idea of automatic community extends to discrete users who just happen to be doing to the same task at a given time.

Nevertheless, the potential of associating users into communities, even if they are of only short duration (such as the audience for this morning�s keynote) for commercial benefit is considerable. With each association, there is a data point, with each data point there needs to be a data repository, and for each demand for a data repository, there is a database vendor standing in the hall. Perhaps this relationship between consumers and Java devices is the ultimate reason why the Redwood Shores Company would want to purchase the creator of all things Java.

Java and I have a love hate relationship that spans decades. I have always loved the idealism, the technical achievement, and its role as the first technology that really made the Internet �fun.� However, I have always hated the arrogance, early attempts at exercising proprietary behavior through an ill-fated ISO standardization scheme, and Java�s positioning as a replacement for underlying operating systems and hence their purveyors.

Probably what I found most remarkable was the tone of Java today; very consumer friendly. Yet Larry Ellison seemingly turned that positioning on its head during the last 15 minutes of the keynote. The message during the first 75 minutes was perhaps best summed up by a JavaFX TV architect who stated that Java was all about delivering content to the user�s �favorite screen in their life." It was all about consumers, info consumption, and developers seeking to convert labors of love into revenue streams.

Later on, when Oracle�s fearless leader joined Scott McNealy and James Gosling on stage, Java�s message seemed to revert to its early days. Larry boasted of Oracle�s 100% Java middleware stack, and soon to be 100% Java based applications. All of this is impressive to be sure, but it also sounds very much like traditional computing as manifest through networks seeking to solve business problems, not a consumer empowerment experience. For those seated in the audience, the question was simple, �which of these is the Java vision in a post-Oracle merger universe?�

Although Oracle through Ellison made many statements about the value of Java, it is hard to imagine that the attendees did not have some degree of worry introduced. There were at best only non-committal statements about the future of JavaONE. It will prove interesting to see just how Oracle ultimately chooses to leverage its new Java assets. Having billions of enabled devices implies untold numbers of potential database transactions, all of which surely would cause a smile to appear across Oracle�s collective brow. The collective $4 - $5 billion in potential R&D spending bandied around by McNealy and Ellison is impressive, and such an investment could help take Java to the next level.

However, just how interested is a business data and applications provider in driving consumer focused application sales through a newly announced Java store? How much desire is there to continue to push the developer communities in an open source paradigm? Does Oracle want all of what Java has become or will it be quite content to cherry pick the desired morsels, and simply wither away the remainder? Only time will tell.

It is clear that even if there is another JavaONE in the future, 2009 will likely be known as the last �real� JavaONE. Overall, the exhibition floor seemed subdued, and there was a subtle theme throughout Sun�s keynote message: �Java is really big, so big; we have to keep telling you it�s big.� Seeing McNealy in action again on stage brought fond memories, but it also reminded me that these are memories, and that Sun and much of its unique history will soon mount their horses to begin riding off into the sunset. One can only hope that all of the good aspects of Java will endure through its new owner, and that the communities that have arisen around it are not inadvertently shown the pasture as well.

Change is inevitable, and technology has the inherent ability to speed up the rate of change. Java, as was Sun and the Internet, was clearly a game changer in the grand scheme of all things IT. Embracing change, as difficult as it is, leads to opportunity. Judging by what was shown today and the words spoken, change is in the air. The question is, �how will the marketplace embrace the change in motion?� Will developers be further empowered in a post Oracle-Sun universe, or will they experience seismic change in their platform underpinnings? Again, only time will time. Speaking of time, I had better head back to the Caltrain station for the ride home.

Oracle and Sun, Sitting in a Tree, M-E-R-G-I-N-G

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:14 PDT

Oracle Corporation and Sun Microsystems announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Oracle will acquire Sun common stock for $9.50 per share in cash. The transaction is valued at approximately $7.4 billion, or $5.6 billion net of Sun�s cash and debt. Oracle stated its belief that the acquired business will contribute over $1.5 billion to Oracle�s non-GAAP operating profit in the first year, increasing to over $2 billion in the second year. The Sun Microsystems� BoD has unanimously approved the transaction, which is anticipated to close this summer, subject to Sun stockholder approval, certain regulatory approvals and customary closing conditions.

OK, so the proverbial other shoe has dropped. As we pondered a few days ago, they were two likely scenarios for Sun Microsystems� future. It appears the Death by Acquisition is now the preferred outcome, at least according to the unanimous actions of Sun�s BoD.

Given the long established and well-regarded technical give and take of the two firms, Oracle�s proposed acquisition of Sun leads to the obvious conclusion that Solaris will unquestionably be the platform of choice for Oracle�s bevy of software assets. For current Oracle and Sun customers, this is good news as it elevates the Solaris platform to a premium position from an R&D and feature enhancement/customization perspective. In addition, Sun�s storage assets may become a more critical consideration for DBMS and related application design than they have been in the past.

Sun�s portfolio of open source applications and initiatives may offer some competitive differentiation and new opportunities in the database realm and perhaps to a lesser extent in other commercial application market segments. Perhaps having mySQL in the Oracle fold would draw attention toward open source DBMS for commercial users and might lay the path to a DBMS offering akin to IBM�s WebSphere Community Edition. While these are different product areas, the notion of community versions with an upgrade path to full fledged commercial applications would seem applicable in this context as well. Sun�s other open source assets including Java, OpenSolaris, and ZFS, amongst others would serve to bolster Oracle�s technical prowess while potentially expanding the scope if not reach of Oracle access within and outside of the enterprise. This also bodes well for Oracle Fusion Middleware, which is built upon Java.

Outside of the database and commercial applications space, the positive impact of this announcement is less clear. From a hardware perspective, Oracle�s lack of history as a hardware systems vendor may bring some pause to channel partners including SIs, as well as VARs and other resellers with an historically hardware focus. With control over a leading platform for its cash cow DBMS and commercial applications, will there be a temptation to focus the hardware business too narrowly on being a carrying case for the software as opposed to a viable standalone business? How will traditional partners such as EMC, IBM, HP, etc. react to Oracle now being in a position to compete with their hardware and related services businesses? In the short term, none of this should present an issue, but over time, the potential synergies of Oracle + Sun could provoke consternation from important business partners. These challenges will need to be very carefully considered lest an important channel be harmed.

Since Sun contracts out much of its manufacturing, Oracle could easily continue this modus operandi, and not assume the potential long-term issues of investing in or shutting down aging manufacturing plant. This is a plus for Oracle, but it does remove one impediment that would otherwise justify the continued operation of certain hardware based product lines whose capital equipment cost has not fully depreciated. Nevertheless, in the short term we do not envision Oracle suddenly idling Sun�s substantial hardware business, but the long term synergies and strategies of the combined company may look rather different from that a traditional hardware systems vendor.

With this acquisition, Oracle could start looking similar to a version of Big Blue from a couple of decades ago, i.e. a vendor that provided a complete vertically integrated package of server hardware, storage, operating system, middleware, commercial applications, and services. Will this combination meet with marketplace acceptance, or skepticism? Does the one stop shop with a comprehensive single vendor solution meet the expectations of the best of breed, open source, heterogeneous marketplace of the 21st century? Will customers perceive a bias in the support and R&D of Oracle products that favors Sun�s underlying technology? How will Oracle assuage fears of customers that Oracle�s improved efficiency and cohesion in delivering technology will not also result in Oracle more efficiently commanding a greater share of its customer�s IT spend while reducing choice? All of these are mighty questions with a potentially significant impact on the IT marketplace in general, and Oracle�s bottom line in specific.

Big Blue taught the industry a key lesson about being a systems vendor a few years ago, namely leave some space on the playground for everyone. With IBM, HP, EMC, Fujitsu, and the rest, there are opportunities for hardware and software vendors to collaborate, compete, and co-exist. Under a combined Oracle/Sun, there may be less space in the playground, at least for Oracle customers. To our way of thinking, this would not be good for industry, nor Oracle in the long term. If this acquisition were ultimately given regulatory approval, it would be in everyone�s best interest to keep a watchful eye on Oracle�s behavior. This merger is systemically different from Oracle�s past software only acquisition, and as such has the potential to disrupt the value proposition of hardware in many segments of the IT marketplace.

No Sun in the Big Blue sky

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:29:43 PDT

OK, so IBM is backing away from Sun after the latest round of negotiations. While there has been much speculation about the sale price and just how much CYA IBM would be willing to afford the Copernican Company, as of now, the deal has fallen apart.

So, where does this leave Sun, and more importantly its customers? Since SGI went down a few days ago for a mere $25 million, one could reasonably ask, "Is this the same trajectory for Sun?" While it is clear, to our way of thinking that Sun is in a weaker position now than before the talk of merger began, the question now shifts to the likely long-term outcome for the company.

From our perspective, there are two likely scenarios for Sun, as we know it today: 1) Death by Acquisition, and 2) Death by a Thousand Cuts.

Under Death by Acquisition, Sun would ultimately be dismantled, but with a varying degree of strategy. The big potential suitors would fall into the "the other system vendors" camp. i.e. HP, Cisco, EMC, Oracle, etc. or a VC/fund/private equity investor type of buyer. With the Big Blue out of the picture, neither camp would seem to want to purchase and maintain a Sun as we know it. Instead they would be interested in running the company through a chop shop and part out to the desired parts to the highest bidder (some of which might be the buyer itself), with the rest going to the IT equivalent of the scrap pile.

From a customer perspective, it seems that HP ownership of Sun would guarantee an outcome similar to that experienced by DEC customers, i.e. loss of the platform, followed by a lukewarm embrace if the customer would dain to port to Itanic. Customers never like forced ports. Granted, HP has expertise in supporting Solaris and Java environments and their services folks, like all good services folks, ultimately deliver and support whatever equipment the customer demands. However, with control over the platform choices at the point of origination, this could change.

If an EMC, Oracle, Cisco, etc. were to acquire Sun, the customer base faces some more interesting, and upsetting challenges. None of these companies has the systems-wide perspective of Sun and while EMC might some more interesting storage solutions as a result and Oracle might optimize further around its DBMS, the clear compelling value for existing customers seems somewhat elusive.

If a financial interest would to acquire Sun, then again it's a path to the chop shop. While taking over declining companies was fashionable a few years back, the thought of bought out or refinanced companies rising to their former greatness is distracted by the realities of Chrysler, SGI, etc. Thus, a fast parting out of Sun's unique might be a quick financial fix; it would be a sad loss of an innovator and cohesive IT supplier with a vision for the future.

Under Death by a Thousand Cuts, Sun continues as an independent systems vendor, but one that is not on a recovery path. The prognosis is terminal, but the patient gets to live in its own home, and in a varying state of denial that the virile life of the past is destined to remain in the past. Sun's customers would not immediately be harmed or dislocated, but over time, the inevitable loss of key channel partners, employees, and customers would slowly bleed the company to the point where it could no longer effectively support and invest in itself. Then at some point, an attempted fire sale occurs and the company ends up in the chop shop or worse yet, simply fades away and is quietly subsumed a la SGI.

To our way of thinking, either of these scenarios is less desirable than Sun having become part of Big Blue. The impact on customers from IBM would be more gradual, the services organization would have little issue in maintaining and supplementing existing installations, and while SPARC would probably be put out to pasture at some point, POWER seems infinitely palatable to Itanic as a platform alternative.

The failure to complete this merger illustrates an all too common, yet unfortunate, reality that plagues companies that still have their founders involved in some fashion. Reports have indicated that Scott McNealy led the faction protesting the IBM deal. This brings to mind another failed merger, namely Yahoo!, which failed largely due to the actions and objections of founder Jerry Yang. Founders too often have an emotional attachment to "their baby" that can cloud judgment, especially when dealing in adverse economic environments. Did Yahoo! fare better by following Yang�s lead and refusing to sell to Microsoft? Obviously not. Will Sun? Probably not.

Despite all of this, I still have a lot of respect for Scott McNealy, and Sun Microsystems. He and they played an important role in the valley during last few decades, and we are all better off for it. I still think of McNealy as a very funny fellow, one whom I would have liked to see guest host Late Night or the Tonight Show, and a very knowledgeable force in the IT market. Nevertheless, the reality of 2009 seems to dictate that a midsized systems vendor would be relegated to RC Cola status in a world dominated by Coke and Pepsi. Eventually the big two will subsume most of the shelf space with the "store brand" (read white box) filling out the rest.

While there may be a magic trick or two left in Sun's collective hat, it doesn't seem obvious to the outsider. Whatever deal might be forged by Sun with other potential suitors is going to be tarnished by the failure of this one. Hence, a maligned $9.40 deal might ultimately be replaced with a $7, $6, or even $5 deal. It's just hard to see a different scenario.

All in all, it's just too bad. In fact, it's a damn shame. Old cowboys don't die; they just ride off into the sunset. It's just too bad that it may be the Sun set that may ultimately ride off.

The Virtual Appliance?

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:41:01 PDT

In the world of IT the demarcation between servers, storage, networking, software, and a bevy of other devices is becoming is less clear every day. In particular, this got me thinking about one piece of IT equipment that I am not even sure is still an actually piece of equipment, the IT appliance.

Back in the days of slow computers (say the late 1990s and earlier) it was not at all uncommon to find a variety of appliances being pitched by vendors to organizations that might be seeking to improve their security performance, or find a fast enough spam filter, or maybe deploy a turnkey email and network access solution for a small office. Through the use of dedicated or specialized hardware, it was possible to buy a box that could be simply plugged into the network and would hopefully solve an IT problem without requiring changing the existing infrastructure. In that era of hyper IT growth and fear of the competition springing ahead in the dot.com boom, the specific function appliance had an undeniable appeal.

Appliances by comparison with other technologies are rather boring. Boring because you plug them in, and they work. Not all that much to be concerned with once they are set up. Not much job security in becoming the expert in their deployment and configuration. This draws many parallels with basic network functions that are simply assumed to exist and will work upon demand. When was the last time a user cared about the availability specific disk array? Users just mount network file systems (if the desktop hadn�t already automatically done so.) Likewise, when�s the last time a non-IT person thought about the hardware on which the email service is provided? Users just open their email software or web browser and go about their business. So, why are appliances on the top of my mind again?

During the dog days of this summer, I ventured to a few trade shows in San Francisco. I noticed that some vendors, and their requisite marketing staves that descend upon helpless analysts plying the corridors of such events, were busily talking about their new appliances. Yet, in some cases, these appliances were not of the traditional ilk, as there was no shiny standalone box. �That�s a nice appliance you have there, now may I see it? � These appliances were not physical, but rather a set of useful functions being delivered across the network. These functions could reside on a dedicated box, or on an existing server, partition, or virtual machine; or even as collection of processes on a blade. With this reality, I began pondering whether from a philosophical perspective there is still a valid distinction between a special purpose appliance and a collection of useful network based functions?

Considering that the raw horsepower available in today�s generic servers/blades for the most part trumps the highest performance ASICs or specialized server environments of the dot.com era, for most environments, does the traditional specialized IT appliance still fit the bill? In some cases, specialized hardware is still the way to go, especially for the most demanding large scale environments; however, I suspect that the notion of a standalone physical appliance will give way to a virtual one. As such, we may soon witness �appliances� appearing on the network that are merely virtual instantiations of software which is deployed on the most convenience or cost effective hardware resource available at that moment. In an IT era that is all the more defined by its increased consolidation and virtualization, it only makes sense that purpose specific appliances would evolve their physical properties as well.

But let us not get so caught up in the physical realm and consider why appliances were deployed in the first place; they were deployed to solve a problem. The choice of how to deploy a network application, service, storage, etc. should ultimately be driven by the best practices of the organization as dictated by its needs, finances, and external factors such as regulatory and customary trading practices. Whether an appliance is virtual or physical is a matter of convenience, i.e. a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. Although some might think that having IT appliances was the reason for their creation, more likely the reason for appliance deployments was to provide a solution to an IT or business problem.

So, if an appliance is not necessarily a discrete box, what is the difference between it and a network service? Or perhaps more importantly, does there have to be a difference and why should we ultimately care? All religious arguments about the �right way� to do something (at least from an engineering perspective) aside, I posit that it doesn�t really matter to the end user, if not the IT manager. For most users, the physical attributes and/or location of the appliance is a moot point, it is the function or service that it provides that is paramount.

But then, just what will define an IT appliance? Going forth, this is less clear and is a topic that I am sure many a marketing person will apply themselves to with an interesting resultant flurry of marketing spin and collateral to follow. However it does seem that the other mantra of current IT, namely energy efficiency and the greening of the data center, would support less dependence on discrete physical entities and more dependence on virtualized and consolidated functionality.

Nevertheless, there is one important IT appliance that I am positive will never transform from the physical to virtual realm. This is the one that is powered by java beans, not of the software type, but of the French Roast variety.

Is Bot Defense the IDS of 2008?

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:09:59 PST

I don�t� think there is any question that bots and botnets are a dangerous threat. The combination of a worm delivery vehicle and a malware payload of varying capabilities is a potent one that attackers have morphed to suit their own purposes. Bot defense is proving to be a difficult task even as traditional AV vendors and others have purported to include bot defense in and among the various protections they offer.

There are also a couple of specialty vendors that focus on the threat and claim to be able to identify not just the threat, but the best way to defeat it in the future. If this all sounds strangely like the rhetoric surrounding Intrusion Detection Systems in the early days -- it�s because it does. As you may recall, IDS vendors all touted their ability to identify attacks. The market bifurcated itself into network and host and vendors pretty much camped out on one side or the other.

Then one day, at a Gartner security conference of all places, an analyst (Richard Stienon now with Fortinet) coined the phrase �IDS is dead!� The market went into a tizzy with much scurrying around by vendors to re-position themselves as Intrusion Prevention rather than Intrusion Detection. In retrospect Stienon merely stated the obvious that end user organizations didn�t want a complete description of their problem, they wanted technology to make sure the problem didn�t occur in the first place.

So should it be with bots and botnets. The community wants and needs prevention more than it needs detection and identification. I offer this blog as a call for vendors to develop measures that do more than diagnose the threat but can provide detailed guidance to non-security professionals such as those that work in the Network Operations Center (NOC) to help them thwart these efforts in an exceptionally timely manner. Ideally perhaps the products would also offer the capability to invoke the recommended solution with a key stroke or two in accordance with previously approved security and operations protocols and permissions.

We know that the edge belongs to the attacker. Security professionals have to win all the time to keep their IT world safe, attackers only have to win a few times to accomplish their goals. Let�s hope that the botnet world becomes a proving ground for being one step a head of the enemy, rather than behind them.

Networking Re-Pondered at 37,000 feet

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:41:07 PDT

Once again I find myself the resident of seat 30C (power equipped) in a nearly full pressured tin can aka a Boeing 767-200 being flown courtesy of American Airlines. It is no surprise anymore that I spend more of my life at 37,000 feet, with 10% humidity, and insufficient oxygen to support normal cognitive thought than most people would consider tolerable. So, while taking a break from doing �real work�, I plug in my trusty iPod and Bose Noise cancelling headphones and escape in the vast never lands of my electronic palace (it is much larger than the 17.2 inch wide, 32 inch pitch seat AA has provided). Although I ponder the chord changes and melodic composition of a lot of Hard Bop and other Jazz while doing time on aircraft, this time I was pulled into something different.

I was thinking, it was too bad I don�t have the ill fated Boeing Connexion on board, as half way through a flight, I always discover the document, file, or website I need to access but don�t have at my disposal. Worse, when I do have what I need, I have managed to fill up my paltry disk drive with enough stuff that I am inviting the wrath of the fragmented paging file and inevitable system meltdown. It seems that I can no longer operate for very long without being connected, even in a faux fashion (with offline files, briefcases, and what not). This started my exhausted mind wondering through all the meanings/contexts that networking has come to define.

Today there is much discussion about social networking, as epitomized by FaceBook (hipsters) and LinkedIn (us stuffy professional types). This notion of networking is of course, the modern equivalent of the Good Ol� Boy network of those "in the know" and "should be known". Then there is networking as epitomized by Cisco, well OK, all of us, aka the Internet. The Internet is one of my fondest technological pursuits, and I remind myseld that several of the services on it could prove real handy mid-air. If I was online, I could get to those missing files, grab them out of my backup Gmail box, or better yet get them from a Mozy backup (one of the neat tricks now up EMC's burgeoning sleeve) and I would be back on track. Of course, my dream (or worst nightmare) come true is not having to lug all of my context around with me (sorry not a thin client pitch this time) but having access to my files from anywhere anytime. Then again, maybe I am pitching a thin client thought, perhaps thin enough to fit into seat 30C.

Just having this mental exercise about connectivity shows how far along networking and the expectations of it has come. In my early commercial internet days, 28.8k dial up was fast, a 56k-leased line was expensive, and being able to attach a file to an email was a snazzy affair. But this is modern history compared with my initial experiences of the ARPANet at 110 baud, or 300 on a good day. That network was a bit more stoic than the current one, however, there was an even more fascinating network underlying it that few thought of, namely the PSTN, or telephone network.

Being a closet Phone Phreak myself, I have to admit to spending many an idle hour pondering just how far can one could make a connection, either through PSTN or in conjunction with the ARPANet. The great revelation that I could type a character and within only 1 or 2 seconds have it echo back in full duplex from the UK and thus carry on a conversation in the stone age equivalent of IM for the price of a local phone call was fascinating. I knew at that time (it was 1977) that a world whereby communications interconnecting computers (OK I was thinking terminals and teletypes) was going to happen and become the norm, if for no other reason than the avoid Ma Bell�s long distance tariffs. Yes, some of us had cracked the Sprint and Ralston Purina private long distance networks, but that kind of five finger calling did not hold the same commercial appeal as the alternative computing message network accessed for the price of a local call.

With network speeds slow enough you could almost watch the electrons move, these networks would obviously have to change to support what we now take for granted, but the mystery, and mechanical actions of connectivity were fascinating. The assumptions that we today make about connectivity, at work, home, or mobile seem so normal, and yet were beyond science fiction not all that long ago. Egad, I was beginning to be humbled by my lack of connectivity in good ol' 30C.

At this point, I took umbrage in my disconnected state and turned back to the iPod. Amongst the many CDs and podcasts was a directory of special recordings, known as Phone Trips. I dialed in (pun intended) and started to listen to Evan Doorbell narrate some of his trips through 1XB, 5XB, and 1ESS central offices, stacking tandems, and reliving the general exploration of the greatest network in the 1970s, AT&T�s long lines. Odd as it may seem, (yes, I admitted I was a phreak) my frustration about not having perpetual connectivity began to wane, and I found myself reconnecting with the sense of adventure that networks once held for me. This was perhaps the best-connected network feeling I have had in some time -- and I was completely offline.

With arguably good reason, pondering my past is an affair best left to the experts. Nevertheless, it was good to remember some of the special almost bizarre excitement that networks once held, and to reconnect with the potential that networks have for all of us, even if that excitement has �matured� into expectation and sense of taking it all for granted. With this in mind, the Internet, Web 2.0. VoIP, zillion bits per second LANs and WANs, all are part of one of the most significant behavioral modification of recent times. Whenever, we are quick to minimize the value prop of the latest and greatest Internet service, we need to remember the quaint beginning of networks, and look just how far they came and how fast.

Nevertheless, for the remainder of this flight, I will delve into one of my favorite, organic, purely analog networks, the dynamic interconnected nodes of the Horace Silver Quintet. The workload varies, has high customer facing value, and makes immense use of discrete neurological networks, both local and remote, and you never quite know what to expect. Grid processing at its best. It's time for this camper to nod off...

The empowerment of Power

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:45:56 PDT

I am in Austin Texas attending the Power Architecutre Developer Conference. While at first blush, we all might wonder why such an ex-technical guy like me is at a developer�s conference; the reasons are in fact of a marketing nature. Although the audience at the conference is obviously a technical one, there is much here to illustrate just what an interesting beast power.org has become. From a sheer marketing perspective, it is compelling to see the likes of IBM, Freescale, AMCC, Cadence, Synopsys, Wind River, and many others all gleefully talking about all different kinds of solutions in many seemingly unrelated markets. Well, unrelated except that the Power architecture is the underpinning for it all.

Not that everyone is talking about one processor, as there seem to be more processors being showcased than the number of fingers on both hands, but there is a singularity in discussion about the broad architecture, whether the solutions are small low power embedded devices, personal computer chips, large server technology, or HPC focused devices. It is interesting to be standing in hallway with signs touting the location of the Cell Hack-a-thon, the POWER6 partition mobility session, the AMCC SATA RAID controller processor, and a networking Sony PS3s tutorial. These along with many other diverse offerings for the automotive, control system, computing, networking, and switching industries, to mention but a few illustrate just how pervasive and important the Power architecture has become.

In a time where there is so much discussion on open standards, and the value of ecosystems and multi-vendor cooperation, it is amazing at times, how relatively few recognize the role that Power plays to this end. Mention Power to most server folks and they will talk about it from the perspective of POWER5 or POWER6 and then tell you that it is only an IBM, or worse, proprietary solution. Funny that the same processor lives inside EMC storage systems, which are definitely not from IBM. Mention PowerPC and many will tell you that was the Mac processor, but Mac is now industry standard with Intel. Yet the many PowerPC based processors from AMCC for networking and storage solutions were never part of any Apple solution, and these products remain very much in the market demand. These are just a couple of examples.

The Power architecture holds a unique, if not ubiquitous position in the marketplace. While the number of attendees (a few hundred) at this developer�s conference would pale in comparison with a big industry trade show, the numbers are impressive when one considers that they are all here from many divergent industries and all are seeking to learn how to gain greater leverage from their investment in the Power architecture. It is hard to think of another platform that garners the interest and support from such a diverse audience. In this era of multi core multi threaded computing, the Power architecture in many cases is the epitome of an industry standard with a thriving ecosystem in which no single vendor dominates all industries.

Given the consolidation in the IT industry of the past few years, it is reassuring that some sectors remain vibrant and competitive, and that a single architectural platform is underpinning so much of the market growth. Despite the continued efforts of some to equate all things Intel as Industry Standard, outside of x86 (which of course, is huge), this assertion seems hard to accept. On the contrary, when considering the wide and far-flung impact of the Power architecture, would not this more closely align with the notion of industry standard, or better yet industries standard?

The Power Architecture Developer Conference is a testimony to the importance of this architecture even thought it will probably only garner secondary news status in the grand scheme of the moment. The fact that its ecosystem is sufficiently rich to support a developer�s conference that spans from the smallest of embedded devices to high performance computing is the front-page news item, but perhaps one that will remain one of the best-kept secrets in the industry.

History Isn�t Always The Best Teacher

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 16:15:44 PDT

There�s an old adage that those who don�t know history are bound to repeat it. A couple of recent experiences lead me to adopt the more topical Richard Clarke view of �the future will not be like the past�. Let�s start with a relatively simple world � automobiles. Everyone loves a new car, the roar of the new engine, the new car smell and the envy of your friends. Once upon a time I worked for a company called Wang Laboratories � and no, that�s not an acronym. Fresh for a stint at Chrysler Corporation I was the lead marketing guy for the auto dealer vertical which at the time was 40% of Wang�s domestic revenue and grew 300% in my three year tenure. We sold programmable calculators (some of which are now on display at the Computer Museum in Mountain View, CA) to car dealers to help them sell cars and include things like financing, insurance, undercoating, etc. Our independent software vendor (ISV) partners would add localized software to do calculations for the local city and state. The result was a display of numbers that could break costs down to pennies a day and print out every single form needed at the point of sale. Every time something new came along � whether air conditioning as an option, new and improved chemical coating, extended warranty - the dealers figured out a way to sell it along with the car.

Loyal readers will remember my blog on the satellite radio for the car. Having taken a 2,000 mile (3,200 KM) road trip I�ve become quite accustomed to satellite radio. Last night HRH the QM and I went shopping for a new Lexus. Imagine my amazement to find that they don�t have Sirius or XM nor is it available! I was totally shocked, even HRH�s 2007 Chrysler came with satellite radio. Notwithstanding the salesman trying to convince me that satellite radio was not worthwhile, my feeling is that Toyota couldn�t cut a satisfactory deal. What�s the morale of the story? Economics trumps technology or lack of customer demand can put technology purchases on the back burner.

Another historical blip in my opinion is Vista. We all remember the painful migration from DOS to Windows this and Windows that ultimately culminating in Windows XP. By and large XP works just fine. The hullabaloo and hype over Vista towards the end of 2006 and the rather ho hum launch in 2007 ushered in the Vista era. Knowing the �issues� that we dealt with in other migrations when it came time for me to get a new laptop an HRH to upgrade her desktop we drank the Kool Aide and went for the Vista machine hoping to be ahead of the power curve for once.

Imagine my surprise at the number of software vendors who still don�t have their Vista acts together (such as Symantec for example) and the sizeable number of other software vendors who simply don�t care. Combine that with a dearth of support people who are knowledgeable in the new OS and you have history not repeating itself at all.

I guess this all means that the technology future will not be like the technology past. Consumers, employees and IT users of all stripes have to learn to take the good and leave the bad. While I�m not a prospect for an iPhone, I may very well be a prospect for a Mac for my next computer � we�ll see. In the meanwhile to my US readers � a Happy and Safe Labor Day.

HP, MIT, and DSpace Foundation

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:25:11 PDT

HP and the MIT Libraries recently announced the DSpace Foundation, a non-profit organization that will provide support to institutions that use DSpace, an open source software solution for accessing, managing, and preserving scholarly works in a digital archive. There are more than 200 DSpace projects worldwide that are digitally capturing, preserving and sharing artifacts, documents, collections and research data. Some notable new projects include 2008 Virtual Olympic Museum that will archive the 2008 China Summer Olympics; Texas Digital Library that will provide a digital infrastructure for open access journals, electronic theses and dissertations, faculty datasets, departmental databases, digital archives, course management and learning materials, digital media and special collections from Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, The University of Houston and The University of Texas; as well as the China Digital Museum that will include 18 campus museums, each with 20,000 - 50,000 objects covering geosciences, biology, anthropology, science and technology.

While one considers the potential for DSpace just to catalog scholastic and public museum undertakings, the sheer magnitude can be overwhelming. Toss in other privately controlled content, and suddenly the few million entries in Wikipedia seem to pale by comparison. However, if there were ever an application that could showcase the reach and depth of the Internet, this would certainly be one, and perhaps very fitting given the humble research and scholastic endeavors of the Internet and its predecessors. Nevertheless, the likely number of items to be placed into DSpace repositories, especially in developing regions such as China, will be enormous.

Although I would suspect that cultural artifacts and items that are in the public domain would remain easily accessible through the various independent repositories, it does raise the issue of how far the various organizations would go in depositing and making available the scholastic research that might have commercial or competitive value. Of course, this is no different than current restrictions on such material but a DSpace, much like early Internet endeavors, could create an environment where the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.

Which scholastic endeavors would be shared and under what conditions? How would institutions of higher learning, which offer court the financial assistance of commercial entities and non-profits, change their behavior in a DSpace enabled universe? Could DSpace inadvertently cause some types of information that might be freely shared in an environment where it is incumbent upon the user to make greater effort to find and assess the information to be withheld given the greater ease of access that DSpace would afford?

In the case of digital media, such as images, animations, etc., the potential for a greater enhanced repository of public domain, or royalty free content is enormous especially if library developers take serious the federated capabilities of DSpace. The indexing and archiving abilities of DSpace could translate into a very rich user experience, and assemble some truly breathtaking archives of humanity�s achievements on earth. The potential vastness of DSpace repositories could become a mind numbing thought it and of itself.

When I think about the impact that the incredibly basic tools of email, FTP, Gopher, and the early Web had on research and development, the contrast with DSpace and the Internet technologies of today is striking. If DSpace has even a fraction of the impact on research that the early Internet tools did, we are in store for real intellectual treat. It will be interesting to see what these early DSpace initiatives morph into and how they will alter the expectations of the research and academic communities. It could be pretty darn cool.

FCC, 700 MHz, Wireless Carriers, and the Mobile Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:46:18 PDT

As part of the impending 700 MHz spectrum auction, The Federal Communications Commission has circulated a proposal that included a requirement that the new mobile internet spectrum would be accessible to new applications and devices in a similar fashion as the existing internet today. The FCC Chairman has stated publicly his goal is to allow any wireless device to download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions, if the software itself is not illegal or poses a threat to a network. At the same time, CTIA, a wireless industry association, is disputing any requirement that the new network carriers would be required to resell bandwidth at wholesale rates to perceived competitors, specifically Google, that would seek to create a competitive offering without incurring the cost of deploying network infrastructure.

At some level this argument sounds reminiscent of a little over a decade ago when the various carriers were arguing with Enhanced Service Providers about who had to connect to whom and who had to sell what to whom and at what price in the context of the Internet, and later VoIP, and then DSL and cable, and so on. At one level it is a revisitation of the Bell Heads vs. the Net Heads drama vintage 1996 but the basis of the discussion remains strikingly similar, namely who has to pay for building the network, and what rights do others have to access this network at a �fair� price.

Rightfully, the carriers are arguing not only do they have to pay to construct the network; they also had to pay off Uncle Sam for the right to use the spectrum, and all of this costs a lot of money that will be recouped slowly over time. At the same time, Internet juggernauts such as Google are eyeing any network as a delivery platform for their content and services and want to ensure that they are not locked out of the game, as so many content providers find themselves in the locked down envrionment of mobile telephones in the USA.

In a more cynical view, I think we can see an US vs. THEM mentality, in that much of the venture money chasing this opportunity is coming from Silicon Valley while the carriers are traditionally an East Coast affair. Yes, this may be simplistic, but it underscores just one of the many differences between the Bell Heads and Net Heads, two groups of players who have managed some sort of relative peace during the past decade as the Internet grew in importance to both communities and the population at large. However, in the case of mobile Internet access, things have been less sanguine as carriers attempt to or even mandate that customers access their services, not those of competitors. While there may be perfectly good corporate reasons for doing this, it does hinder the customer�s choices in what services they can purchase and how they may wish to go about using them.

Net neutrality proponents argue that unfettered access to networks is the only way to guarantee that carriers won�t limit access or propose usury tariffs to ward off the competition. Yet at the same time, it is unrealistic to believe that corporations would continue to invest in new technologies if they know that they must bear the cost of design and deployment, yet a competitor could use the network solely on a usage-based fee, without assuming any of the risk of the initial investment. While I could accept either of these arguments in a vacuum, the reality is that the marketplace will not benefit from either extreme, and this is what I consider to be the ultimate consideration.

In the �good old� days, spectrum was licensed with the pursuit of the public good as a significant factor. During the past couple of decades, public service has been displaced by a revenue generation scheme whereby auctioning spectrum to enrich the Federal coffers has become the goal. In some cases, for totally private use, this may make some sense similar to royalty payments made by lumber, mineral, oil, and many other interests when extracting wealth from publicly owned lands.

But in the case of broad based communications, perhaps it would be better to take some of that auction money and use it to build out/maintain a minimum portion of the network that could be secured as access points for the competitors that the carriers fear. To protect against those seeking massive access, there could be prescribed limits to how much they could purchase through the minimum network, the rest they can treat as a commercial endeavor, just like the carriers, pay the prevailing burdened cost of delivery. But for those smaller entities, their access could be protected. Perfect? No. Better than monopoly or forced subsidization of the competition, I think so.

Still, the auction process is not complete, and the final rules have not been written. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I for one hope that we do not end up with another closed/proprietary network, but at the same time realize that without investment and the chance for a positive return on that investment, the network is unlikely to be built.

Satellite Communications � Not As Heavenly As You Would Think

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:49:31 PDT

In January 2007 my beloved wife, HRH the QM (Her Royal Highness the Queen Mother for you new readers) got a new car. A brand spanking new Chrysler Town & Country Van. One of its salient and most attractive features was the Sirius radio. While the thought of paying for what has always been free was not in my mind, HRH gladly signed up for a two year subscription. Not only has she been reliving her past via the 60s channel but is re-building her knowledge of Broadway hits and her passion for Tony Bennett and Frank Sinatra.

Whilst in her car (a rare occurrence since HRH would much rather criticize than drive) I am of course a prisoner of her music. As it turns out, over time I rather liked the idea of no commercials and being able to listen to a particular kind of music. With the offer of equipment and subscription as a Father�s Day gift I thought I would give it a try because silly me, I figured since this was a popular consumer item it must be pretty easy technology to deal with.

I should have harkened back to my tactical days in the Army when a key part of any exercise was trying to establish communications. For those of you who don�t know what that means � here�s the picture. Let�s start with the fact that there were no cell phones. If you wanted a phone you brought your own phones, wire and switchboards. Oh yes, batteries for the phones as well. Remarkably these field phones connected into a SB-22 Field Switchboard (see http://www.prc68.com/I/SB22.shtml for a picture) worked pretty well.

FM Tactical radio � well that was another matter. Not really reliable and line of sight these things always seemed to be finicky. Never mind that the crypto equipment ran so hot that one day we had to pack it into a plastic bag and surround it with ice in order for it to work. Rounding out the communications menagerie was Radio Teletype. It was the SMS of its day which was quite some time ago.

Flinging forward into 2007 I bought appropriate gear for the house and car from Circuit City. The installation while more or less painless was not without its wrinkles. Turns out my Lexus 300 required a special type of wired installation because wireless wouldn�t work. All in all it�s working OK. Of course there are spots on the highway where the local PBS radio station �jams� or overpowers my signal, but I live with that.

The inside rig is another matter. While in the back of my mind I knew I needed to have an antenna it never occurred to me that I would actually have to go out on the roof to position it and that it would be a two person job. I had limited success putting on the window sill, but too flaky to rely on. So now I�m waiting to fit into HRH�s schedule planning on her being the inside sound tester. Fortunately the inside rig also serves as an iPod stand so it has some utility notwithstanding the SIRIUS inside debacle.

Bottom line � no communication technology is completely reliable and redundancy is the key to success or in this case � musical enjoyment.

HP and On Demand DVDs

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 11:09:20 PDT

Recently HP and Trans World Entertainment Corporation inked an agreement to offer a new service that would give consumers access to a diverse catalog of movie, TV and specialty video content not readily available in stores or online. The companies stated that to date, there have been nearly 1 million movies and TV episodes created worldwide, yet less than 10 percent have been captured on DVD. People can log on to Trans World Entertainment�s f.y.e.com online store and place orders, choosing from a variety of titles. The order is then fulfilled by HP�s custom manufacturing facility where most purchases are mailed within 24 hours. All orders include a DVD in full color packaging that is green certified as environmentally responsible packing. The service is a component of HP Video Merchant Services, which enables retailers to deliver video content in a variety of ways, including digital downloads, and traditional packaged DVDs as well as new formats including HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

OK, so you are thinking, aren�t the pundits saying that downloads will decimate all physical movie and music purchases and rentals real soon now? Well, this pundit never bought into that argument, and the numbers in the market show that downloads, while growing, have hardly displaced physical media as the dominant delivery mechanisms for movies and music. However, downloads do address one of the gating factors for cost effective sales of content, namely, moving the cost of goods to as close to zero as possible to enable a positive ROI on small volumes. For niche content, the overhead of producing a modest run of DVDs, say 2000 copies, to sell perhaps a couple hundred makes it extremely difficult to break even, let alone earn a buck. If the fixed cost of a release could be reduced to creating a disk master, something that a mainstream PC with a few hundred dollars of software can easily do, and developing simple, but very acceptable packaging printed on demand, then the economics of content distribution change dramatically.

There is a potential goldmine in old television, movies, newsreels, animated shorts, commercial short subjects, and so forth that have commercial value to a select group in the marketplace. In many cases these enthusiasts, researchers, geeks, or just plain regular folks with irregular interests, would happily pay the market rate for a volume release or perhaps even more for content that is of special interest to them. Yes, some might be willing to download it, but downloads do not offer a permanent archive for the content, unless the purchaser wants to burn a DVD, print up a sleeve or box, and then assemble the product for long term storage and use. This is where HP�s solution is so cool, it does the �hard� stuff, but at an economic investment that would not be hard for a niche content provider to reasonably make a return on.

While some of the early success for Trans World Entertainment will probably be on older volume content such as TV shows, sports events, foreign movies; educational programming, and pieces of historic interest, in the long term we believe the value in this HP solution will be much higher for independent commercial producers of content, community groups/organizations, non-profits, etc. who may have the aptitude to produce content, but lack the infrastructure or wherewithal to effect distribution and sales. We could easily envision this service at the local photo/video shop similar to the kiosks that print digital snapshots. Creative components such as templates for thematic packaging or even custom content could be added on to create a higher value service for the vendor. If placed correctly, the potential for HP as a back end content fulfillment provider could be enormous.

A few years ago it was common to hear HP�s competitors slamming the company as rapidly becoming little more than a printer company. For those who truly believed this, history has shown them to be dead wrong. HP is not just a printer company, but it is very much a printing, imaging, and content enablement and distribution company. Through its Video Merchant Services, the company has lowered the barrier to entry and fundamentally changed the playing field for niche video content providers. While success is not automatic, this approach could well challenge those postulate that the future of media distribution will be predominantly based upon downloads.

Hip Pocket E-Mail � Epilog

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:44:41 PDT

It�s been a couple of weeks since I got my spiffy new Cingular 8525 and I thought I would follow-up on my last posting with some updated reporting.

The Good

Overall I�ve been pretty pleased. The ability to check e-mail without powering up the computer is a good thing. I�ve been able to verify that there are no crises brewing and that nothing requires my attention � all without leaving the comfort of the leather easy share that the dog and I seem to share. This has saved me quite a bit of time and no doubt some electricity as well.

I also had the opportunity to go off site � and I mean off site. I attended weekend Red Cross Training in Public Affairs at a private High School which offered NO Internet access at all. My little 8525 kept me plugged in pretty effortlessly.

Not sure how the camera capability will work out, but we visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium the other weekend and I forgot my camera. Hopefully the shots of the otters will come out OK and I�ll figure out how to get them out of the camera and on to the computer.

The Internet Access is a good thing. I was able to find some shopping and food info while on the road and found that a tremendous convenience.

Since HRH the QM (Her Royal Highness, The Queen Mother for new readers) and I have the same device some of my tech support responsibility burdens have eased � I was able to reconfigure her AOL pretty quickly after her phone was repaired.

The Bad

There is no way I can use the phone while driving. While that�s good for safety, it�s bad for productivity and convenience. I mean the keyboard is so unfriendly that I can�t even dial the thing unless I�m stopped and out of direct sun light.

I lost my stylus this morning. The phone shouldn�t really require one � ask the Apple people they know. Luckily I�ve stopped biting my nails since leaving my former employer (imagine that?) so I�m able to pretty much navigate without one and since I usually have a pen as well, I hope to be OK. I found an on-line site to buy a 3 pack and ordered a pack today. This way I�ll have an extra when HRH the QM loses her first one.

The Ugly

The documentation is awful to be kind. I�ve tried to program Voice Tags, you�d think I was trying to alter the ratio of rods in a Nuclear Reactor. While I could program AOL I needed professional help (a local VAR) to program e-mail from one of my other sources and I need the same guy�s help to figure out how to make my 8525 act as a modem for my Vista Laptop. I�m hoping to solve the �modem� issue later today.

Overall I�m a reasonably happy customer, but as with any new technology � time will tell the tale in the long haul.

Happy 4th to my US friends and colleagues!

Hip Pocket E-mail � Blessing or Curse?

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:30:57 PDT

I�ve resisted getting a PDA capable of receiving e-mail and doing all the other whiz bang things we associate with being �connected� at all hours of the day and night. I�ve been on countless airplanes watching people and embracing their PDAs with a mix of disdain and envy. My philosophy has been � if it�s really that important, you call me on the phone like a person. For the most part this has worked out well. Of course, it was not career enhancing in a passive aggressive e-mail uber alles environment as prevailed at my former employer where conflict was avoided at all costs and that anyone who had a different opinion should be treated like the psycho of the week on Criminal Minds.

Nevertheless, my wife and I decided to buy ourselves an ultra romantic anniversary present � his and hers new super phones on Saturday, 9 June. Over time I�ve found that my personal level of aggravation goes down if the Queen Mother (QM) has the same hardware and software that I do. We had been on Cingular, moved to AT&T � got converted to Cingular and back to AT&T. We thought we would start at the local AT&T Store. The sales person was competent and personable. We decided that the new 8525 would be best for us because it had larger keys and a bigger screen than the Palm devices and others.

We went up to the block to the Sprint store. The experience was quite different, the sales person who worked with us did not seem to be nearly as knowledgeable or as personable and the product line, although cheaper, was quite limited.

We trudged back to AT&T and were delighted when the sales person was able to move our phone numbers from the old phones to the new ones. We purchased extra phone chargers for each car, state of the art Jawbone wireless headsets and $1,300 later we were out the door tethered to a 2 year contract. Alas they had run out of cases (this will be important a bit later on) and were advised that the cases would be in with a �big shipment� next week. As it turned out the cases are really Palm cases.

Needless to say we felt very 21st century. Over Sunday I learned about the new device (the manual was sparse to say the least) and with a bit of effort was able to program AOL e-mail to reach the device. Strangely enough when I programmed my wife�s device, there was a different set of instructions on the AT&T website. All was ultimately working fine. I decided to wait until later in the week to deal with transferring appointments and contacts and installing the �trial version� of Outlook 2007. You would think for the kind of money we paid, the appointment calendar software would have been included � but even Microsoft has to make a buck a guess.

Next major event was the QM having a bit of a trip and cracking her LCD. We found out, a bit to our chagrin that AT&T doesn�t take responsibility for what it sells. Rather it routes you to a local repair shop. That shop ordered the parts which would take about a week to arrive. The bad news was the cost to repair was almost the same amount we paid for the device with the 2 year contract, the good news is they gave her a loaner phone.

Wednesday I was at an all day off site conference. I thought this would be a great test of being able to get my e-mail and staying in touch. For reasons that remain unclear, not only was I not able to get my e-mail, but all my settings for my AOL account (which I keep because the wife has one and I�m customer support � remember) were gone. I was not a happy camper. Also I now started to get gibberish text messages � they looked like the inside of a PGP key at the rate of a couple an hour.

Today was a bit more sane. I delivered a presentation at a local Bar Association and was able to check my e-mail without incident. Surprise avoidance is a good thing. However, there is no way I can use that device and drive at the same time. I need reading glasses to see the device and I have not progressed to the point where I�ve voice coded my more common phone numbers.

A minor annoyance is the fact that the device has valuable screen real estate devoted to a MSN connection. I don�t have one and don�t want one, nor do I want to waste valuable screen space on it, but I have no idea how to remove it or if it can be removed at all.

So what�s my overall take: it was time to make the move and no new technology is acquired without pain. It is somewhat frustrating when a large company like AT&T is not a single point of contact. It would be like your local auto dealer saying thanks for buying that new car, now take it somewhere else to get it fixed. Interestingly enough the repair shop told me that AT&T doesn�t even offer insurance on the device because they are so expensive to repair. I wonder if I had bought the same thing at BestBuy if that would have been the case.

Time will tell if our new hip pocket e-mail will be a blessing and a curse. So far, it�s been a bit of both.

SOA and its IMPACT 2007

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Thu, 31 May 2007 15:59:52 PDT

Before the Memorial Day holiday I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the IMPACT 2007 user conference in Orlando, Florida. There were about 4000 attendees from a variety of vendors, end user organizations, analysts, and the media all present discussing with great intensity the state of Service Oriented Architecture and its impact on businesses. Overall, I am pleased to say that the high level theme of the event was not about technology but rather discussing the business value of technology and how SOA way has transformed how many organizations view IT and align it with their business processes.

On day one, there was a bit of levity given that Don McMillan, the engineer comic, was the master of ceremonies for the various keynote speeches given by a variety of IBM executives and partners. However, all of the speeches illustrated the degree of acceptance that SOA has achieved in many organizations in a very short period of time. This seems to be contrast to the state of SOA just a few years ago.

Around 1999 or 2000 we started hearing much about web services and how it would become the new way of computing in the enterprise. Not too surprisingly at the time the focus was all about the technological implementation. Yet at the same time, some of us pundit types even came up with names like Service Computing (from Zona Research lore) to describe the shift web services implied whereby business process would start to drive IT rather than the historic opposite. SOA has supplanted web services in most respects as a much broader and more strategic blueprint by which to deliver IT services within the enterprise, and happily to my way of thinking, appears to have caught the attention of many others as well.

While there were many sessions about implementing SOA in software design, it was quite notable that there was Business Leader track that targeted the C-level and other executives as well as line of business professionals. This non-technical track was focused on the business agility and competitive advantage that SOA could offer an organization. I can think of no better illustration that SOA has reached a respectable degree of maturity than the existence of this track.

It is encouraging to see that business process was such a dominate theme. While some may take this to mean BPM, I see it in a much larger context. After all, the reason organizations purchase IT products and services is to support their business. Although the late 1980s and 1990s often had many businesses wondering aloud if they in fact had started a second business, i.e. the IT datacenter business, the reality is there would be no IT market without demonstrable business results from use of IT. This clarity of mission is made much stronger by SOA, and I am pleased to say that based upon the crowds at the IMPACT 2007 event, this message seems to be well received and resonating.

Crisis Action Planning, Unlike Chicken Soup � Does Not Get Better With Age

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Fri, 18 May 2007 11:04:39 PDT

Bad things happen to good people and unless they are prepared to deal with them bad things turn into disasters or worse. Like most aspects of running an organization, disaster planning is a mesh of people, process and technology. Most disruptions to business operations are unplanned consequently knowing what to do instinctively before something bad happens can mean the difference between success and failure and sometimes even life and death.

This week I had the opportunity to be an observer as a client went through a �table top� Crisis Management Plan exercise. Key representatives came from the Executive team, finance, corporate treasury, legal, corporate communications and HR. They were run through an expanding scenario that required them to state their priorities and indicate what they would need by way of information from the various teams in the room. Issues as to which organization would be the lead for various aspects of the �crisis� were also hashed out.

As the exercise unfolded it was clear that Corporate Security and HR had worked on many of these issues before, and that there was a general spirit of teamwork and cooperation. It wasn�t until after the exercise was over that I learned that IT wasn�t involved and that the Information Security functions were spread out over several �Managers�. There was good news and bad news here. The good news was that the overall team functioned well and could work on the few areas where they needed improvement. The bad news was that the focus had shifted so far from technology that a second level exercise, one with real players and data, would very likely not be so smooth.

Disaster preparedness for organizations takes many forms. A good place to start is identifying the critical people and processes that need to continue to function regardless of interruptions. Then determine the tools they will need under a variety of circumstances to execute those functions and develop the plans and logistics needed to achieve these ends.

A couple of key things that may often get missed are: 1. 7x24 hour crisis management and engagement of law enforcement. In the case of 7 x 24 operations it is important to realize that a special team needs to be identified and that team removed from their day to day duties to focus on crisis management and actions.

The issue of engaging law enforcement is a bit more complex. Organizations recognize that they may need to involve law enforcement quickly in certain cases such as work place violence; however, in the case of theft of intellectual property, improper employee behavior such as �legal� pornography, industry generally is in no rush to engage law enforcement. In any event, organizations need to determine their philosophy ahead of time. They need to identify: incidents that will immediately involve law enforcement; which law enforcement agency should be notified and the circumstances to do so; individuals who are the principal points of contact, etc. These decisions need to be made prior to the stress of incidents.

It should also be borne in mind that organizations do not exist in a vacuum. Natural disasters and selected manmade ones will likely involve the geographic area surrounding the organization and affect employee welfare and freedom of movement. It is prudent to work with local government and key non government organizations (NGO) such as the Red Cross to understand the total setting. Communal planning for disasters is a continuous process for many organizations - it should be for yours as well.

Of Biometrics and Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Dietz) — Sun, 13 May 2007 12:09:50 PDT

At each RSA show, I�ve noticed that the emphasis on biometric security was enlarging, and that the vendors of this type of security were in deadly earnestness about the usefulness and reliability of their products. They were right. A consumer has happened along that values privacy and the security of that privacy to the extent that they put Army Intelligence, the CIA, and the NSA combined all to shame. This particular consumer would endure weeks of torture rather than reveal secrets. If the Mossad were to emulate this consumer, the security of Israel would be absolute.

I�m speaking, of course, about the recent adaptation of voice recognition biometric security devices being installed on preteen girls� diaries. Really - I�ve seen commercials for them. If voice recognition can pass the rigorous demands and fanatical testing that is no doubt being conducted by this new class of consumers, then this is a security technology that should be incorporated in the highest levels of the Pentagon. Any person who has met a preteen girl knows that I�m not being facetious, here. The person who marketed voice recognition to this segment of the population is brilliant. True, maybe the fate of the world doesn�t depend on the diarist�s little brother not knowing about her crush on Bobby in Homeroom, but perhaps the fate of the little brother depends on his inability to read her diary. And like little brothers everywhere, he is going to be using everything short of a nuclear warhead to try and open that diary.

There is real world testing being conducted at this moment. If this technology passes the test � we�ll wait and see what the girls have to say about it � then with a little tweaking, it should be able to withstand more serious assaults. Visions of Tom Cruise being lowered by a wire into a frilly pink bedroom aside, voice recognition technology is most likely going to be taken much more seriously.

Bobby from Homeroom will be relieved.

Sun Labs: Where Engineers Engage Their Passion And Have Fun

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:46:42 PDT

Yesterday I had the good fortune of attending the annual open house at Sun Labs in Menlo Park, California. If I had know that engineers could have that much fun or that network security/encryption experts could have the bandwidth of knowledge and sense of humor of Radia Perlman I might have stuck with engineering and not gone to law school.

The day was an intellectual holiday, free of the usual trappings and marketing hoopla surrounding vendor sponsored events. I learned about Project Live* (pronounced Live Star) a new virtualization technology; Project Sun spot � an experimental platform for developing wireless sensor, robotics and swarm intelligence applications in Java; new authentication schemas for web security and the Ephemerizer project which is designed to provide assured delete by employing public key cryptography and the planned destruction of keys as a means to delete access.

The environment was purely intellectual and the only sales type I ran into was from one of the major research houses. Engineers were indeed exercising their passion and zeal as much as any attorney representing their clients. They were hoping to enlist disciples who would help to move their various projects from the laboratory to reality. In many respects it was refreshing to engage in discussion about so many concepts in their product infancy. It was especially intriguing for me to address the issue of document control simultaneously from the technical and legal aspects.

I bought a copy of Whit Diffie�s latest book �Privacy on the Line� which he was kind enough to autograph with a personal note. Whit and I go back a long way � in fact to my first published market forecast at my very first research job. The day was not all joy, however, because Whit told me that one of our mutual friends had recently passed away. Paul Heckle was a good and gentle man who always concerned with the future of software, ease of design. A rare bright light in the technical landscape.

I�m grateful to Sun Labs for giving me a day away to see the future, but remember the past.

More Thoughts on Energy and Efficiency

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:36:50 PDT

The other day I was again pondering energy efficiency in the data center, as I am prone ot due with my own idle brain/CPU cycles. Virtualization remains a hot topic as many organizations seek to shift their physical server workloads onto virtualized servers supported by a smaller number of servers/blade solutions. One part of the rationale is to reduce ongoing operational costs and capital expenditure, but now another common reason is energy savings. Although perhaps a later entrant into this efficiency discussion, storage solutions are getting with the energy efficiency program as organizations are beginning to consider the ramifications of having �all those disks� spinning around all the time. The ever declining price points of SATA and other lower cost disk technologies have further highlighted the operational vs. procurement costs of storage especially in secondary and tertiary tier solutions. However for the most part, storage still tends to be over deployed, underutilized, and full of duplication as the management of it proves more difficult in some cases than simply throwing more empty disks at the problem.

One company that has been taking the new approach to reducing the amount of storage over deployment is 3PAR. The company is self described as a utility storage provider and uses an approach it has dubbed as �Thin Provisioning� with goal of delivering more storage capacity with less physical storage. According to a recent press release, 3PAR Thin Provisioning customers collectively have a worldwide energy savings of approximately $6.6 million annually. This savings eliminates 48,000 metric tons of CO2, the carbon emissions equivalent of roughly 9,000 cars. Hewlett Packard of course has been on a tear regarding energy efficiency in the datacenter and EMC has elevated the discussion to the power consumption of its large storage arrays. Sun Microsystems has a greener side to its servers and VMware has participated with PG&E, the California electric utility, to offer rebates on virtualized servers that displace older physical servers. EMC through its acquisition of Avamar has taken a big step forward in eliminating duplication in the storage network and reducing the amount of bandwidth taken up by shuffling around duplicate copies of files and backing them up multiple times. It would be cool to figure what the equivalent reduction in automobile emissions of CO2 would be for reduced delivery of files across the network.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the issue of power consumption will remain in the forefront of IT budgets especially as the price of oil of creeps back toward $70.00 a barrel with corresponding high price of electricity in many jurisdictions. Although for many this means a budgetary driven desire to reduce power consumption, the reality is that competitive advantage can be achieved by reducing power consumption and datacenter footprint regardless of the price for energy. Free market energy prices are dynamic, and in some cases government subsidies distort prices, however, the price is typically constant amongst competitors in a given region. Company A can�t buy electricity for less for Company B therefore regardless of the price paid if Company A reduces its overall consumption, it is in a better competitive position than Company B. Of course a corollary reduction in carbon emissions is also achieved by a reduction in fuel consumption and in some markets the carbon footprint and proposed taxes/mitigation fees may ultimately prove to be a higher economic penalty than the cost of the fuels being consumed. But at the end of the day, consuming less energy has a growing number of factors in its favor.

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to tour Fujitsu Siemens Computers� manufacturing plant in Augsburg Germany. It was somewhat surprising to see actual high tech manufacturing still taking place in the western European country. However what more enlightening was the comment from one of the tour guides that the price advantage China has in electronics manufacturing is predicated on the price of oil remaining below $90.00 a barrel. If the price of energy were to exceed this level, then the labor costs and other resource driven issues no longer work to China�s advantage as the cost of shipping trumps these other advantages. Thusly, it follows that $100 per barrel oil could make IT manufacturing competitive again in regions such as North America or Western Europe despite more stringent regulatory environments and higher costs of doing business. This illustrates how the price of energy may be a short term advantage but though reduced consumption of energy can translate into a long-term competitive advantage.

So while many will continue to be fixated on the dollar cost of energy consumption in the datacenter I think the ultimate winners will be the ones who can orient themselves to use less of any resource be it energy, server CPU time, storage capacity, or networking bandwidth, amongst others. All of these resources have costs in deployment, operations, and retirement. One of the current children�s songs by Jack Johnson, The 3 R�s, includes the phrase, �Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.� We can all learn a lot from this approach. As consumers of IT, we have become spoiled with expectation of improved performance and decreased acquisition costs for equipment but have also become wasteful in how we deploy IT.

Historically many cultures have supported being good stewards of the resources they were blessed with whether they were crops, land, livestock or money. The notion of living well, but living efficiently and with a small footprint, was the way of life. Although many consider the 21st century to be far more advanced and civilized than past cultures, the reality is a life on earth has not changed all that much. Human beings still face the challenge of allocating resources efficiently and effectively. So while we may look to IT to be the silver bullet that fixes many of the business challenges organizations face, the reality is that IT is just another collection of tools and resources in the corporate competitive tool chest. By being as efficient as possible in the deployment and operation of these tools organizations stand the best chance to become the long term survivors, and hence the winners in the marketplace.

Mainframe Security Still High Card In Security Deck

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:47:03 PDT

I had the good fortune to attend a briefing from IBM on their latest security announcements for their Z Systems. It�s been a really long time since my last encounter with mainframes. In fact it dates back to my first iteration as analyst way back in the 1980s, the days of 35 MM projectors and 5 �� floppy disks. My first encounter goes back even further than that.

In those days there weren�t very many alternatives to mainframes and many of us cut our teeth on programming by punching holes in cards and eagerly waiting for reams of printouts on very large sheets of bar laden paper. The first computer I ran was an IBM 1130 for Chrysler. About the size of an attorney�s desk, it had three huge plastic discs, a card reader and a very impressive, loud, and dust generating 1403 Printer. It could do only one thing at a time with a Star Trek like cluster of green lights flashing away and one great big green light which, as I recall, said simply �run�. I remember sitting at the console doing some of my MBA homework when the Dodge Division Regional Manager came in � they were Gods in the Regions and this one in particular terrified many of my colleagues. �Larry why aren�t you working? Why are you just sitting there reading a book?� he bellowed at me. �Mr Robbins�, I replied �as long as this little green light is on, this little machine is working its little heart out and so am I.�

The mainframe was the workhorse for Chrysler and its safety net. When I accidentally erased all of the vehicle sales for a particular month by punching the wrong number in the month column, the IT guys and gals in Detroit came to my rescue and retransmitted the files. Ah yes, I�ve always been quite fond of mainframes.

In some ways it was gratifying to know that they are still cranking away and that IBM has evolved the mainframe architecture to be as relevant today as back then. The briefing was an eye opener for me. I was especially intrigued by the notion of a specialty engine and how this architecture contributed to optimizing the encryption process. End to end encryption in the IPSec world is important and may, over time, evolve to be the standard for sensitive data such as personally identifiable data. Consequently efficient encryption, without the sacrifice of bandwidth or thruput speed is essential.

I was also quite impressed by the attention given to Linux. I had always assumed that Linux was a creature of servers and PCs that had outlived their usefulness a generation or two ago. Ever mindful of new marketing approaches, IBM touts that mainframes are really green frames because according to them �the IBM System z9 Enterprise Class (EC) may provide up to 4 times the same work in the same space and may provide up to 12 times the work for the same power consumption.�

So as I sit here learning the ins and outs of my new Dell Vista laptop I take comfort in the fact that there are mainframes snuggling in their data centers just cranking away as they�ve done for 40 years.

YouTube, VIPs, and System i

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:24:15 PDT

Today there is a bewildering array of individual and community driven communications means that less than a decade ago simply did not exist. Blogs, Podcasts, and YouTube, are becoming very accepted, dare I say, a conventional if not expected means of getting the message out. While much of this content started as personal diatribes (blogs) being released to anyone willing to get online and view the web page, the next stage of content, i.e. Podcasts (take the content and listen later) and now YouTube (view the video now or later) has definitely caught the attention of mainstream content providers. In particular, media interests, especially those with a position to spin, or a product/service to sell, have begun to embrace these communication channels as another way to reach their various audiences and their pocketbooks. At the same time, each of these content providers, are seeking to make their constituencies feel special, part of the greater community, VIPs if you will, so that they will bond with the underlying message and become proactive supporters of the cause.

As new as these approaches may seem, they are addressing an age-old issue, i.e. how to get the message out to one�s audience and influence their actions. In IT marketing, this quandary is the focus of so much marketing attention, especially when it comes to business partners. With reported growth in the number of SMBs and their purchasing power continuing to outstrip the growth of the larger enterprise, vendors are increasingly reliant upon their indirect channels to reach a larger proportion of the business opportunity. At the same time, the number of ways in which to reach the audience is growing, and there is no longer an automatic acceptance that the only and best information comes directly from vendors, Further, user communities are becoming more differentiated along verticals, geographies, IT expertise, and behavioral demographics. So what is a vendor to do? Focus on the past, present, or future? I would argue in many cases, all of the above.

I�ll be upfront, I like the IBM System i. Yet its legacy, and for many, an outdated perception of it in the marketplace, at times limit its potential community of users. However, we have seem much change about the System i, and recently have witnessed an interesting confluence of marketing and positioning that reaches back into the platform�s legacy while at the same time pursuing new audiences, through new communication channels.

The recently launched Vertical Industry Program, aka VIP, has targeted the traditional heart of System i�s success, i.e. being the integrated platform for industry applications. The last few years have offered ISVs many alternative platforms upon which to ply their wares, be they Linux, Windows, or Open Source technologies. For some the value prop of System i may have become overlooked. Refocusing on a core market is a generally a good idea, and the support of 3400+ revitalized System i applications is testimony to the opportunity. But something that is different this time is the micro focus of VIP.

Rather than targeting a few broad verticals, VIP is focused on 80+ micro-verticals, such as travel and entertainment subsets like as gaming table or restaurant management, or manufacturing sub segments such as after-market auto parts, or labor union pension funds. While VIP has the expected partner program features such as co-marketing, technology assistance, and so forth, ultimately I think the narrower focus of targeted solutions may prove to be the success driver. Through close targeting, the channel partner as well as their customers individually become more important and may once again think of themselves as VIPs as opposed to just one of many vying for attention. With the proliferation of formal and ad hoc user communities, the feeling of importance imparted by a vendor to its partners and their customers cannot be underestimated as it is a powerful viral marketing tool.

With an eye towards capturing the attention of new users, consisting of demographically younger, Windows-centric, or Web-savvy citizens, System i has posted some videos, �IT Revenge� v1.1 - v1.4, on YouTube that tap into many of the common frustrations of SMB server administrators. While smashing a server suspended as a pi�ata with a baseball bat may not seem very business like, the reality is this taps into that visceral feeling many server administrators have experienced when dealing with server sprawl, and sets the tone that System i, might be a bit different. Add to this the �i want control� advertising campaign, the iSociety online community, and The Truth web site, and you have a collection of marketing and influencing platforms that reach far beyond the traditional IT education channels. Place a seed and watch it grow might be the adage, but it is a good one, especially if the seed is planted in soil that has never before grown the new crop.

I find it ironic that the classic value of the System i, load the app, fire it up, watch it run, and then leave it alone, is so contemporary. It all gets back to why organizations deploy computers and applications in the first place. It is not about perfecting the black arts of operating and maintaining a fleet of disparate computing resources, it�s about getting business done as competitively as possible. This is as true for business partners as end user organizations. By focusing on both constituencies� needs, IBM can help each feel like they are VIPs, and garner positive viral marketing in numerous end user communities. Getting a closer view and understanding of the customer and partner is always essential to this end. By combining more traditional approaches like the VIP program, and blogs, YouTube, and user communities, IBM is seeking to widen its marketing net, while at the same time making each of its constituencies feel unique and special. This integrated combination of old and new style marketing may be reflective of the System i, itself � a platform with a heritage of integrated simplicity and ease of use whose potential is relevant today in more scenarios than ever.

CSOs � Trend or Fad?

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:19:36 PDT

The notion of combining physical security and logical (information) security has been around for some time. Some industry thought leaders such as Steve Hunt, feel that convergence of the responsibilities for physical and information security is not only a best practice, but inevitable. Recently AT&T published a white paper with the results of a survey conducted for them by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The paper stated that �Typically, the CEO remains the primary decision-maker for electronic security decisions (although in Europe the CIO is more likely to hold this role). But the importance of the chief security officer (CSO) is rising�this figure is cited as the main decision-maker at 12% of companies.�

This made me wonder if the role of CSO makes sense or if it is simply wishful thinking. I pondered the history of the responsibility for information and physical security during my Army career. At battalion (a unit commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel) and above, there is a principal staff officer responsible for �Intelligence and Security�. At one point this officer (the S2 if working for a Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel and G2 if working for a General officer) was responsible for information security as well. Over time this proved untenable since intelligence officers were not IT professionals and it wasn�t practical to have them learn the technical details and nuances necessary to be effective. The responsibility was transferred to the �6� who was the lead for Communications and IT within the organization.

In the commercial sector physical security is the province of facilities while information security is typically within IT and usually reports to the CIO. Ultimately the CIO and the facilities lead may report to a common VP such as the CFO.

Given all the above, suppose you had the ability to re-orient security, what would the ideal structure be given the growing array of regulations, pressure for data privacy and looming e-discovery rules?

I�d argue that the CEO needs a focal point and perhaps the logical keystone is a single individual responsible for Security and Compliance (S&C). Of necessity this would cross the lines of other key direct reports to the CEO such as HR, CFO and of course legal. Staff elements within the Security and Compliance Office could be set up that would have dotted line supervision over their respective functional counterparts while S&C Officer would be the CEO�s representative in all matters related to security and compliance across the organization.

Venyon & NFC -- Cool, but is it Viable?

noreply@blogger.com (Clay Ryder) — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:23:50 PDT

Recently I attended a breakfast in San Francisco given by Venyon, a joint venture of Nokia and Gieseck & Devrient, focused on the topic of Near Field Communication (NFC). NFC is a short-range wireless connectivity technology that has recognition by the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC), European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and ECMA, a European association for standardizing information and communications systems. NFC is optimized for proximity transactions, operates globally in the 13.56 MHz range, and offers data exchange rates from 106-424 kbps. It is also purported to be compatible with the existing and future contact-free payment and ticketing card infrastructures based on ISO 14443 standards.

Venyon envisions a future whereby mobile phone manufacturers will integrate its secured chip and management platform into handsets thus allowing users to use their phone as a secure bank vault by which to commence instantaneous consumer gratification. One comparison given was the use of the mobile phone much like the Oyster cards of London Transport, or equivalent tracking/payments systems in use in various metro transport systems. In addition, Venyon also foresees the embedded technology as a part of multi factor authentication solutions based upon its secure chip, the mobile phone SIM, and your knowledge of secrets. One such scenario might be gaining access to a secured door by touching the contact pad with the phone (as opposed to a card key), which triggers a phone call to the registered number for the mobile phone, whose conversation could be viewed by remote security camera whereby the parties then exchange secrets or pass codes, and the door then is unlocked remotely.

OK, this technology is the stuff that futurists love. It integrates, shares electrons, proffers a future of great enablement, professes a revenue stream for service providers, includes a piggy bank, and has a zillion possibilities for savvy business folk to attempt to have the piggy bank sent their way. I can hear the ads now, �With Cingular and Nokia you can download the latest MP3s, cool ring tones, your bank deposits, and your latest hot club listings, all into one totally cool device that will reduce your carbon footprint while we bill you automatically from your personal cash vault located inside the phone.� Argh!!

To be fair, I am no longer a twenty-something, I am two twenty-somethings. Cool is not as hot as it once was, and I am not no longer easily captivated by gizmos. While I believe there is a market populated by younger people who judge social status by the latest device or wireless functionality, looking beyond this crowd, just how useful could Venyon's use of NFC be for a payment and authentication solution? Technically, it would probably work, but could most people be convinced to change their behavior to where the phone became the next credit or debit card? Would a unified card key system be swapped out in favor of a collection mobile phones from various and sundry service providers? Would light weight modern phones survive the impact and abuse they would receive if they started being slapped against payment and access pads multiple times per day? But most importantly, will banks, payment providers, retailers, and all the other requisite parts of a successful ecosystem sign up and play?

In the realm of IT, one axiom remains constant. It is much easier to swap out technology than to change human behavior. In order to effect behavior change, the new way of doing things must provide benefits not available through the old way and offer a high enough economic imperative to bribe the user into desiring the change. At present, it is hard to see where the economic imperative would be high enough to cause substantial change in the general public.

However, by seeking the tweens and twenty-somethings, which have disposal income and time, Venyon and its NFC cohorts could plant behavioral seeds that would transcend into working adulthood. This could groom a future where such solutions would be as expected as listening to music on a mobile phone is in this demographic today. So, the challenge will be to find deep enough pockets to drive the development of an NFC ecosystem and place the technology into enough early adopters and hopefully watch their NFC behaviors grow. This would take a lot of patience, but it is not impossible. Just ask anyone 10 years ago if they would listen to music on their cell phone (analog, heavy, and expensive) and they would laugh you out the door. Yet to the major mobile providers today, it is no laughing matter.

Although I think Venyon�s vision will not be an overnight success, when technology offers new ways to help separate people from their money, there are always folks interested in taking up the challenge. Time will tell if Venyon�s solution ultimately addresses a need in the marketplace, or if it will join the long list of technologies that were seeking a problem to solve, but did not find one in time before their own problem of financial viability become insurmountable.

Defense Technology � Still A Major Source of Commercial Products

noreply@blogger.com (Lawrence Dietz) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 11:45:05 PST

I read yet one more notice of one company buying a piece of another, but this one struck me as a bit noteworthy. Nomad Digital, providers and operators of specialist mobility networks, today announced its acquisition of QinetiQ Rail, the commercial rail division of QinetiQ. Most people never heard of the company with the funny Q name, but I recognized them from their Defense business centered in the UK which has recently expanded to the US.
According to the acquirer, �The transportation sector is full of opportunities for a wide range of WiMAX broadband and narrowband mobile wireless services and it is largely under-served by conventional mobile network operators. �. enhance our offering of value added on-train services, such as live CCTV, train operating system applications, more reliable train-to-shore communications and entertainment services for passengers.� He goes on to add �By retaining an interest in Nomad, QinetiQ has demonstrated its conviction that we have a strong business here."
There are some interesting market dynamics here. Wireless technology is clearly important in the defense community and rail systems are a key piece of the national infrastructure moving large amounts of cargo and sometimes people. Railroads need to insure safe and efficient operation of their rolling stock. Some like Eurostar and Amtrak are looking for ways to make themselves more attractive to passengers, especially those able to afford higher fares and add-on services purchases.
Having recently experience a cruise on the largest cruise ship in the world (Royal Caribbean�s Freedom of the Seas) I�m aware of the demand for entertainment and instant access. Migration of defense technology into the commercial sector will certainly help increase accessibility; I just hope we�re all smart enough to know when to turn it off.

If it had been The Great Firewall of China, Would the Manchus Still Have Invaded?

noreply@blogger.com (Susan Dietz) — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:13:27 PST

It's a war out there.

The Forces of Good have been battling the Forces of Evil ever since someone made up the first law. Since not everyone agrees that following the rules is in their best interest, enforcers (traditionally ranging from hired thugs to your friendly neighborhood policeman) have been in place. The point of this mini history lesson? To highlight the fact that it's never going to end. Good is never going to triumph over Evil, because part of being Good is not hitting first. Good has to wait for Evil to do something before enforcing the law.

Cyberspace is no different. Hackers and spammers and phishers and all others out there making victims of Joe Q. always get the first blow in the war. The only preemptive move Good can make is to build a wall; but even the Great Wall of China failed, so we shouldn't put all of our trust in our defenses. Once a cybercriminal strikes, all the security companies can do is mop up the pieces and try to make sure that that particular avenue is closed.

It's a neverending, frustrating battle that is going to by definition have innocent victims. (No victim, no crime, right?) So when one is shopping for cybersecurity products, one should keep in mind that they are all based on past attacks and won't necessarily be precognitive enough to protect precious data from the Next Evil Thing.

That's not to say that our cyberspace enforcers aren't doing their best - they are certainly making an all-out effort to try to predict and prevent the next attack. Law enforcement in the real world is working with security specialists in the cyber world, but I believe that more needs to be done. Cyber crime and real world crime are becoming increasingly enmeshed, as is highlighted by the real world crime of a stolen laptop enabling the cyber crime of stolen data and identity theft. The recent theft of a cell phone triggered the real world embarrassment of certain celebrity figures, but what if a stolen PDA results in a criminal being able to ambush someone?

Guarding cell phones, laptops, PDAs or other personal electronics should be on the same level of priority as guarding one's house keys. The sooner the public at large realizes the dangers of not taking their electronic privacy seriously, the better. And perhaps, if enough awareness is raised, my teenager will quit losing his cell phone.