- Sonnet 43, Elizabeth Barrett Browning
What’s love got to do with people and software? (apologies to Tina Turner’s Private Dancer)
Hint: if people live for love, then (software) businesses live for money.
When all is as it should be – love is at the heart of our life and value drives our business. Both are vital – and both are very very hard to measure. Its figuring out WHAT to measure that is so difficult. What really matters? How many poems someone writes? How heavily software is being used? Measuring is easy – measuring the right stuff is what is so very very hard.
At PreEmptive, we have been focusing on Microsoft’s Azure. For those that are non-technical (or who think you are but live in a cave and can’t see the horizon), Azure is a massive Microsoft entry into “cloud computing” – an approach that takes all the worry, hassle and expense of managing computers away (into a cloud) making software very much like a phone service – all (or most) equipment is shared by massive numbers of people and managed for you. Cloud users simply pay to use the service.
Unlike phones, however, software builders and buyers are not all that used to this business model – technically – it’s not that big a deal – but from a business perspective – figuring out what you pay for, how its measured, and what the costs will actually be – this is all new! Ms Browning measures her love in "depth, breadth, and height" - could software value be harder to measure than love?
If wireless phone companies did not charge by the minute, no one would count minutes – we would just talk. Well, developers have just been “talking” for their entire professional careers – and now they have to start structuring their work around these new rules to avoid waste and expense. Azure (and other competitive cloud platforms) is not really a technology innovation as much as it is a major shift in business model.
So, whether you are a romantic (like Ms Browning “I love thee to the depth and breadth and height”) or perhaps more hardened like Papillon Soo in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, one thing is for sure - Microsoft’s Azure wants to “love you long time.”
How deep, wide, high or long is the question.
Check out a this article in SD Times - PreEmptive's Dotfuscator instruments Azure applications By David Worthington – where Dave makes many of the very same points in a much more professional manner.
For a more commercially-centered view on all of this, read my preemptive blog entry.
Spread the love!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Update to last post... I hate to say i told you so...
Right from the NY Times headlines - Cyberattacks Jam Government and Commercial Web Sites in U.S. and South Korea. The article in part reads "SEOUL, South Korea — A wave of cyberattacks aimed at 27 American and South Korean government agencies and commercial Web sites temporarily jammed more than a third of them over the past five days, and several sites in South Korea came under renewed attack on Thursday."
I have seen the list - it's more than 27 sites and it is more of a probe than a serious attack. The attackers are learning from our response and refining their strategy. The fact that these attacks are being characterized as primitive should not make us feel any more secure - sorry - i promise not to turn this blog into a paranoid rant... (unless it's already too late;) - the next few postings will be cheery and sunny (even if it kills me).
I have seen the list - it's more than 27 sites and it is more of a probe than a serious attack. The attackers are learning from our response and refining their strategy. The fact that these attacks are being characterized as primitive should not make us feel any more secure - sorry - i promise not to turn this blog into a paranoid rant... (unless it's already too late;) - the next few postings will be cheery and sunny (even if it kills me).
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A daker side of application and human behavior
In DC today at a security conference (Gartner) – and this has prompted the following - I use this blog explore the symmetry between applications and their human progenitors – today’s posting focuses on a darker side – the military, terrorism and war.
I have just left a presentation led by David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times. He focuses more broadly on foreign policy, globalization, nuclear proliferation, and the presidency – today’s discussion was on Cyber threats rather than nuclear or trade.
Applications are now soldiers, terrorists, saboteurs and secret agents.
Did you know that denial of service attacks (techniques for bringing down phone, power, broadcast and financial networks) are now a standard tactic in every army’s war book?
Just as air bombing is standard before a land battle begins, so are denial of service attacks.
…and guess what? Unlike human terrorists, you cannot easily determine their origin. We have no borders to protect. And even when you find the source (computers) that are launching these attacks – they are rarely in the country of origin (Russia’s attack against Georgia emanated from Turkey). How do you think Turkey would feel if Georgia bombed Turkey to defend itself?
If you haven’t already heard, Obama will soon be appointing a “Cyber Czar” – and before you buy in to some hack (the media equivalent of a computer hacker) complaining that we should be focusing on “the real threats” overseas, our economy, etc. remember your history – think of The Maginot Line – and be grateful that we have a president that actually uses computers and understands their role as the literal “work horse” of the 21st century and, now, the emergence of an entirely new “military front.”
I have just left a presentation led by David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times. He focuses more broadly on foreign policy, globalization, nuclear proliferation, and the presidency – today’s discussion was on Cyber threats rather than nuclear or trade.
Applications are now soldiers, terrorists, saboteurs and secret agents.
Did you know that denial of service attacks (techniques for bringing down phone, power, broadcast and financial networks) are now a standard tactic in every army’s war book?
Just as air bombing is standard before a land battle begins, so are denial of service attacks.
- Estonia experienced a devastating cyberattack in 2007 following a decision to move a statue memorializing Russian soldiers who fought during World War II. Pro-Russian hackers took down bank and school websites on Estonian networks.
- Russia used denial of service attacks before attacking Georgia last year.
- And earlier this week, Iranian news websites and those belonging to political organizations were hit following the contested re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
…and guess what? Unlike human terrorists, you cannot easily determine their origin. We have no borders to protect. And even when you find the source (computers) that are launching these attacks – they are rarely in the country of origin (Russia’s attack against Georgia emanated from Turkey). How do you think Turkey would feel if Georgia bombed Turkey to defend itself?
If you haven’t already heard, Obama will soon be appointing a “Cyber Czar” – and before you buy in to some hack (the media equivalent of a computer hacker) complaining that we should be focusing on “the real threats” overseas, our economy, etc. remember your history – think of The Maginot Line – and be grateful that we have a president that actually uses computers and understands their role as the literal “work horse” of the 21st century and, now, the emergence of an entirely new “military front.”
Friday, June 12, 2009
Stuff i took the time to post on LinkedIn that may be worth repeating
I got caught up in a LinkedIn discussion thread on the influence of analysts on application vendors and software categories - i think it bears repeating... the original question was in part ...
Do industry analysts have too much influence on software vendors, who call their products GRC or CCM/T - terms used by analysts?
There were a few comments before i wrote...
I probably read way too much into this question – but it hit a nerve and so here is a rather lengthy reply (for a linkedin comment anyhow).
At the most abstract level – the etymology of terms like GRC are no different than any other phrase or term in natural language – like heat off of an engine, meanings are generated through usage (which often diverges substantially over time from first use). This means that even though careful and deep thinkers take the time to carefully craft a coherent and fully realized definition of GRC – this is not, at the end of the day, the actual meaning of GRC. There are two scenarios here – a) people using the term with a shallower or incomplete understanding and b) people intentionally reusing the term to mean something slightly (or entirely) different. In either case, whoever gets the most air time generally wins.
Looking at the second use case – intentional misuse – this is extremely common in the commercial world (not just hi-tech). What does “natural” mean? How about “fat free”? Hi-tech examples are numerous too – enterprise content management (ECM) is another good example. In fact, I wrote a short column on this way back in 2002 (before blogs were big) entitled “Enterprise: how long is a piece of string?” http://gilbane.com/columns.pl?view=5 …here I offer my own musings on the tension between vendors, consumers and analysts at length– but the topic was not GRC – it was ECM. Is it surprising that vendors like IBM, Oracle, EMC and others are players in both?
To be clear, motivations are not always malicious or deceptive – as long as analysts need to produce a body of work that is organized, integrated and expandable (and commercially valuable) – they will develop (and insist upon controlling) their own taxonomies.
As long as suppliers are most interested in solving problems competitively and profitably, they will emphasize and focus only on problem domains where they are effective (no vendor paints a worldview with a hole in the middle).
And as long as enterprise consumers are focusing their scarce resources on the most material/pressing challenges and opportunities in front of them, they will ignore skills, technologies and opportunities that do not address their selfish interests. Each group works to influence the other two – but the tension is natural – and I believe healthy.
In my view, all three players are correct to do this (in fact, this is more of an ideal than a common practice). So, I guess the short answer from my perspective is that mapping capabilities to features or categories is, by design, an imprecise means of communicating priorities and intentions – and should never be relied upon to replace detailed and deliberate assessments/evaluations/recommendations.
Buyer beware – or – he who controls the language, controls everything – or – meaningful ambiguity is a good thing…
A few complimentary notes were posted on the above :) and then an interesting post came from Michael Rasmussen - a very effective analyst and thought leader in his domain of governance, risk and compliance management....
Michael wrote "Yes, industry analysts do have too much influence on defining and categorizing software. Particularly in markets such as GRC. I left Forrester after seven years because I was continually frustrated - my definition and approach to GRC was broader than Forrester's audience. Forrester, Gartner, and their peers are good at reaching the IT audience - so GRC (as a software category) often gets trapped within IT. Occasionally it breaks out into other areas such as finance where they have some traction. They fail to understand GRC's role in EH&S, Quality, CSR, and many other areas. "
...and that's when i went a little overboard for a linkedin discussion (it took two posts to fit it in - here it is)
POST 1
Perhaps because I too have spent many years in this business (over 20 as an ISV and even 2 as an analyst), I cannot resist the temptation to connect Michael’s point of view with my earlier post. Sadly for all of you, because the post was too long, you will have to read this post AND THEN THE NEXT POST for the punchline...
The ISV-enterprise-analyst knot If you deconstruct the influence of analysts on software categories, you will see that ISVs are keenly focused on their customer needs (this is the ISVs primary focus). In the same fashion, the ISV customers’ primary focus stems from their target customers requirements (whoever they are). Since assessing IT options (or HR policy or tax law or…) is NOT the ISV customers’ primary focus, they look to outside support that is, ideally, expert and independent. With regard to IT, they look to IT analysts. IT analyst firms in this particular scenario have enterprise IT as their primary customers (focus) too. So – ISV sells to Enterprise who is then sold to by Analyst firms who provide “independent” guidance. The result is a tightly woven financial, professional and organizational knot. Leading to the following good, bad and twisted consequences
1) This dynamic discourages innovation and transformational solutions: The enterprise IT group is generally not incented to modernize or re-engineer their IT strategy on their own initiative – and so, typically, do not look to analysts for this kind of advice – they want guidance with minimal risk, a proven (therefore established) approach, using equally stable technologies and suppliers.
2) IT analyst firms deliver what their customer-base wants – That means a topology and best practices that emphasizes a “rear-view mirror” perspective. This is especially true for companies like Gartner and Forrester because of their enterprise client base. (Note that Michael appears to validate this when he writes that analyst firms are “good at reaching the IT audience.” That’s no accident or even handicap from a business perspective – that is their North Star to hitting their revenue goals. This is the high-order bit, the organizing principle, their raison d'etre. )
3) ISVs must “set the table” to win sales. ISV’s try to influence (or appease) analysts as a tactic to influence their shared customer-base. The influence on ISVs (who ultimately must label their software as “grc” or “ecm” or whatever) is, therefore, indirect. If the enterprise IT customer was willing to pay analysts to produce transformational business and operational re-engineering recommendations – then that’s what analyst firms would immediately start to focus on. But, to date, market forces rarely lean in that direction.
4) Sometime the market does demand transformation. Disruptive technologies like the Internet, regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley or economic forces like the rise of India and China may force businesses to place new demands on IT that get passed to analyst firms which then generate short bursts of transformational analyst output. NOTE - This is the exception and lasts just long enough to address the threat and never long enough to reap all of the potential value. This is why so many companies will stop GRC investments once individual regulatory obligations appear to be met but well before an integrated and effective GRC transformation is even in view. It is organizational and professional entropy.
5) In order to transform businesses, you must cut the knot – If the success of a new business practice or technology requires organizational change and/or a re-education of professionals (inside any of these three organizational threads) – the interlocking dependencies of the ISV-enterprise-analyst knot must be severed.
Is this inherently bad? Read my next post please.... (its WAY shorter)
POST 2
Is this inherently bad? Of course, if you’re a spirit who thrives on transformational change – this will be extremely frustrating (and I count myself among that number). But I have to say that this is not the only view.
As our founding fathers recognized – perhaps the greatest threat to our liberty stems not from dictatorship, but from “a tyranny of the masses.” Like the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, our “knot” of enterprise IT, ISV and analyst may slow things down to a maddening degree – but it also protects us from swinging corporate strategy and operations too often or too far in any one direction. (hey, let’s throw out our computers and just use iphones!).
Now, I would never presume to speak for or represent Michael’s views – but I did have the good fortune to be one of Michael’s clients when he was at Forrester and have had some experience with him in his subsequent “expanded” and independent role as well. My experience of Michael is that he is a man who is not readily satisfied with the status quo and is energized when he sees a way to materially transform the way people work – and by extension – the way they live.
Ironically, as Michael succeeds in his almost evangelical mission to raise our collective consciousness as to what GRC SHOULD mean, organizational changes within enterprises to better align with good GRC practices will be one sure result. This will in turn lead to a spike in demand for more sophisticated/expansive analyst services around “true GRC” and this will in turn bring “the new GRC” into the analyst firm mainstream. …and in a decade or so, someone will rail against these firms for stifling the next dimension of business/social/operational/financial management. Who knows, perhaps it will still be Michael.
Remember – an “end-to-end solution” is just a silo seen from the inside. (…and apologies in advance to Michael if I have in any way misrepresented or dumb'ed down his outlook beyond recognition)…
Do industry analysts have too much influence on software vendors, who call their products GRC or CCM/T - terms used by analysts?
There were a few comments before i wrote...
I probably read way too much into this question – but it hit a nerve and so here is a rather lengthy reply (for a linkedin comment anyhow).
At the most abstract level – the etymology of terms like GRC are no different than any other phrase or term in natural language – like heat off of an engine, meanings are generated through usage (which often diverges substantially over time from first use). This means that even though careful and deep thinkers take the time to carefully craft a coherent and fully realized definition of GRC – this is not, at the end of the day, the actual meaning of GRC. There are two scenarios here – a) people using the term with a shallower or incomplete understanding and b) people intentionally reusing the term to mean something slightly (or entirely) different. In either case, whoever gets the most air time generally wins.
Looking at the second use case – intentional misuse – this is extremely common in the commercial world (not just hi-tech). What does “natural” mean? How about “fat free”? Hi-tech examples are numerous too – enterprise content management (ECM) is another good example. In fact, I wrote a short column on this way back in 2002 (before blogs were big) entitled “Enterprise: how long is a piece of string?” http://gilbane.com/columns.pl?view=5 …here I offer my own musings on the tension between vendors, consumers and analysts at length– but the topic was not GRC – it was ECM. Is it surprising that vendors like IBM, Oracle, EMC and others are players in both?
To be clear, motivations are not always malicious or deceptive – as long as analysts need to produce a body of work that is organized, integrated and expandable (and commercially valuable) – they will develop (and insist upon controlling) their own taxonomies.
As long as suppliers are most interested in solving problems competitively and profitably, they will emphasize and focus only on problem domains where they are effective (no vendor paints a worldview with a hole in the middle).
And as long as enterprise consumers are focusing their scarce resources on the most material/pressing challenges and opportunities in front of them, they will ignore skills, technologies and opportunities that do not address their selfish interests. Each group works to influence the other two – but the tension is natural – and I believe healthy.
In my view, all three players are correct to do this (in fact, this is more of an ideal than a common practice). So, I guess the short answer from my perspective is that mapping capabilities to features or categories is, by design, an imprecise means of communicating priorities and intentions – and should never be relied upon to replace detailed and deliberate assessments/evaluations/recommendations.
Buyer beware – or – he who controls the language, controls everything – or – meaningful ambiguity is a good thing…
A few complimentary notes were posted on the above :) and then an interesting post came from Michael Rasmussen - a very effective analyst and thought leader in his domain of governance, risk and compliance management....
Michael wrote "Yes, industry analysts do have too much influence on defining and categorizing software. Particularly in markets such as GRC. I left Forrester after seven years because I was continually frustrated - my definition and approach to GRC was broader than Forrester's audience. Forrester, Gartner, and their peers are good at reaching the IT audience - so GRC (as a software category) often gets trapped within IT. Occasionally it breaks out into other areas such as finance where they have some traction. They fail to understand GRC's role in EH&S, Quality, CSR, and many other areas. "
...and that's when i went a little overboard for a linkedin discussion (it took two posts to fit it in - here it is)
POST 1
Perhaps because I too have spent many years in this business (over 20 as an ISV and even 2 as an analyst), I cannot resist the temptation to connect Michael’s point of view with my earlier post. Sadly for all of you, because the post was too long, you will have to read this post AND THEN THE NEXT POST for the punchline...
The ISV-enterprise-analyst knot If you deconstruct the influence of analysts on software categories, you will see that ISVs are keenly focused on their customer needs (this is the ISVs primary focus). In the same fashion, the ISV customers’ primary focus stems from their target customers requirements (whoever they are). Since assessing IT options (or HR policy or tax law or…) is NOT the ISV customers’ primary focus, they look to outside support that is, ideally, expert and independent. With regard to IT, they look to IT analysts. IT analyst firms in this particular scenario have enterprise IT as their primary customers (focus) too. So – ISV sells to Enterprise who is then sold to by Analyst firms who provide “independent” guidance. The result is a tightly woven financial, professional and organizational knot. Leading to the following good, bad and twisted consequences
1) This dynamic discourages innovation and transformational solutions: The enterprise IT group is generally not incented to modernize or re-engineer their IT strategy on their own initiative – and so, typically, do not look to analysts for this kind of advice – they want guidance with minimal risk, a proven (therefore established) approach, using equally stable technologies and suppliers.
2) IT analyst firms deliver what their customer-base wants – That means a topology and best practices that emphasizes a “rear-view mirror” perspective. This is especially true for companies like Gartner and Forrester because of their enterprise client base. (Note that Michael appears to validate this when he writes that analyst firms are “good at reaching the IT audience.” That’s no accident or even handicap from a business perspective – that is their North Star to hitting their revenue goals. This is the high-order bit, the organizing principle, their raison d'etre. )
3) ISVs must “set the table” to win sales. ISV’s try to influence (or appease) analysts as a tactic to influence their shared customer-base. The influence on ISVs (who ultimately must label their software as “grc” or “ecm” or whatever) is, therefore, indirect. If the enterprise IT customer was willing to pay analysts to produce transformational business and operational re-engineering recommendations – then that’s what analyst firms would immediately start to focus on. But, to date, market forces rarely lean in that direction.
4) Sometime the market does demand transformation. Disruptive technologies like the Internet, regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley or economic forces like the rise of India and China may force businesses to place new demands on IT that get passed to analyst firms which then generate short bursts of transformational analyst output. NOTE - This is the exception and lasts just long enough to address the threat and never long enough to reap all of the potential value. This is why so many companies will stop GRC investments once individual regulatory obligations appear to be met but well before an integrated and effective GRC transformation is even in view. It is organizational and professional entropy.
5) In order to transform businesses, you must cut the knot – If the success of a new business practice or technology requires organizational change and/or a re-education of professionals (inside any of these three organizational threads) – the interlocking dependencies of the ISV-enterprise-analyst knot must be severed.
Is this inherently bad? Read my next post please.... (its WAY shorter)
POST 2
Is this inherently bad? Of course, if you’re a spirit who thrives on transformational change – this will be extremely frustrating (and I count myself among that number). But I have to say that this is not the only view.
As our founding fathers recognized – perhaps the greatest threat to our liberty stems not from dictatorship, but from “a tyranny of the masses.” Like the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, our “knot” of enterprise IT, ISV and analyst may slow things down to a maddening degree – but it also protects us from swinging corporate strategy and operations too often or too far in any one direction. (hey, let’s throw out our computers and just use iphones!).
Now, I would never presume to speak for or represent Michael’s views – but I did have the good fortune to be one of Michael’s clients when he was at Forrester and have had some experience with him in his subsequent “expanded” and independent role as well. My experience of Michael is that he is a man who is not readily satisfied with the status quo and is energized when he sees a way to materially transform the way people work – and by extension – the way they live.
Ironically, as Michael succeeds in his almost evangelical mission to raise our collective consciousness as to what GRC SHOULD mean, organizational changes within enterprises to better align with good GRC practices will be one sure result. This will in turn lead to a spike in demand for more sophisticated/expansive analyst services around “true GRC” and this will in turn bring “the new GRC” into the analyst firm mainstream. …and in a decade or so, someone will rail against these firms for stifling the next dimension of business/social/operational/financial management. Who knows, perhaps it will still be Michael.
Remember – an “end-to-end solution” is just a silo seen from the inside. (…and apologies in advance to Michael if I have in any way misrepresented or dumb'ed down his outlook beyond recognition)…
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Software as Fiction
I caught an installment of The Bob Edwards Weekend on PRI this week where he was interviewing Denis Dutton, a philosopher and author of The Art Instinct – Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolution. Dutton is also the founder and editor of the website Arts & Letters Daily which was named by the Guardian as the “best Web site in the world.”
Anyhow, and to oversimplify, his premise is that art is much more than heat thrown off of a cultural engine – rather, art sits at the heart of our evolutionary advantage. Art provides a safe, effective means to learn life’s tough lessons without actually having to suffer the scars or take the risks inherent in the real world. As a species, fiction gave us the ability to adapt and survive better than our less creative Neanderthal competitors.
My first thought was of one of my father’s stories – “The Zebra Story Teller” –Checkout the following analysis from The Norton Introduction to Literature: “’The Zebra Storyteller’ suggests that the purpose of stories is to prepare us for the unexpected. Though the storyteller (a zebra in the story) thinks he is just spinning stories out of his own imagination in order to amuse, his stories prove to be practical. When the extraordinary occurs—like a Siamese cat speaking Zebraic—the storyteller is prepared because he has already imagined it, and he alone is able to protect his tribe against the unheard‐of.”
In the context of Dutton’s thesis, the Zebra Storyteller describes how fiction emulates the science that establishes fiction as an emulator!
The Zebra Storyteller is included here at the end of this post.
What’s this have to do with software? If fiction is a safe way to explore and grow – what are computer games? Simulators for airplanes or war games? Test cases that are a part of every application development cycle? We typically think of software as a means of automation that increases productivity, improves quality, etc. – but if Dutton is right, software plays an equally important (or even more important) role as a "low-cost, low-risk surrogate experience."
…and for me – this leaves room (establishes the permanent need) for the truly creative developer who is not chained to a formal spec…
Programmers as poets writing software sonnets - diggit!
The Zebra Storyteller
by Spencer Holst
Once upon a time there was a Siamese cat who pretended to be a lion and spoke inappropriate Zebraic.
That language is whinnied by the race of striped horses in Africa.
Here now: An innocent zebra is walking in a jungle, and approaching from another direction is the little cat; they meet.
“Hello there!” says the Siamese cat in perfectly pronounced Zebraic. “It certainly is a pleasant day, isn’t it? The sun is shining, the birds are singing, isn’t the world a lovely place to live today!”
The zebra is so astonished at hearing a Siamese cat speaking like a zebra, why, he’s just fit to be tied.
So the little cat quickly ties him up, kills him, and drags the better parts of the carcass back to his den.
The cat successfully hunted zebras many months in this manner, dining on filet mignon of zebra every night, and from the better hides he made bow neckties and wide belts after the fashion of the decadent princes of the Old Siamese court.
He began boasting to his friends he was a lion, and he gave them as proof the fact that he hunted zebras.
The delicate noses of the zebras told them there was really no lion in the neighborhood. The zebra deaths caused many to avoid the region. Superstitious, they decided the woods were haunted by the ghost of a lion.
One day the storyteller of the zebras was ambling, and through his mind ran plots for stories to amuse the other zebras, when suddenly his eyes brightened, and he said, “That’s it! I’ll tell a story about a Siamese cat who learns to speak our language! What an idea! That’ll make ’em laugh!”
Just then the Siamese cat appeared before him, and said, “Hello there! Pleasant day today, isn’t it!”
The zebra storyteller wasn’t fit to be tied at hearing a cat speaking his language, because he’d been thinking about that very thing.
He took a good look at the cat, and he didn’t know why, but there was something about his looks he didn’t like, so he kicked him with a hoof and killed him.
That is the function of the storyteller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©Spencer Holst. From THE ZEBRA STORYTELLER, Station Hill Press
Anyhow, and to oversimplify, his premise is that art is much more than heat thrown off of a cultural engine – rather, art sits at the heart of our evolutionary advantage. Art provides a safe, effective means to learn life’s tough lessons without actually having to suffer the scars or take the risks inherent in the real world. As a species, fiction gave us the ability to adapt and survive better than our less creative Neanderthal competitors.
My first thought was of one of my father’s stories – “The Zebra Story Teller” –Checkout the following analysis from The Norton Introduction to Literature: “’The Zebra Storyteller’ suggests that the purpose of stories is to prepare us for the unexpected. Though the storyteller (a zebra in the story) thinks he is just spinning stories out of his own imagination in order to amuse, his stories prove to be practical. When the extraordinary occurs—like a Siamese cat speaking Zebraic—the storyteller is prepared because he has already imagined it, and he alone is able to protect his tribe against the unheard‐of.”
In the context of Dutton’s thesis, the Zebra Storyteller describes how fiction emulates the science that establishes fiction as an emulator!
The Zebra Storyteller is included here at the end of this post.
What’s this have to do with software? If fiction is a safe way to explore and grow – what are computer games? Simulators for airplanes or war games? Test cases that are a part of every application development cycle? We typically think of software as a means of automation that increases productivity, improves quality, etc. – but if Dutton is right, software plays an equally important (or even more important) role as a "low-cost, low-risk surrogate experience."
…and for me – this leaves room (establishes the permanent need) for the truly creative developer who is not chained to a formal spec…
Programmers as poets writing software sonnets - diggit!
The Zebra Storyteller
by Spencer Holst
Once upon a time there was a Siamese cat who pretended to be a lion and spoke inappropriate Zebraic.
That language is whinnied by the race of striped horses in Africa.
Here now: An innocent zebra is walking in a jungle, and approaching from another direction is the little cat; they meet.
“Hello there!” says the Siamese cat in perfectly pronounced Zebraic. “It certainly is a pleasant day, isn’t it? The sun is shining, the birds are singing, isn’t the world a lovely place to live today!”
The zebra is so astonished at hearing a Siamese cat speaking like a zebra, why, he’s just fit to be tied.
So the little cat quickly ties him up, kills him, and drags the better parts of the carcass back to his den.
The cat successfully hunted zebras many months in this manner, dining on filet mignon of zebra every night, and from the better hides he made bow neckties and wide belts after the fashion of the decadent princes of the Old Siamese court.
He began boasting to his friends he was a lion, and he gave them as proof the fact that he hunted zebras.
The delicate noses of the zebras told them there was really no lion in the neighborhood. The zebra deaths caused many to avoid the region. Superstitious, they decided the woods were haunted by the ghost of a lion.
One day the storyteller of the zebras was ambling, and through his mind ran plots for stories to amuse the other zebras, when suddenly his eyes brightened, and he said, “That’s it! I’ll tell a story about a Siamese cat who learns to speak our language! What an idea! That’ll make ’em laugh!”
Just then the Siamese cat appeared before him, and said, “Hello there! Pleasant day today, isn’t it!”
The zebra storyteller wasn’t fit to be tied at hearing a cat speaking his language, because he’d been thinking about that very thing.
He took a good look at the cat, and he didn’t know why, but there was something about his looks he didn’t like, so he kicked him with a hoof and killed him.
That is the function of the storyteller.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©Spencer Holst. From THE ZEBRA STORYTELLER, Station Hill Press
Thursday, March 12, 2009
I will be presenting at the MIT SPAM Conference 2009
Well, this is not really a posting about how applications are like people - its just an FYI that I will be presenting at The MIT Spam Conference 2009 being held at (surprise) MIT. It is a two day conference on March 26-27, 2009.
You can register (sponsor and MIT funded - no charge) by emailing the chair, Kathy Liszka Professor, Computer Science University of Akron, at mailto:liszka@uakron.edu?subject=SC2009
The agenda is reasonably technical and is as follows: (I hope to see you there!)
Thursday March 26, 2009
9:30 a.m. breakfast
10:00 a.m. chair opening
Kathy Liszka / Bill Yerazunis
10:15 a.m. keynote
Robert Bruen: ICANN Policy Enforcement
10:45 a.m. keynote
Garth Bruen: The Future of Anti-Spam: A Blueprint for New Internet Abuse Tools
11:15 a.m. paper
Adrian McElligott: Email Permission Keys
11:45 a.m. lunch
1:30 p.m. paper
Claudiu Musat: Spam Clustering Using Wave Oriented K Means
2:00 p.m. paper
Sebastian Holst: Account-free” Email Services to Combat Phishing, Brand Infringement, and Other Online Threats
2:45 p.m. paper
Nathan Friess: A Kosher Source of Ham
3:15 p.m. paper
Didier Colin: A Selective Learning Model For Spam Filtering
3:45 p.m. presentation
Rudi Vansnick: Is Spam in Europe easier to handle ?
6:00 p.m. reception
Courtesy of ComCast
Friday March 27, 2009
9:00 a.m. breakfast
9:30 a.m. paper
Tim Martin: Phishing for Answers: Exploring the Factors that Influence a Participant's Ability to Correctly Identify Email
10:00 a.m. paper
Reza Rajabiun: IPv6 and Spam
10:45 a.m. workshop
Adrian McElligott: How to integrate Email Permission Keys in to an existing Spam Filter in 5 easy steps
11:15 a.m. paper
Henry Stern: The Rise and Fall of Reactor Mailer
11:45 a.m. lunch
1:00 p.m. presentation
Andra Miloiu Costina: Do humans beat computers at pattern recognition?
1:30 p.m. paper
Cesar Fernandes: An Economic Approach to Reduce Commercial Spam
2:15 p.m. paper
Alexandru Catalin: Phishing 101
2:45 p.m. paper
Areej Al-Bataineh: Detection and Prevention Methods of Botnet-generated Spam
You can register (sponsor and MIT funded - no charge) by emailing the chair, Kathy Liszka Professor, Computer Science University of Akron, at mailto:liszka@uakron.edu?subject=SC2009
The agenda is reasonably technical and is as follows: (I hope to see you there!)
Thursday March 26, 2009
9:30 a.m. breakfast
10:00 a.m. chair opening
Kathy Liszka / Bill Yerazunis
10:15 a.m. keynote
Robert Bruen: ICANN Policy Enforcement
10:45 a.m. keynote
Garth Bruen: The Future of Anti-Spam: A Blueprint for New Internet Abuse Tools
11:15 a.m. paper
Adrian McElligott: Email Permission Keys
11:45 a.m. lunch
1:30 p.m. paper
Claudiu Musat: Spam Clustering Using Wave Oriented K Means
2:00 p.m. paper
Sebastian Holst: Account-free” Email Services to Combat Phishing, Brand Infringement, and Other Online Threats
2:45 p.m. paper
Nathan Friess: A Kosher Source of Ham
3:15 p.m. paper
Didier Colin: A Selective Learning Model For Spam Filtering
3:45 p.m. presentation
Rudi Vansnick: Is Spam in Europe easier to handle ?
6:00 p.m. reception
Courtesy of ComCast
Friday March 27, 2009
9:00 a.m. breakfast
9:30 a.m. paper
Tim Martin: Phishing for Answers: Exploring the Factors that Influence a Participant's Ability to Correctly Identify Email
10:00 a.m. paper
Reza Rajabiun: IPv6 and Spam
10:45 a.m. workshop
Adrian McElligott: How to integrate Email Permission Keys in to an existing Spam Filter in 5 easy steps
11:15 a.m. paper
Henry Stern: The Rise and Fall of Reactor Mailer
11:45 a.m. lunch
1:00 p.m. presentation
Andra Miloiu Costina: Do humans beat computers at pattern recognition?
1:30 p.m. paper
Cesar Fernandes: An Economic Approach to Reduce Commercial Spam
2:15 p.m. paper
Alexandru Catalin: Phishing 101
2:45 p.m. paper
Areej Al-Bataineh: Detection and Prevention Methods of Botnet-generated Spam
Saturday, December 20, 2008
How many bones are in your software?
How many bones are in the human body? Well, it turns out that it depends. You see, there are 206 bones in adults and up to 350 for infants. During the very early years, the architected for rapid growth and flexibility. As a child matures, some of the bones fuse together (like the skull and hip) to provide protection and stability required for the long haul – and the overall bone count drops to the 206 bones that most adults have.
Software solutions are not all that different. Early days, when a particular architecture or solution is first seeing the light of day – communication, authentication, workflow, information management, etc. have to be configured, optimized, and integrated to reconcile system capabilities with environmental constraints and operational requirements. As the solution stack matures, many of the underlying components, for all practical purposes, fuse.
When considering a prospective solution/architecture – make sure it has the flexibility to account for the rapid change that you know has to come as solutions are rolled out AND the adaptability to harden itself to optimize for stability and security – too many moving parts (which may be perfect as requirements are identified) will become a liability as protection and stability become overriding requirements for “the long haul."
Best of breed always looks most attractive “on paper” and perhaps even in early phases of deployment. Over time, there is a lot to be said for tightly integrated ecosystems that come “pre-certified” for interoperability.
Does that mean that we can look for “terrible two’s” and “adolescent rebellion” analogs in application development lifecycle management?
You bet.
Software solutions are not all that different. Early days, when a particular architecture or solution is first seeing the light of day – communication, authentication, workflow, information management, etc. have to be configured, optimized, and integrated to reconcile system capabilities with environmental constraints and operational requirements. As the solution stack matures, many of the underlying components, for all practical purposes, fuse.
When considering a prospective solution/architecture – make sure it has the flexibility to account for the rapid change that you know has to come as solutions are rolled out AND the adaptability to harden itself to optimize for stability and security – too many moving parts (which may be perfect as requirements are identified) will become a liability as protection and stability become overriding requirements for “the long haul."
Best of breed always looks most attractive “on paper” and perhaps even in early phases of deployment. Over time, there is a lot to be said for tightly integrated ecosystems that come “pre-certified” for interoperability.
Does that mean that we can look for “terrible two’s” and “adolescent rebellion” analogs in application development lifecycle management?
You bet.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
It nice to be head of the curve (i suppose)
I just noticed the following article in PC Magazine on candidates and spam…. entitled Palin Wins 'Spam Debate,' As Does Obama published on 10.03.08. In this article, they marvel at the fact that Palin got 5 to 6 times the spam as Biden.
Well, for those that read my previous posting on SEPTEMBER 13 - they would have learned the same thing (and a bit more about the likely origins of some of that spam.)
Here is another article - Be Especially Alert For Bank Phishing Attacks also in PC MAG that talks about increased phishing attacks on banks - now this information i do not publish as openly, but i will repost my comment on this article... I wrote
"We can track email traffic on a variety of financial institutions - we have seen 5 specific attacks on the banks listed here in the past 3 days - these generated many 100's of thousands of emails being sent from over 100 diferent IP addresses based in over 35 countries - again, all of this traffic stemmed from only 5 coordinated attacks."
Its nice to be ahead of the curve I suppose... but only if someone is listening.
Well, for those that read my previous posting on SEPTEMBER 13 - they would have learned the same thing (and a bit more about the likely origins of some of that spam.)
Here is another article - Be Especially Alert For Bank Phishing Attacks also in PC MAG that talks about increased phishing attacks on banks - now this information i do not publish as openly, but i will repost my comment on this article... I wrote
"We can track email traffic on a variety of financial institutions - we have seen 5 specific attacks on the banks listed here in the past 3 days - these generated many 100's of thousands of emails being sent from over 100 diferent IP addresses based in over 35 countries - again, all of this traffic stemmed from only 5 coordinated attacks."
Its nice to be ahead of the curve I suppose... but only if someone is listening.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Presidential SPAMPAIGN 2008
Presidential Spampaign 2008
Is Biden irrelevant?
On September 11th, spam email for each of the candidates plummeted by between 36% and as much as 57% (for Palin). This is unlikely to be a coincidence, because the email blasts rebounded on the 12th again with spammer references more than making up for the one day pause.
It turns out that the volume and character of spam can offer a kind of twisted view into the zeitgeist of this election season.
Using the qi-fense phishing-net service that combs through over 17 million emails every day, I took a look at the spam traffic for the week of September 6th.
Using the qi-fense phishing-net service that combs through over 17 million emails every day, I took a look at the spam traffic for the week of September 6th.
That week was notable for a number of reasons. First, both presidential candidates hit the road with their newly anointed VP nominees. Second, both parties paused and then re-ignited their campaigns as part of their observance of 911. What can peering into the SPAMiverse tell us about all of this?
Is Biden irrelevant?Of the roughly 40 thousand pieces of spam that referenced one or more of the nominees during the week of September 6th, only 4% of the traffic referenced Biden in any way. Whether the email was genuinely political in nature, positive or negative, or simply tried to hijack their name recognition to push a casino or a knock-off watch, 96% of the spam made no mention of Biden (as compared to Palin who was mentioned 5 times more often!).
McCain and Palin get equal billing?
McCain barely gets more attention than his running mate, Palin. Palin got over 10 thousand spams that userped her name - McCain just broke 11 thousand.
Obama is no celebrity
While Obama gets the lion’s share of spammers’ attention, the combined republican ticket gets 43% more references than their democratic rivals Obama and Biden compbined.
Political Campaigns dominate political spam
While there are plenty of sleazy spammers trying to capitalize on the election season, there is one trend that is hard to ascribe to typical spammers pushing casinos and mail order prescriptions – let's call it the 911 pause.
The 911 pause
A breakout of the volume of spam by day shows a curious pattern between September 9th and September 12th.
A breakout of the volume of spam by day shows a curious pattern between September 9th and September 12th.
On September 11th, spam email for each of the candidates plummeted by between 36% and as much as 57% (for Palin). This is unlikely to be a coincidence, because the email blasts rebounded on the 12th again with spammer references more than making up for the one day pause.It may be notable that McCain has somehow won an extended grace period – his spam volume only climbed 9% after the 11th versus Palin who spiked by over 100% on Sept 12.
So when the political parties claim to be completely removed from the email smears that clutter your email – don’t believe it. McCain and Obama gave a cease and desist order for 911 and their campaigns listened – even those elements that they deny as their own.
So when the political parties claim to be completely removed from the email smears that clutter your email – don’t believe it. McCain and Obama gave a cease and desist order for 911 and their campaigns listened – even those elements that they deny as their own. Friday, September 5, 2008
The soul of a new application
Are some applications inherently good or evil - can that really be in their DNA?
Can exposure to toxins during an application's gestation cause defects? Are QA teams like pediatricians?
What about an application's environment? Can a good application go bad?
If so, can applications be rehabilitated or must they simply be quarantined or euthanized?
Can the company an application keeps be a good (or bad) influence on its behavior? Its 10PM - do you know where your application is?
What about diet? Do you know the appetite (for data) required to keep your application at its prime? What happens if your application eats too much – can an application get fat on content? Does it have a coronary or just get slow and lazy? Do your applications have built in restraint or are they fundamentally gluttonous?
What about corrective surgery? Are you against adding limbs post-partum (instrumentation)? Perhaps if it is for health reasons and not just for aesthetics? Are UI facelifts superficial – or do we treat pretty applications nicer than the ugly ones? If so, what’s wrong with a little nip and tuck as an application gets along in years? Would we tolerate the eccentricities of the iPhone if it looked like a motorola razor?
Can exposure to toxins during an application's gestation cause defects? Are QA teams like pediatricians?
What about an application's environment? Can a good application go bad?
If so, can applications be rehabilitated or must they simply be quarantined or euthanized?
Can the company an application keeps be a good (or bad) influence on its behavior? Its 10PM - do you know where your application is?
What about diet? Do you know the appetite (for data) required to keep your application at its prime? What happens if your application eats too much – can an application get fat on content? Does it have a coronary or just get slow and lazy? Do your applications have built in restraint or are they fundamentally gluttonous?
What about corrective surgery? Are you against adding limbs post-partum (instrumentation)? Perhaps if it is for health reasons and not just for aesthetics? Are UI facelifts superficial – or do we treat pretty applications nicer than the ugly ones? If so, what’s wrong with a little nip and tuck as an application gets along in years? Would we tolerate the eccentricities of the iPhone if it looked like a motorola razor?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Enterprise Sales and 18 ways to be a better waiter
I recently led some sales training for our team and stumbled across these tips on how to be a better waiter on wikihow.com - it fit so perfectly into how to be a great enterprise software sales person - i used the analogy throughout the day -
... (the italicized text are my little comments when i think one was necessary)
- Learn everything you can (nuff said)
- Never fight over tables with other waiting staff. (dont fight over territories)
- Learn the menu as soon as possible (know what you are selling)
- Learn your regular customers' names as soon as you can.
◦People love having a regular place to go to, where you know what they like to eat and you call them by name. - Develop a file system for your regular customers (learn the organization)
- Do one thing at a time.
◦Don't count on finishing writing the order down as you walk to the order counter. Do it now! (stay organized) - Break down the "wall" between you and your customer.
◦Depending on the situation, sit down at the table to take an order, squat down to take a child's order, shake hands, … - Always be clear about your order.
- Be tactful about questioning customers.
◦If you feel you must question why a customer is making a special request, be tactful - Remove the plates, glasses, and other used items from the table as they are finished. (follow-up on support and other commitments)
- Don't just assume when the diner is finished and wants the check. Ask if there is anything more you can get for them (When the checkbook is open....)
- Be polite in the face of irritable, difficult and unfriendly customers
- Don't let a bad tip ruin your shift. (don't let one deal break your stride)
- Happy service is infectious - Happy service is infectious
- Check back often with your tables. You'll always have that table who always seems to need something extra. (stay in touch)
- Leave drama, bad moods and personal issues at the door.
- Never sit around. If you have nothing to do, clean! (cold call, research, etc.)
- Be honest about the food/kitchen practices when asked by the customer. Serious consequences can result from mis-information. Allergies and intolerance to food products or practices could result in death. (overselling will kill a relationship)
So - a great waiter… (like a great enterprise salesperson)
◦Fits the menu to the diner - and not the other way around
◦Highlights appetizing and healthful options and ingredients
◦Offers irresistible side dishes
◦Is mindful of inventory and high margin options
◦Is attentive and inquisitive without being intrusive
◦Identifies who is paying early in the meal, communicates payment options and delivers the bill
◦Does not need to know how to cook!
◦Is rewarded with a gratuity that is proportionate to the bill and their level of service
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The best defense is a good e-fense
I'm advising on a new venture, qi-fense, an anti-phishing and reputation management service that filters a huge volume of real-time emails to provide early warning on phishing, reputation attacks, competitive tactics, etc. Check it out at http://www.qi-fense.com/.
I think it is very cool because of its low cost, low friction and potentially high value proposition - if you're interested in learning more (or have ideas) - LET ME KNOW (remember - ideas only have to be good - not original ;)
I think it is very cool because of its low cost, low friction and potentially high value proposition - if you're interested in learning more (or have ideas) - LET ME KNOW (remember - ideas only have to be good - not original ;)
Thinking outside the box is no different than thinking inside
Truly different approaches to problem solving erase the box - afterall, depending on on the size of your box (and the size of your universe - string theorists can relate) thinking outside the box might actually offer fewer options than the alternative.
Is it possible to unlearn - or forget - that the box ever existed?
Is it possible to unlearn - or forget - that the box ever existed?
Friday, June 27, 2008
The many faces of software
Popular wisdom tells us that the more words a culture has for something, the more important that "thing" is to that culture. Whether its ice for the Inuit, rice for the Chinese or money to Americans - there are cross cultural examples to be found everywhere. Yet, I have always held a corollary to be that the more meanings a culture has for a single word - the poorer that culture understands the word - essentially rendering it meaningless in the most extreme examples. In fact, I wrote a collection of short stories where the title of each was derived from one of the many definitions for the word "natural" - but that is another matter all together.
What strikes me is that software is an example of both cultural importance and limited understanding. We have applications, components, widgets, binaries, executables, plug-ins... well - the list could go on for much longer and - candidly - is not at all surprising to discover that software has become an important element of our culture. What is, I think, telling, is the many meanings (and disagreements) on the definition of software. It is the disconnect and dissonance between people, organizations and processes that lead to financial, functional and operational software failure.
Software as currency – if you take a $10 bill and rip it in half – you don’t have two 5’s – you now have paper. There is an atomicity (or unit) to currency and a consensus on how it is valued – these are the essential characteristics of a currency – and the medium is truly irrelevant. Are applications simply executables? How do support, documentation and activation rights fit into the “currency of applications?” Software services, on demand application manifestation and content that encodes behavior further challenge even the basic notion of what are the ingredients of an application.
Software as a commodity – prospectors find gold and stake their claim – an assayer will assess its worth and a separate array of businesses will refine, package and ultimately monetize the gold (coins, leaf, jewelry, bullion, etc.). Well – this I think fits pretty neatly into the true life cycle of software – developers know where the interesting bits are that they develop within larger bodies of code and they know what needs protecting. The actual value of that work is typically best established by product management, line of business, etc. and the monetization is accomplished through sales and marketing - protect – analyze – monetize.
Software as an asset – tracking software is always been tough and it is getting tougher – but truly measuring the financial impact of software on a business (not based upon what was paid for the software – but on the change in value of the business that adopts said software) is so murky as to be meaningless on any general scale.
Imagine how much more efficient the software business might be if we could get all of the stakeholders in the development, consumption and adoption of software to agree on these three dimensions of software – we would move from the bartering economy of pre-history to a truly modern (and efficient) software economy…
What strikes me is that software is an example of both cultural importance and limited understanding. We have applications, components, widgets, binaries, executables, plug-ins... well - the list could go on for much longer and - candidly - is not at all surprising to discover that software has become an important element of our culture. What is, I think, telling, is the many meanings (and disagreements) on the definition of software. It is the disconnect and dissonance between people, organizations and processes that lead to financial, functional and operational software failure.
Software as currency – if you take a $10 bill and rip it in half – you don’t have two 5’s – you now have paper. There is an atomicity (or unit) to currency and a consensus on how it is valued – these are the essential characteristics of a currency – and the medium is truly irrelevant. Are applications simply executables? How do support, documentation and activation rights fit into the “currency of applications?” Software services, on demand application manifestation and content that encodes behavior further challenge even the basic notion of what are the ingredients of an application.
Software as a commodity – prospectors find gold and stake their claim – an assayer will assess its worth and a separate array of businesses will refine, package and ultimately monetize the gold (coins, leaf, jewelry, bullion, etc.). Well – this I think fits pretty neatly into the true life cycle of software – developers know where the interesting bits are that they develop within larger bodies of code and they know what needs protecting. The actual value of that work is typically best established by product management, line of business, etc. and the monetization is accomplished through sales and marketing - protect – analyze – monetize.
Software as an asset – tracking software is always been tough and it is getting tougher – but truly measuring the financial impact of software on a business (not based upon what was paid for the software – but on the change in value of the business that adopts said software) is so murky as to be meaningless on any general scale.
Imagine how much more efficient the software business might be if we could get all of the stakeholders in the development, consumption and adoption of software to agree on these three dimensions of software – we would move from the bartering economy of pre-history to a truly modern (and efficient) software economy…
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Attention – this is not a metaphor or an analogy - application development and IT operations are really ecosystems
Central to the ecosystem concept is an idea that living organisms are continually engaged in a set of relationships with every other element in their environment. Any situation where there is relationship between organisms and their environment can be legitimately described as an ecosystem.
A system as small as an office or as geographically disbursed as a collection of digitally connected workspaces can be described and studied as human ecosystems. Now, ecosystems are often treated as lucrative sources of goods and services. Forest ecosystems produce wood and maritime ecosystems produce fish and application development ecosystems produce software.
Among the most interesting and active regions within any ecosystem are its edges – between the sea and seashore and between a development ecosystem and the IT operations ecosystems that it abuts. The points on land that define a coastline constantly shift with the tides and currents as do the points of work where end-users and applications meet.
I think there is genuine insight to be mined as we try to navigate the constantly changing social, technological, regulatory, economic and organizational impact of applications across the biosphere. Ecosystem classifications, functionality and biodiversity topics, the edge effect in ecosystems, studies on invasive species and traits of invaded ecosystems, … all have striking – and I think useful – parallels worth exploring to better manage the health and vitality of the application-dependent ecosystems that we all inhabit.
...and perhaps i will have the patience to jot some of these down here in the coming months...
I have been studying the point-of-work in this light for a few years now - and it clearly holds a true duality of purpose and form (like a wave and particle - but that is another post). Does the point-of-work hold the key to transforming (and aligning) the application supplier and consumer ecosystems? Therein lies the mystery - and only mother nature knows for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)