The Window

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Why doesn't Microsoft license a different kernel?

Micro-laris?

Micro-nux?

Micro-BSD?

Anyway you name it would Microsoft benefit from replacing it's underlying kernel?

If Microsoft replaces the underlying kernel and framework would they still be competitive or would they ruin an empire? Microsoft's kernel and underlying frameworks are capable of many interesting things, but is it really that much different than any other OS?

Microsoft could build a desktop environment from the Object Manager up and allow the underlying Operating Environment to take advantage of not only their innovation, but also the innovations of communities such as OpensSolaris or FreeBSD.

A couple of things might need to change, such as the dependence on the explorer and the configuration manager. DirectX could go and OpenGL could be utilized. Keep the applications, user interface and viola.. you have Windows without the headaches of slowest release schedule on the face of the planet.

Wine on Linux does provide some windows applications, but at the very sketchy cost of losing access to the apps every time there's an SP release.

Running Windows virtualized does work in most cases, but it's really about applications, not the OS.

Microsoft does have a great Office suite, Media Center and gaming platform. Unfortunately.

Microsoft doesn't have a great track record of producing OS's quickly.

Microsoft doesn't have a great track record of building user friendly environments, including their products.

Maybe with Microsoft competing with the KDE's, Gnome's and Cocoa's, Quartz's and others instead of trying to build the best island, they'd get back to doing what they do best.. creating applications for Operating Systems and not Operations Systems for selling their applications.

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:32:00 +0000

Definitely an appropriate use of the cow bell

The song "Around the Bend" by The Asteroids Galaxy Tour has gained popularity, not because Apple used it to promo it's new iPod Touch, but because of the obvious cow bell usage. Apple was attracted to the song, primarily because of the cow bell.

Oh, and by the way, it doesn't hurt that the lead singer has an incredible voice. The band also rocks and it's nice to see the usage of multiple instruments.

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:35:00 +0000

Cool site I found, wonder if it'll work. Linux-Tube

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:30:00 +0000

Online Videos by Veoh.com
Uh.... the epitome of the artistic programmer

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:42:00 +0000

Yet another treasure from Stumble.

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 04:10:00 +0000

Man I love Stumble....

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:21:00 +0000

Microsoftified - the result of being enticed with features while attempting to perform a specific function, then forgetting the original function and continuing to utilize what ever feature was stumbled upon first, then digging through a multitude of menus until settling on the one tool that can be located from any direction. this is sometimes referred to as SAPF (Shortest Attention Path Found) that has sometimes been compared to OSPF (Open Shortest Path Found)

Microsoftification - the result of years of being Microsoftified, microsoftification can lead to major decisions on IT solutions that reinforces the belief that software solutions can be sold in a box.
this can also lead to a fear of proprietary software solutions due to a perceived loss of control to internal programmers and will often lead to more "out of the box" solutions to remove the control from the internal programmers. this has sometimes lead to years of licensing relationships with companies which provide their own software solutions (considered "out of the box") to these companies seeking to alleviate themselves from the burden of proprietary software solutions for the IT infrastructure.

Microproxifier - A microproxifier is usually the company from which the original company has requested "out of the box" solutions and is therefore the proprietor of these types of solutions and provides the requesting company with enticing software licensing solutions which often times provides proof to the requesting company that they may have been paying too much for internal proprietary solutions and therefore reiterates the belief that software programmed and licensed by other companies is always cheaper than software written internally (see SAPF). after a minimum of 6 months and maximum of 18 months the requesting company receives updates and/or upgrades which seem to miraculously resolve issues that the requesting company had assumed were strictly proprietary issues. the microproxifying company doesn't usually disclose the sources or reasons for these apparent miraculous solutions and of course doesn't hold back from providing these solutions to other companies which have requested their ethereal abilities.

a microproxifying company, after a period of time, can sometimes become a completely different company than originally thought by the requesting company. the microproxifying company can become any number of other companies. in some cases, a company completely against the software which they originally provided and insisting the new version of software they are providing is better, but of course, costs more to provide and therefore licensing costs will increase. if the requesting company decides to retain the original software which miraculously provided solutions to their company, the microproxifying company becomes a support firm and will provide limited term support for the original software (which they now consider legacy), but at a much higher licensing fee. If the requesting company decides to move toward the new licensing model and therefore the upgraded software solutions, the microproxifying company will remain a software solutions company and continue providing ethereal solutions to the requesting company.
some of the known downsides to the upgrade solution is that the company is now providing software which was once downplayed by the microproxifying company, but has been acquired during one of the microproxifying companies mergers. another is licensing restructuring which can sometimes lead to doubts about the cost savings over internal development as compared to the microproxifying company's "out of the box" solution. this doubt is usually dismissed due to the cost of transition, and the realization that no internal employees can transition to the new systems and no other systems can communicate with the new or legacy systems due to "out of the box" API's. this is soon resolved with more miraculous solutions provided by the microproxifier.

as a side note, there have been cases where the original cost savings realized during transition from internal proprietary solutions to "out of the box industry standard" solutions have been exceeded with licensing costs within the original 6 months.

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:09:00 +0000

The New Republic

Hacker Heaven, A beautiful story of the underdog. A revelation of the little man. Here, IMHO, is a perfect example of a situation every man woman and child hopes for throughout life.

Then there's reality. The beauty of working on the same things day in and day out. I once heard this statement, which I believe summarizes everyone's job today in the tech industry.

"Insanity: doing the same thing day in and day out, yet expecting the results to differ."

Now I've been at the same job for a little over a year and the "Business drivers.." (the ones that are driving the business....err..uh..money, driving the businesses money) have asked the same question at the same times of the year. Now these questions happen to coincide with the spring and fall time changes. Now, the answer has been the same for more than a year, yet it seems to be a problem getting it through to the business drivers. You see, technically, it's quite simple. The issue they're seeing is with something that is dependent on the time setting of each clients computer. Something no system, that I'm aware of (even NTP) can make perfect. The thing is, each client (user) can set the time zone to where ever they like, NTP only keeps the time accurate, nothing makes it true to which time zone a user is actually connecting. Centralized system time can't always accurately indicate the time zone which the user is actually in because it is accurate but there is really nothing that confirms the user is still where they told the system they are or where they set it to when asked. So..What to do, what to do...

Well, first don't base anything you do off of time you can't keep. Don't expect that any of that time is actually an indication of where people are physically.

Not too tuff to figure out, yet each daylight savings time the "business drivers" continue to escalate this issue, and when I say escalate I mean all the way up the cooperate food chain. There I am....low man on the totem pole, trying to explain to a VP (I would assume a very intelligent and educated person) what time zones are and how a computer system allows users to set their own time zones that aren't always accurate. i.e. I have my time zone set to GMT - 4, but I can set my time to what ever time I would like...so how can anyone check the right time? You can't. I've explained this, others have explained this and even an email from a year ago explains this to the same VP who was asking the same question, a year ago. So all the "business drivers" have done is show how ignorant they, and everyone they represent, really are.

Now I know this sounds a little harsh, but it is an example and I wouldn't say what I've said if it weren't for the fact it's happened 3 times so far.

Moving on, the Hacker Heaven story, doesn't it sound appealing considering the above described situation? Doesn't it sound good, the one who knows what's happening getting one over on those that think they know, but are in control? If you think about it, the digital divide is nothing more than those that know and those that don't know. Although, IMHO, it's that those that do know understand and those that don't know need those that do to survive. Nothing is hidden, nothing is kept away, nothing is "behind the curtain". You can google anything. Props to the person who said, from his fathers office in 1988; "How smart would someone be if they had all the knowledge of all the libraries at their finger tips?". His fathers office was laced with maps of the globe and on the desk, he pointed to a computer.

So I say, what is the digital divide? That is the the digital divide. A person that never knew google, the person that never touch a "browser" understood the power of the internet.

Yet today, 17 years later, people running business are still having a hard time understanding computer settings????

So, I feel, the new republic will be the civilization of business. No longer will the taller prevail from hight intimidation, no longer will the egotistical reside high above the people which place them there. Soon will be the tools to help everyone communicate across any company, quickly and efficiently without the need for management. The beauty of the digitization of business is the fact that what used to take entire staffs to perform are now simply services on the web. Something that used to be handled by many, can be performed by one with the right program.

So the thought of the little guy hacking into to a company and displaying every persons salary and nudie pictures sounds funny. Or maybe it's just something that has molded the way we look at the internet, computers and those that understand them. They are, after all, the new priesthood.

Outsource everything. ;)

noreply@blogger.com (Triv) — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 04:53:00 +0000

Where are we going?

Extensions, in the Firefox application, are adding web enabled applications, or functions. Adding weather to your browser, etc. This is an excellent application, but this only works with FireFox, the browser. Each application has it's own function the fact that it's attached to Firefox is irrelevant. Firefox, or mozilla, are merely the means by which weather is delivered. Another example, in my opinion is the AOL application which contains very helpful applications within it, but are only attached to the client. I believe they termed it “sticky” applications. Now from a marketing standpoint, sticky applications are beneficial for bolstering an application. Remember those great little sticky creatures which came in cereal boxes? Usually an octopus, the ones that would stick to the walls. Shamefully enough, this is what comes to mind when I think of sticky, but it bolstered Capt'n Crunks sales in my house. Or did it? I don't believe this thought of “sticky” is what the manufacturers of applications would like you to think. The applications, IMHO (Thanks AOL for IM), are only a means to deliver a good, if that good is no good, doesn't matter if you hand deliver the goods.

Let's look at these systems once more. The AOL Instant Messenger, or AIM, gives me a tool to communicate with others very efficiently while signed on, on my cell phone or just all around in general, jacked-in. I don't personally use this tool and I'm not sure why I stopped using AIM. Perhaps I stopped because I get ads. I know it's free, but I don't really like the idea of giving up everything I use it for to get it free. When AIM starts, I get a “Welcome Screen”, after this has loaded all it's ads, I get stuck on tools. These tools, I don't think I'd use even if it “added” functionality to AIM. Now, AIM is making a come back. These tools seem to add some function. but the buddy list is encumbered with sticky things!? Next, we have MSN Messenger, I don't use it either. I have here and there, but I don't like anything that is “required” as part of an O/S install. The next is gAIM, the one I use. I'm not sure why I started using gAIM. This application is true to what it delivers, Instant messaging, not only that but I can add plug-ins which add functionality. I can do everything I can do with AIM, but without Ads and it is more focused on the “Buddy List and IM's” in general. It's not an email cleint, it's not a multi-functioning application portal, it's an Instant Messaging client.

I would be willing to pay a subscription to services like email, IM, quality streaming music, keywords and movies on demand. These are the proverbial “goods”, this gets us somewhat back to the “Giveaways” blarticle. A program, which I've stumbled upon, is Konfabulator. This is a kick-ass tool. This gives me, widget bliss. The widgets give me the web enabled applications I want, without the combersome clients. I can pick and choose which I want and which I don't. These are very easily written applications which, quite nicely, display information I want. I'd pay for that. Easy, cheap, modifiable widgets that give me information I want. If AOL only split out their services with widget interfaces, I'd pay 'em a subscription. I could get the security of their systems, the functionality of the fastest, most secure network in the world, yeah...I'd pay for that. When did the model (business, that is) lay out that customers should get what they want? oh, and they have pay for it! oh, and we can advertise to them as an alternate revenue stream! Oh, that I guess, was cable television.