The Truth doesn't bluff.
Posted by Portuno Diamo
at 12:33 AM EDT
| « | April 2007 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||
not surehttp://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/webservices/story/0,10801,108184,00.html
Dow Corning Corp. purchased Systinet 2.0 in December and plans to have it in production by the end of February, said Kris Zywicki, enterprise architect at the Midland, Mich.-based company. Over the past two years, Dow Corning has built about 250 Web services, creating a services layer in its architecture that is "very unmanaged," Zywicki said. "The point here is to organize the environment for it to be more controllable," he explained. "Systinet provides a complete environment for the metadata management ... for a centralized approach to visibility."
'A very interesting play.'
HP
By Martin LaMonica
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
January 9, 2006
http://news.com.com/Mercury+buys+registry+maker+Systinet/2100-7345_3-6024366.html
By Tom Krazit
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
July 25, 2006
http://news.com.com/HP+snaps+up+Mercury+Interactive/2100-1014_3-6098351.html
update Hewlett-Packard announced Tuesday that it will acquire management software company Mercury Interactive for $52 a share, or $4.5 billion in cash.
Maybe NOW we'll get an idea how much one of those things costs.
From 4 January 2006, until its purchase by Hewlett-Packard, Mercury was been traded via Pink Sheets as a result of being delisted from the NASDAQ due to noncompliance with filing requirements. This situation occurred as a result of Mercury having to restate financial results due to improprieties by executive management regarding stock options backdating. The executive officers who precipitated the delisting, Chief Executive Officer Amnon Landan, Chief Financial Officer Douglas Smith, and General Counsel Susan Skaer, resigned on November 2, 2005 when it became known that these officers were aware of, and participated in, the manipulation of stock options purchase dates on 49 occasions between 1995 and 2004. In addition to these manipulations, the Chief Executive Officer, Amnon Landan, misreported personal stock option exercise dates to increase his profit on transactions three times between 1998 and 2001. Other improprieties on Amnon Landan's part include a 1 million dollar personal loan in 1999, which was not authorized by the board of directors, and was not clearly disclosed in the company's filings with the SEC. The company is under new management.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_Interactive
Yup? Got the yips yet?
And curiouser.
http://www.motive.com/newsevents/pressreleases/pr.asp?id=5082
About Motive
Motive is the leading provider of service management software for Global 1000 businesses. The Motive xi Service Management Suite enables companies to deliver and support a new class of automated, smart services that have enormous impact on business process success and customer satisfaction. Motive’s technology and approach to smart services has been proven by market leaders such as 3Com, Bell Canada, BellSouth, British Telecommunications, cablecom, Charter Communications, Cox Communications, Deutsche Telekom, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Hyperion, Microsoft Business Solutions, NTL, SBC Communications, Telewest, TELUS, Time Warner Cable, VERITAS Software, and Verizon in more than 25 million implementations worldwide. Motive was founded in May 1997 and is backed by leading venture capital firms and private investors. For more information, visit www.motive.com.
more at URL
amorousOne thumb up the puckerpoint. That's no plum you're holding. (Thanks to mister yup for maintaining some decorum around here.) If you have any comments you would like me to address or amend please don't be shy. Count on your comment not making it outside even if it is a good one unless you obviously want to become embroiled. It's hot enough for one in here KWIM?
And as for the January 2007 datescrewup I plead Napolean brainfrees.
a-okWhen we look at the concept of UDDI in a Software Oriented Architecture (SOA) we see how important such a concept would be for each company implementing such a regime. Each company would have proprietary products that would treat the world of the UDDI registry with the same arbitrary flavor needed to understand the other players.
I thought the IBM site dealing with UDDI was informative therefore I thought I should post it here for youse to see.
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is a business-centric IT architectural approach that supports integrating your business as linked, repeatable business tasks, or services. SOA helps users build composite applications, which are applications that draw upon functionality from multiple sources within and beyond the enterprise to support horizontal business processes
 | Learn about SOA products and services from IBM |
crushed outYou may recognize this from a post some ways down the line. I'm leaving the original text in its found form and revising here to see just how well people read. That's right. There's all sorts of contragains and überportions in all that I post everywhere. Tripwires, as it were, to send you off into looneyland mit dem culdesac assumptions humans on the make are wont to make.
And you can find them EVERYWHERE. Like ChickenMan, see?
Turn your sound off if you don't want to wake up the baby.
http://chickenman.danoday.com/
Buddy Baveman came up with it from the garbage pile. All the other references have apparently been removed from the internet record and from Chinadotcom's public news records.
So I figured I might as well stick this where we can get to it for reference.
Notice this PR is dated Monday December 12, 2006. Patrick Tinley retired some days earlier (Although this PR is dated Monday December 12, in fact the actual announcement was made Monday December 5, 2005. That lost and forgotten information presented to the Rastaroni thanks to reader 'yup' from our records division from the treefort) ... on the same day (December 5, 2005) VCSY returned from pink sheets to the OTCBB. Most companies never return from the dead like that.
In addition, oddly enough, on that same day Microsoft IBM and SAP announced the impending shutdown of the UDDI for centralized XML development among those companies and others.
http://webservices.sys-con.com/read/164624.htm
Background: http://www.webservicessummit.com/News/UDDI2006.htm
Odd that the UDDI actually shut down (actual plug pulling event) on January 5, 2006. Not January 12, 2006 as one might expect. Almost as though the three had gotten one of those 'cease and desist' lawyerly things that normally give a boilerplate grace period of, like, 30days from December 5, 2005. Dig?
And, as our reader and friend 'yup' might point out here; ALSO on the same day VCSY returned from the dead.
Now, I'm about to go get me some Napoleon ice cream with bananas and fiddle with my spoon in the delicious icy marm. But YOU my friend should find out why this nice young man says this:
I then told myself, that probably this ShutdownFAQ published by IBM is IBM's own interpretation, and that checking out what Microsoft and SAP say about the shutdown might yield other perspectives. But – surprisingly – both Microsoft and SAP Shutdown FAQ pages returned with a HTTP 404 kind of message. Is someone here destroying evidences?
in Here: http://mulikoppel.blogspot.com/2006/01/you-only-live-twice-death-and-life-of.html
and here: http://mulikoppel.blogspot.com/2006/02/death-and-life-of-uddi-part-ii.html
and one more here: here:http://mulikoppel.blogspot.com/2006/02/toolsmiths-manager-his-repository-and.html
chatty And WHY should VCSY longs CARE about CDC and Pat Tinley?
We'll see.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4643415/CDC-Corporation-Announces-Key-Restructuring.html
Publication: PR Newswire
Publication Date: 31-AUG-05
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Company: CDC Corp.
Article Excerpt
HONG KONG, Aug. 31 /Xinhua-PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- CDC Corporation (Nasdaq: CHINA; http://www.cdccorporation.net/) today announced that as part of its announced strategic review and restructuring it has begun the process to integrate each of its business services and software businesses under its software unit, the CDC Software group. Mr. J. Patrick Tinley has been promoted from his position as Chief Executive Officer of Ross to the newly created position of Chief Executive Officer of the CDC Software group where he will oversee all of the company's software and business services operations globally. Pat Tinley has been with Ross for 16 years.
Mr. Steven Chan, Acting Chief Executive Officer of CDC Corporation, said, "We are extremely pleased with the...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.
Pat Tinley
---------
Get the drift?
Why? He became CEO with Chinadotcom on August 31, 2005 and left as CEO not even 100 days thereafter. And on the same day VCSY returned from pinksheets after an SEC investigation. Now, I'm nobody to be accusing, but normal rationale people tend to make assumptions based on very meager evidence. I'm inviting the reader to engage in a psychological test of sorts; a test of inference and refutation within the reader's mind. You have noticed us picking at a breadcrumb here. Keep pecking. You'll soon know the trail.
celebratoryBuddy Baveman came up with it from the garbage pile. All the other references have apparently been removed from the internet record and from Chinadotcom's public news records.
So I figured I might as well stick this where we can get to it for reference.
Notice this PR is dated December 12, 2006. Patrick Tinley retired some days earlier... on the same day VCSY returned from pink sheets to the OTCBB. Most companies never return from the dead like that.
http://www.lexdon.com/article/CDC_Corporation_Announces_Appointment_of/24007.html
HONG KONG and ATLANTA, Dec. 12 /Xinhua-PRNewswire/ -- As part of the restructuring initiatives undertaken as part of its strategic review, CDC Corporation (Nasdaq: CHINA) today announced the promotion of Mr. Rick A. Marquardt from his position as president of Pivotal Corporation to president of the CDC Software group which includes Ross Systems, Inc. ("Ross Systems"), the company's enterprise software subsidiary, Pivotal Corporation ("Pivotal"), the company's customer relationship management software subsidiary and IMI Corporation ("IMI"), the company's supply chain, warehouse and order management software subsidiary.
This section excerpted for clarity: MORE AT URL
Pat Tinley former Chief Executive Officer of CDC Software resigned to pursue other interests outside of the company. With the promotion of Mr. Rick Marquardt to president of CDC Software, there are no current plans to replace the CEO position.
About CDC Corporation
CDC Corporation (Nasdaq: CHINA) is focused on enterprise software, mobile applications and online games. As part of its strategic review the company has reorganized into two primary operating business units, CDC Software and China.com Inc.
For more information about CDC Corporation, please visit the website -- http://www.cdccorporation.net
About CDC Software
CDC Software, the software unit of CDC Corporation, offers a broad range of software solutions for mid-sized enterprises. These products are utilized by approximately 4,000 customers worldwide.
For more information about CDC Software, please visit the website -- http://www.cdcsoftware.com
quizzical Uhhhh... after reading through I think Mister Graham thinks he's figured it out. He has the timeframe correct and he recognizes the exodus of XMLhttpRequest but if he thinks buying the Web 2.0 startups no matter how cheap they can be had for now, he's still behind the curve.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/13561
Microsoft is Dead
April 2007
A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand. It was as if I'd told him how much girls liked Barry Manilow in the mid 80s. Barry who?
Microsoft? He didn't say anything, but I could tell he didn't quite believe anyone would be frightened of them.
Microsoft cast a shadow over the software world for almost 20 years starting in the late 80s. I can remember when it was IBM before them. I mostly ignored this shadow. I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly—for example, in the spam I got from botnets. And because I wasn't paying attention, I didn't notice when the shadow disappeared.
But it's gone now. I can sense that. No one is even afraid of Microsoft anymore. They still make a lot of money—so does IBM, for that matter. But they're not dangerous.
When did Microsoft die, and of what? I know they seemed dangerous as late as 2001, because I wrote an essay then about how they were less dangerous than they seemed. I'd guess they were dead by 2005. I know when we started Y Combinator we didn't worry about Microsoft as competition for the startups we funded. In fact, we've never even invited them to the demo days we organize for startups to present to investors. We invite Yahoo and Google and some other Internet companies, but we've never bothered to invite Microsoft. Nor has anyone there ever even sent us an email. They're in a different world.
What killed them? Four things, I think, all of them occurring simultaneously in the mid 2000s.
The most obvious is Google. There can only be one big man in town, and they're clearly it. Google is the most dangerous company now by far, in both the good and bad senses of the word. Microsoft can at best limp along afterward.
When did Google take the lead? There will be a tendency to push it back to their IPO in August 2004, but they weren't setting the terms of the debate then. I'd say they took the lead in 2005. Gmail was one of the things that put them over the edge. Gmail showed they could do more than search.
Gmail also showed how much you could do with web-based software, if you took advantage of what later came to be called "Ajax." And that was the second cause of Microsoft's death: everyone can see the desktop is over. It now seems inevitable that applications will live on the web—not just email, but everything, right up to Photoshop. Even Microsoft sees that now.
Ironically, Microsoft unintentionally helped create Ajax. The x in Ajax is from the XMLHttpRequest object, which lets the browser communicate with the server in the background while displaying a page. (Originally the only way to communicate with the server was to ask for a new page.) XMLHttpRequest was created by Microsoft in the late 90s because they needed it for Outlook. What they didn't realize was that it would be useful to a lot of other people too—in fact, to anyone who wanted to make web apps work like desktop ones.
The other critical component of Ajax is Javascript, the programming language that runs in the browser. Microsoft saw the danger of Javascript and tried to keep it broken for as long as they could. [1] But eventually the open source world won, by producing Javascript libraries that grew over the brokenness of Explorer the way a tree grows over barbed wire.
The third cause of Microsoft's death was broadband Internet. Anyone who cares can have fast Internet access now. And the bigger the pipe to the server, the less you need the desktop.
The last nail in the coffin came, of all places, from Apple. Thanks to OS X, Apple has come back from the dead in a way that is extremely rare in technology. [2] Their victory is so complete that I'm now surprised when I come across a computer running Windows. Nearly all the people we fund at Y Combinator use Apple laptops. It was the same in the audience at startup school. All the computer people use Macs or Linux now. Windows is for grandmas, like Macs used to be in the 90s. So not only does the desktop no longer matter, no one who cares about computers uses Microsoft's anyway.
And of course Apple has Microsoft on the run in music too, with TV and phones on the way.
I'm glad Microsoft is dead. They were like Nero or Commodus—evil in the way only inherited power can make you. Because remember, the Microsoft monopoly didn't begin with Microsoft. They got it from IBM. The software business was overhung by a monopoly from about the mid-1950s to about 2005. For practically its whole existence, that is. One of the reasons "Web 2.0" has such an air of euphoria about it is the feeling, conscious or not, that this era of monopoly may finally be over.
Of course, as a hacker I can't help thinking about how something broken could be fixed. Is there some way Microsoft could come back? In principle, yes. To see how, envision two things: (a) the amount of cash Microsoft now has on hand, and (b) Larry and Sergey making the rounds of all the search engines ten years ago trying to sell the idea for Google for a million dollars, and being turned down by everyone.
The surprising fact is, brilliant hackers—dangerously brilliant hackers—can be had very cheaply, by the standards of a company as rich as Microsoft. So if they wanted to be a contender again, this is how they could do it:
Comment on this essay.
party time!I wonder if Mister Graham is the kind of journalist that's as good as a lawyer. You know. The kind of guy who knows the answer to the question before he asks it... because that's what he gets paid to do?
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/13561
He doesn't mean what the headline says (but they do have a job waiting for him at the sensationalistic Boston Herald should this technology thing prove to be a fad.)
What Graham actually tries to convey is his latest essay is that Microsoft no longer instills the fear that it once did, particularly among entrepreneurs, some of whom were still in diapers when the software giant was smiting a Netscape or two every week.
Developer, author, renowned anti-spammer and venture capitalist, here's how Graham gets rolling:
A few days ago I suddenly realized Microsoft was dead. I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized he didn't understand. It was as if I'd told him how much girls liked Barry Manilow in the mid 80s. Barry who?
Microsoft? He didn't say anything, but I could tell he didn't quite believe anyone would be frightened of them.
Microsoft cast a shadow over the software world starting for almost 20 years starting in the late 80s. I can remember when it was IBM before them. I mostly ignored this shadow. I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly-for example, in the spam I got from botnets. And because I wasn't paying attention, I didn't notice when the shadow disappeared.
And here's the big finish to an essay, which while I don't buy its general conclusions, raises the bar in the "Microsoft is Dead" genre:
I already know what the reaction to this essay will be. Half the readers will say that Microsoft is still an enormously profitable company, and that I should be more careful about drawing conclusions based on what a few people think in our insular little "Web 2.0" bubble. The other half, the younger half, will complain that this is old news.
Granted, I'm locked in a Texas Death Match of my own this year with The Big Five-Oh, so you can probably guess which of those two groups can claim my membership.
Microsoft is dead in much the same way that the power of the United States government and military are dead: Yes, we've abused and squandered that power in ways both arrogant and unconscionable ... but dead? Not on your life.
Graham is getting plenty of the reaction that he anticipated, as well as a variety of other viewpoints. A sampling from the discussion over at Reddit:
A larger share of people are inspired by and agree with many of your earlier articles, those that inspired us to build startups, take risks, and those that imparted us wisdom and an outlook on life that we wouldn't normally have.
However you should have been expecting flame and phlegm as a response to this; you can't claim a company as dead if it is no longer massively visible or dominant in your (or our) corner of the techs pace. Microsoft is very much alive, and it's doing what it can create new niches of its own.
-----
As the scores and numbers of us F/OSS-heads swells, so too, are the numbers of .NET-ites. There are very many who aren't "enlightened" enough, (or care enough), to investigate Microsoft alternatives. Hordes of them grew up with XP. They will go to Vista. And some time soon, they may come to discover VB. Which will lead them to .NET. Or perhaps they will become enthralled by the Windows Presentation stuff (people like shiny things). Either way, Microsoft will still be very much alive. Just not in the spaces where people like us care for.
And as many as we are, there are still far too many for whom the term "computer" means "box with Windows on it". And that won't change any time soon.
-----
I still can't understand why startup founders would be limited by using MS.
It's not that an individual, with a particular project in mind, would be limited using MS per se. If said individual wanted to write a killer web-app, he could. He'd have to download and install or compile all the software he wanted to work with, though.
Compare that to someone running a *nix variant. A lot of the tools he might want would come pre-installed in most cases. A lot of his friends and other interesting people working on other interesting projects are running a *nix. There's a synergy that develops. There are a zillion cool widgets and gadgets and doohickeys you can install on OS X and Linux and their ilk. A lot of the effort driving all these zillions of projects is made a lot more efficient by the synergy of working on a *nix platform in the first place.
-----
Windows is not where the synergy is. That's why "all the computer people use Macs now." Ever been to OSCON? 50-75% of the attendees use Macs.
Sure, 90% of the world, the rubes and the plebes(1), use Windows, but they're consumers - consumers don't make anything, they barely choose anything, they just use what's given to them. No synergy. No excitement.
(1) not meant to disparage anyone actually using Windows. I occasionally use Windows. I'm just sayin'.
That last one - "not meant to disparage" - is both priceless and the tone evident throughout Graham's essay. True or not, it's not an attractive tone.
celebratoryI might get one of them Banzai Choppers like on TV. Might want to do Chinese for dinner. But WAIT! Minces nuts in just seconds. heh heh heh
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=180980
By: RapidRobert2 06 Apr 2007, 02:21 PM EDT
Msg. 180980 of 180983
(This msg. is a reply to 180978 by Sliver_Fox.)
Sliver: VCSY settled with Gyselen and Arglen and bought their shares of NOW Solutions. They were part of the original lawsuit until they settled.
I think Wade settled with them because he knew NOW Solutions was rapidly growing and the more he waited, the higher the value so he wanted Gyselen and Arglen out of NOW Solutions as soon as he could remove them. He is a smart guy and did the deal to get them out of NOW Solutions at a minimum price compared to the value NOW Solutions has or will have in the near future.
Nice deal for VCSY! Bad deal for Gyselen and Arglen...they should have played fair and Wade would have worked with them and made them money, too. I don't see Gyselen taking the stand and being under oath in front of a judge, too many questions he would have to answer or take the '5th' and destroy his testimony anyway.
That's the way it goes, screw Wade and you screw yourself. It was short term 'Greed' by Arglen and Gyselen and long term greed for Tinley and Ross...after all, they thought VCSY would be out of business instead of a fighter staying around until the 12th round and winning with a knockout..not even a technical knockout. IF the jury decides for VCSY and awards from a few million to many millions.
Simply a case of Ross/CDC underestimating Wade and VCSY! Wade learned the 'deal' at the side of the experts at 'Duty Free', all billionaires..unless the one gave it all away to charity by now. True Genius and Wade was there, too.
RR
IMOi??
- - - - -
View Replies »
