Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
View Profile
« May 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 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Apple Fritters
Calamity
Chinadotcom and VCSY
DD to da RR
Endorsements
Facebook
GLOSSARY
Gurgle
HP and VCSY
Integroty
Microsoft and VCSY
Nobody Can Be That Stupid
Notable Opinions
Off the Wall Speculation
Panama
Pervasive Computing
Reference
SaaS
SOA
The DISCLAIMER
The Sneaky Runarounds
TIMELINE
VCSY
VCSY / Baseline
VCSY / Bashed
VCSY / Infotech
VCSY / MLE (Emily)
VCSY / NOW Solutions
VCSY - A Laughing Place #2
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Excuse me, are these seats taken?
Mood:  irritated
Now Playing: 'Gang aWay' Family arrives just in time to board last boat off the island. (Travel / Adventure)
Topic: Integroty

This is utterly laughable and disgusting all at the same time. And you nitwits sit there with a thumb up the pie like Little Jack.

One would think Microsoft would have some sort of accountability with their own public and shareholders, but, I guess when you're that big, you can do as you pretty damn well please.

I DOOOOO wonder what is headed Microsoft's way.

By: Texas_Star
29 May 2007, 03:27 PM EDT
Msg. 186224 of 186227 

MSFT "Insider Selling" accelerating fast!

Some notes:

1. Bill Gates has SOLD roughly 20,000,000 shares THIS month.

2. BACH ROBERT J has SOLD roughly 20% of his shares THIS month.

3. Over 40,000,000 shares SOLD by insiders in last 6 months.

4. ZERO shares purchased by insiders in last 6 months.

5. VCSY filed a lawsuit against MSFT just last month.


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=MSFT

Hmmmmmm! Very interesting I'd say!

Tex*

IMO


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:52 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:52 PM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (3) | Permalink
IBM wants to know. LOL
Mood:  hug me
Now Playing: 'Making Tools' Stone age tribe hammered by robots. (Fossils / Freebies)
Topic: Pervasive Computing

Question:

IBM (actually an O'Reilly Editor is asking) wants to know: "What are all you 'XML Programmers' using for tools? Rocks tied to sticks?"

XML and Java technology: Low-level or high-level XML APIs?

How much control do you want over your XML?

Brett D. McLaughlin, Sr. (brett@newInstance.com), Author and Editor, O'Reilly Media, Inc.
29 May 2007

Not many years ago, the options for working with XML were limited essentially to SAX, DOM, or a home-brewed API. With hundreds of different developer-friendly APIs today, though, have developers lost some of their ability to manipulate XML?

Here's the deal: I'm looking to stir the pot a bit. This is obviously not a tip that is overflowing with working code, because I wonder who really does use working XML code these days, and what API (or APIs) they use. Is it true that hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of you out there still plug away with SAX and DOM, comfortable writing your startProcessingInstruction() method, or have data binding and helper APIs completely taken over? I'm curious, as is much of the developerWorks editorial staff.

And arguably more importantly, do you believe you still have the control and power over your XML? I pose this question particularly to programmers who have worked with XML since the early days when SAX was your only option for speedy XML reading, and DOM was the only choice if you wanted to deal with an XML document in object form. Do you find yourself working at a higher level, and are you OK with that? Or have we all become Turbo Pascal programmers while only a select few guys are popping the stack over on their ASM terminals? Please, get involved in this discussion—hop on over to the forum and start posting, and let's see what everyone thinks. XML programmers: declawed or not?

I would like to know a few answers as well, like, how do all you developers feel watching Java take on XML while .Net sits in the closet?


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:28 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:39 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Forget the bipolar bears, it's the icebergs that will get us.
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: 'North to Santa Barbara' World situation heats up for eskimos in the sun light.
Topic: The Sneaky Runarounds

SOME CLARITY FOR YOUR WATER?

The following dated fragments come from the Timeline Vershtinken (see sidebar) which is a compendium of only a few interesting coincidental datings clustered around Microsoft, their efforts toward a web-based client which never materialized, and VCSY intellectual property awards.

August 18, 2004 VCSY SiteFlash Patent allowance
(date approximated by subtracting example 104 day span on Enabler patent allowance/granted cycle)
[see March 28, 2006]

August 27, 2004 Longhorn rewrite announced. Winfs out of Longhorn

November 11, 2004 Ballmer throws chair during meeting with Lucovsky

November 18, 2004 Ballmer accuses Linux of violating >258 patents

November 30, 2004 VCSY SiteFlash Patent granted

The marginalization of those developers who know what Longhorn was about (as opposed to “journalists” who write what they're told and don't bother looking into details) and what Microsoft intended Longhorn and all the other lost qualities that were to make up Vista, has begun.

 

 

May 25, 2007

Longhorn Reloaded: Nostalgia Run Amok
Filed under: Windows Vista
Posted by Randall Kennedy on May 25, 2007 08:28 AM

excerpted:

...for some people the memories are so compelling that they simply don't know how to "let go." Take the case of the "Longhorn Reloaded" project. These poor souls are so tortured by Microsoft's decision to abandon portions of the original Windows "Longhorn" vision that they've taken it upon themselves to "complete" Microsoft's work by delivering a rogue version of the Windows OS they believe "Longhorn" could have become.

...Why? Why resurrect the unfinished code base of a BETA OS (LHR, as they call it, is based on the WinHEC 2004 pre-release build 4074) that Microsoft shelved over 3 years ago?

...folks... believe that Microsoft abandoned the "Longhorn" effort prematurely and that the product they delivered last year - Windows Vista - is a mere shadow of the original vision.

More at URL

 

Hmmm. Clever but not correct. It follows the Microsoft issued line of 2004 which has been shown to be self-serving and deflective.

Just to even the playing field, I thought I might take this opportunity to put a few surveyor spikes down so we can take at least a couple benchmarks to get a lay of the land, so to speak.

NECESSARY BACKGROUND

The first [1] is "What's Next" Should Be "What's Now" from February 2004 by Joe Wilcox, then a writer for Jupiter Research.

The next [2] regards “Longhorn Reloaded” from 2004. Longhorn reloaded is a curious phrase that happens to coincide with development of the cut versions of Microsoft Longhorn by outside developers over a recent seven (you read right 7) month period, achieving what Microsoft has not been able to accomplish in many years with very much money.

The next [3] is a Raging Bull VCSY Message Board post by myself (as Ajax203) writing at the time as Ajax203. My various usernames were necessary as numerous anti-VCSY posters infested the board and would goad others into arguments in order to have those posters removed by Raging Bull for violating Terms Of Service (TOS) conditions not connected with the discussion at hand. It's been guerilla posting on VCSY Raging Bull for seven (you read right 7) years with many of the original anti-VCSY people like DC-Steve and recy43 no longer operational under those names at least.

Why am I telling you this? Well, first, if you are a veteran of the posting wars, this is a set of triangulation markers so we can refresh our understanding as to what has taken place over the years.

If you are a newbie and don't know (probably don't really care except somebody shoved some info in your face and you're now curious) you've got a very long way to go before you will understand very much about what you're looking at. Lots of luck. You're going to need it. BUT, it may be some of the most valuable investigation and due diligence you will likely ever do.

yers truly - portuno

To Wit:

 

[1]

February 25, 2004
By Joe Wilcox
"What's Next" Should Be "What's Now"

Once again, Microsoft is on the "What’s Next" trail instead of "What’s Now." Longhorn evangelism videos, here, show the next-generation Windows capabilities applied to healthcare and real estate; ...

...I see Microsoft as spending too much time talking about Longhorn when it’s Windows XP that matters right now. Two weeks ago, I blogged on the failure of Windows XP evangelism, after taking a cue from colleague Michael Gartenberg (here and here). Yesterday, I blogged about Microsoft’s stance on security, which, related to Longhorn evangelism, is about how new products will solve existing problems.

The "future products will solve your existing problems" message is well worn out by Microsoft.

 

 

More at URL

[2]

March 03, 2004
By Joe Wilcox
Longhorn Reloaded

About two months ago, I started warning folks to watch for a major Windows Longhorn retrenchment in early 2004. I had expected Microsoft to seriously rethink its larger Longhorn strategy and make changes potentially as colossal as .Net. Around the beginning of the millennium, Microsoft made .Net into a "bet the company" strategy, but later backed away from its boldest ambitions: Moving into the subscription content and Web services market. Microsoft execs also have talked about betting the company on Longhorn.

I would consider last week’s Windows XP Reloaded announcement the first step in the Longhorn retrenchment process.

Longhorn is Microsoft’s boldest Windows upgrade plan since the company abandoned Cairo about a decade ago. The products share many similar design goals. But Longhorn’s delivery schedule--I’ve been saying no sooner than 2006--has been looking increasingly difficult to meet. As I blogged last week, Microsoft has too many pieces to put into place to realistically meet 2006; similarly, I see the colossal number of changes coming in Windows XP Service Pack 2 as giving businesses plenty of behavioral and software changes to contend with. SP2 could further slow Windows XP upgrades.

Already, slow upgrades have plagued Windows XP. As I blogged before (here, here and here), Microsoft hasn’t effectively evangelized Windows XP. That’s not a good situation, considering the growing hype around Linux. I would consider any company using older Windows versions--that’s one in five large businesses running version 95 somewhere--as candidates for Linux experimentation.

How much or how little a threat Linux poses to Windows is a topic for an upcoming report. Whether Linux is or is not a threat is immaterial; Microsoft clearly perceives a threat. In the latter 1990s, I doubted that Netscape could steal Microsoft’s operating system crown, but Microsoft saw enough of a threat to set off the so-called browser wars.

With Linux a perceived threat now in the backdrop of slow Windows XP conversions, Microsoft has plenty of good reasons to turn up the hype around its current OS and turn down the volume on Longhorn. Microsoft also has to be concerned too much Longhorn hype could further stall Windows XP upgrades. Worse, Longhorn will usher in so many changes, many businesses might further stall upgrades.

If the company looks seriously at the failure of Windows XP evangelism, the perceived Linux threat and Longhorn’s ambitious design goals, strategy retrenchment is a sensible approach.

Some news reports already are talking about XP Reloaded leading to a delay in Longhorn’s delivery. But, I see that as having been an inevitable outcome for some time. I would look for Microsoft to either push out Longhorn’s release or deliver a less ambitious upgrade within the original schedule. At least, those are two options I would recommend the company consider.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at March 03, 2004 09:53 AM

 

 

 

 

[3]

By: ajax203
04 Jun 2006, 06:09 PM EDT
Msg. 160258 of 186163

[a] excerpted:

One thing to think about. Tim Bray made his SOA BS comment public in his blog here:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2006/04/17/SOA-or-not
The End of SOA
Updated: 2006/04/18

(content is a rant by Tim Bray of Sun Microsystems regarding SOA as “vendor bull****” in Tim's words. I am simply passing his views to you.)

[b] excerpted:

from http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=VCSY&read=160235
March 29, 2006
Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Receives a Notice of Allowance From The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office For a Patent Application Covering Various Aspects Of The XML Enabler Agent ...

 

 

More at URL

 

Mary Jo Foley appears to be following the Longhorn Reloaded activity in more than one place. Apparently there are a number of “nostalgic” developers out there who feel they were jilted by Microsoft's erasure of Longhorn history.

 

 

May 29th, 2007
There’s more than one way to reload Longhorn
Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 4:37 am

The folks over at Joejoe.org aren’t the only ones with “Longhorn” nostalgia.

Enthusiasts over at the AeroXperience.org site also are looking to bring back Longhorn, a k a, the precursor to the Windows Vista release that Microsoft launched in January 2007.

The Joejoe.org Longhorn Reloaded team is looking to ressurect and retrofit a 2004 pre-release version of Windows so that it can be used as an alternative to Windows Vista.

The AeroXP “Vista Customization Square”/Retrophase team is looking to bring the existing Vista Aero interface to a pre-Longhorn-Reset version of Windows.

Incubating in our very forums is a project called ‘Retrophase.’ Think the reverse of ‘Longhorn Reloaded.’ Instead of bringing Windows Vista capabilities to the rotting Longhorn 4074 platform, the community is bringing Longhorn goodness to the shiny new Windows Vista platform,” blogged AeroXP member Rafael Rivera.

The Longhorn Reloaded effort kicked off in earnest last October; Retrophase started in June 2006. Last week, the Longhorn Reloaded team announced it had achieved Milestone 1 along its internally-set release timetable.

The existence of both of these projects raises a number of questions:

  • Once Microsoft “abandons” a code base, is it fair game for developers to use that code base to build a new product/technology? (I doubt Microsoft considers the Longhorn client code to be “abandonware,” as one member of Joejoe.org suggested, but this is still an interesting point to ponder….)

  • If Microsoft doesn’t “release” code — under some kind of open/quasi-open-source license as a platform atop which developers are encouraged to tinker — as was the case with, say, Visual FoxPro (the basis for Sedna/SednaX) –can the code still be used in that way?

  • Would Microsoft be open to the “community” keeping a discontinued/older code base alive? (The Visual FoxPro folks are requesting an answer on this very issue right now, with their call for Microsoft to release the FoxPro source code so that the community can keep continue to update it.)

 

What is “intellectual property” children? Is it work done? Or ideas acquired and kept locked up?

Or is it something intangible like “ownership”. It appears, no matter which way Microsoft turns on this question, the wolves have the buffaloes surrounded and are now nipping at those hooved feet to bring the big boys down.

 

 

 

UPDATE
I suspect this Longhorn Reloaded issue will blow into quite a firestorm before long. It's better to be informed than ignorant and anyone who believes what was told them in 2004 should take a re-read to make sure they weren't the unwitting victim and participant in an old-school flim-flam.

January 23rd, 2007
Rewriting Vista history
Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 12:08 pm

What would have happened, on that fateful day of August 27, 2004, if Microsoft officials had said: "You know what? We messed up with Longhorn. And we're starting over."

Instead, as Microsoft historians know, Microsoft decided to cast its decision to gut the next version of Windows client as a "reset."

"We didn't do much — just took out WinFS, the Windows File System. Oh yeah — and back-port some of the stuff that was supposed to be exclusive to Longhorn to Windows XP. Other than that, it's full-steam ahead."

As Microsoft enthusiast Robert McLaws on Windows-Now.com notes, the Longhorn reset was really more of a do-over.

The Longhorn we first heard about as early as 2002 is not the Vista that Microsoft will launch next week on January 29. Fewer of the application-programming interfaces at its core are "managed," as opposed to "native," than Microsoft originally had hoped/expected. The integrated search is less capable and game-changing than the one Microsoft initially touted. In short, the product formerly code-named Longhorn is more evolutionary than revolutionary.

Like McLaws, I am not criticizing Microsoft for changing its course. I agree with him that the big mistake was not coming clean and admitting that Longhorn, as originally outlined, wasn't going to work. The stuff we saw at the Professional Developers Conference in 2003, which was Longhorn's first coming out party, looked snazzy. But Microsoft couldn't pull it off.

Being upfront about Longhorn — and, as McLaws also suggests — changing the code-name (Windows "Shorthorn," anyone?) to indicate it was not the same product could have changed the historical course and public perception of Windows Vista.

What if:

* the Vista development clock began ticking in August 2004, instead of August 2001? Microsoft could have claimed that Vista took just over two years (instead of five) to develop.

* Microsoft could have tabled WinFS sooner (and stopped spending countless cycles to get it to work well enough to make the centerpiece of Longhorn). The Softies could have sent WinFS to the SQL Server graveyard in 2004 instead of 2006.

* Microsoft could have dedicated some of its Windows development hands to Windows XP Service Pack (SP) 3 at an earlier point in time, thereby releasing the next XP service pack in 2005 or 2006, not in 2008.

Who knows … Microsoft might even have managed to get Vista out in time for the holiday 2006 buying season if the company had just been up front in 2004 that it was going to release a relatively minor, yet more stable, Windows upgrade two years on the heels of Windows XP SP2. (As Windows chief Jim Allchin himself has said,  XP SP2 really was a new version of Windows, not just a traditional service pack.)

Sure it's a lot of should-have/could-have/would haves. But definitely something worth pondering on the eve of the Vista launch.

Update: McLaws has some comebacks on my what-if Vista-history timeline.

Things you need to ponder: http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/05/bits-and-bites.html


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 1:13 PM EDT
Updated: Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:43 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Monday, 28 May 2007
It's all about the thoughts that count.
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: 'Mucking Around in the Liberry' Wayward test subject picks wrong exam answers. (comedy / Sport)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY
I've added a long dissertation on my reaction to this. It's a rant plain and simple. Just can't control the overflow when I see this sort of strategy play out. 

May 25, 2007, 12:01AM EST
Linux Foundation Fires Back at Microsoft

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070525_325967.htm?campaign_id=yhoo

If you earned $34 million a day from Windows and Office, you too would try to spook the market with patent threats

by Jim Zemlin

excerpts

Last week, Microsoft (MSFT) initiated what can only be described as a rather bizarre public-relations campaign in which they alleged that Linux and Open Office may violate hundreds of the software maker's patents. ...the most intriguing aspect of this aggressive maneuver: a glimpse of a threatened giant struggling to keep a grasp on its empire. ...the story really isn't about patents at all—it's about a rational actor trying to protect its privileged position.

In the time it will likely take you to read this article, Microsoft will have made $500,000 in net profit. ...majority of that profit comes from its Windows operating system and Office suite of business software. ...the two product lines most threatened by Linux operating systems and Open Office.

Patent Wars Shortchange Customers
...If you were making $1 billion a month, what would you do? Perhaps engage in rhetoric and hyperbole to generate some old-fashioned FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)? Just looking at the numbers, it's easy to see that even if the scare campaign merely delays a customer's migration from Windows to Linux by a single day, Microsoft is $34 million dollars better off.

...Microsoft is, above all, a rational actor. ... hesitant to instigate a patent war, as it has too much experience with the downside of such litigation. Just ask Microsoft about its MP3 patent dispute, ...to pay $1.5 billion to Alcatel-Lucent (ALU).

...a patent war guarantees only one sure outcome: The customer loses. Customers want choice and innovation. That's why open-source is winning. ...embrace open-source to bolster competition in the marketplace. Competition will make us all better. Even Microsoft.

Reform the Patent System
The Linux Foundation does believe the current software patent system is problematic. The superpowers have their stockpiles. The trolls have their stashes. Rather than spurring innovation, which is of course the raison d'être of the patent system, today's patent games will divert dollars away from research and development in the U.S. Instead, those dollars will fund innovative activities in countries that have better things to do with their time and money than litigate.

That said, we are also rational actors working within an existing system. Touch one member of the Linux community, and you will have to deal with all of us. Microsoft is not the only—perhaps not even the largest—owner of patents in this area. Individual members of the Linux ecosystem have significant patent portfolios. Industry groups, such as the Open Innovation Network and our own legal programs at the Linux Foundation, aggregate our membership's patents into an arsenal with which to deter predatory patent attacks. With our members' backing, the Linux Foundation also has created a legal fund to defend developers and users of open-source software against malicious attack. We don't expect to but, if needed, we will use this fund to defend Linux.

In 2005, Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith called on Congress to reform the patent system for software, stating reforms were needed to curb "abusive litigation." We ... call on Microsoft to work with the Linux ecosystem to restore confidence in the patent system by making sure they are issued only for truly unique, innovative, and novel functions that advance the state of the art.

...stop engaging in FUD campaigns that only serve to undermine confidence in the U.S. intellectual-property system. Instead, please work with us to make the patent system tighter, more reasonable, and efficient for everyone in the software business.

Zemlin is the executive director of the Linux Foundation.

end article

----------------  

Shouldn't that should read "Patent Wars Shortchange (OUR) Customers".

How about "Reform the Patent System (Before These Little Critters Eat Us Alive)"?

May I paraphrase you Mister Zemlin? "Hey Microsoft. Quit yer bitchin' and work on real developments of your own or pay the rightful owners of the ideas instead of trying to cut the corners." Is that what you're saying Mister Linux? Heck. I could write magazine articles. I could talk out of both sides of my butt just as well. Watch:

"Customers want choice and innovation".

Innovation means "alternative applied" doesn't it? Can anyone explain what Microsoft has innovated in the past five years as regards XML based integration that tops what IBM can do in XML web-based systems? And that was what LongHorn was supposed to be and what everyone is screaming to acquire. Why another year? Why another two? Why another day?

If the scare campaign merely delays a customer's migration from Windows to Linux by a single day, Microsoft is $34 million dollars better off.

"If you earned $34 million a day from Windows and Office, you too would try to spook the market with patent threats..." Sure I would but I wouldn't try to steal them... the markets that is.

"...the story really isn't about patents at all—it's about a rational actor trying to protect its privileged position..." Rational? It's rational for a CEO to rant about suing his clients because they might have something "the other guy has"? God forbid! It's then rational for folks to try to ram something through the nearest congressman to stick something to the wall to protect their "apparently" cheating asses? Rational. HA HA. Rational. Now, THAT's rich internet.

"...today's patent games will divert dollars away from research and development in the U.S...." It certainly siphoned $20Billion shareholder dollars from Microsoft treasure pile, didn't it. Did it produce anything? beyond furtive actions and double-speak and opacity.

"Instead, those dollars will fund innovative activities in countries that have better things to do with their time and money than litigate." where patents don't mean squat and if you're there first with the biggest wagon you can take the lion's share even if it was based on someone else's ideas. Wasn't that what started World War I? Wasn't that also what started World War II? Yeah. Great idea. We REALLY want to use the kind of system the "other part of the world" has used way back past the Hapsburg rule when, if your family fortune built a road, you owned the town, by God. At least that's what they SAID God said.

Serf's up! Looks like it's going to have to be pitchforks and axes all over again.

You can sue a ham sandwich in the Newnited States. It doesn't mean you've moved anything. It doesn't mean you'll get anywhere. Some judges are worth their salt. Other judges wouldn't make good jerky.

It simply means the democratic republic of America (statehood for Mexico! and throw in one of them cute little islands while you're at it, ok?) say somebody who's been deemed to have proven to an established and credible examination regime the value of their invention has the right to challenge others on the basis of infringement and theft of said intellectual property.

The laws of this country allow for a little guy to challenge an incorrectly credited origin of "the big idea".

The preferences of "others" established in the businesses addressed by the invention disciplines is for the big idea to belong to everybody... everybody big enough to dominate the market.

There's a problem here in such an example of VCSY v MSFT. VCSY has been forced to keep a low profile in presenting their intellectual properties since 2001. The nagging question is... why has Microsoft been keeping a similar low profile from the similar time period... often missing astonishing coincidental alignment by only a few days.

We know what makes a little guy have to keep a low profile and it makes sense. We don't know what makes a large guy keep a low profile and what the big guy says is doesn't make sense. Not at all.

What does that mean to you?

We always heard that the oil barrons a hundred years ago (things never change do they?) and manufacturing typhoons were 'greedy' because they wanted to swallow up all the small producers.

How else does a guy get his fair share of the big idea other than to say Nope. Not going to be absorbed into a scabbed wallmart of the mom and pops pieces.

Yes. We are the little guy.

What should be done with the little guy who's demonstrated he can do more than the giant? What should you do with somebody smarter and more dextrous... just smaller?

Break them down? Is that what it's about? Wait them out while you make everyone fear you're going to kick their furry ass? Starve their children because they can't afford to do what you're doing out in the open because they know you're just waiting for you to jump out there and then they can field their copies out in the open in order to compete?

There is a defensible technological position Microsoft has been maintaining pressure to keep these technologies from coming to the fore in order to stretch out the implementation and adoption (make you spend more and more money in the adoption lawyers office than making the technology work in your business) so a "competing"  company would go belly up and they could appropriate their "similar technology". Doesn't sound unusual for them? Doesn't that make a ding on your brass ringer?

Can you defend Microsoft's (and other's) positions to not produce productive and sold tools since 2001 given the ease with which XML may be cobbled into a useful implementation? The Longhorn Revisited outfit put the original LongHorn concepts together in seven months. SEVEN MONTHS. Microsoft's been working for seven years and they're not even close. "A couple more years. Honest." is all you will get now when all they ever did was talk abotu it back in the "good old days".

What are you people, fools? Are you "challenged"? Do you think maybe this LongHorn Revisited thing is a fluke? Nope. Not a fluke. A result of the thecnology Microsoft once used then stopped for a time.

What should happen? Should these guys who've got LongHorn working before Microsoft deserve a shot at the brass ring or does the "idea" belong to Microsoft. Have at it arguing that one because you'll quickly get to the position of the dog most successful in chasing his tail; he often ends up past the raisons and into the nuts.

Walmart got visibly screwed by Microsoft in the most recent CNBC view of Walmart's CIO and their "system". They were supposed to be able to do all this interconnection and interoperation of systems by this latest upgrade, weren't they? Really look at the CNBC report, Mister Technology USA, and tell me what Walmart has with Microsoft behind the Linux architecture?

State of the art my puppy's breath. I saw people getting feeds of RFID chains (no wait that's not right. they have cameras reading the bar codes. I didn't hear anything about RFID in that bit.) Eeeek 666! it's a freaking cult with antlers. Bullwinkle's version of Rocky. The one thing I can't figure out is how Bullwinkle got the hat on his head over those antlers. Did the horns grow through the holes in the hat because you can't stretch a hat over those antlers? HA only in america.

There's a battle between Creflo's law of wise decision making and Oprah's law of attraction. One a systemic construct from the old testament empowerment (or at least enabled) of man, the other a Sumerian borne system of 'we are the worldism gone mega spirit'.

THERE! I'm a freaking religion and culture editor. But if I don't do my own searching for the truth, I am never going to amount to anything more than the guy (or lady, ma'am) that's standing there in the entrance way saying howdy. This guy has got over on the system to a small degree. He does what any idiot can do on his own front lawn and moved it into the mainstream of life's funnels for pay. The only thing is, it's not original enough and Walmart is paying him by the hour while his job is a prime piece of real estate in the promotion of their Business Plan (re: xxx - confidential).

Well, the legal system is often the only funnel a little guy can find. And if his concerns and indications point out something that stinks like a gray whale washed up on pebble beach, what should we do? How about dumping a billion stickups on highway one?

No, not Pescadero, you nitwit, the real pebble beach in Mountaray. The government gave some fool the right to park his fat carcass on a prize piece of real estate and actually charge big bucks for people to play a game where a guy hits this ball with a stick and tries to knock it in a hole before the other guy's. Hell. I CAN DO THAT! Geez lewis a clark can poke a pebble in a gopher burrow and all of a sudden you got this really sweet place to build a house and this b-rabbit wanna be gets to make people pay to do ONLY THIS ONE TING ON THAT PROPERTY? Where does it say that? Property laws? Oh. Ok. Never mind. Didn't know you guys were allowed to carry those. What's the battery life on something like that per use? Like what, a football team?

5 people killed in New Orleans and all because one guy had something that belong to the other guy and there was some force (so how's the competition between you and Lefty Lagure? on a scale of zero to ten, I would give it a 9mm.) applied intended to protect the treasure. In some businesses they basically depend upon the laws being weakly applied in their particular area of operation. 

 

...sales were good last year, despite ongoing and continuous pressure from the disaster befalling the area per Hurricane Katrina (ref. FT- Report On Crime Statistics as Part of Income Distribution in Storm Ravaged New Orleans.) promotion of the sales of our goods (BMB aka Black Market Boo Productions, Inc. Re; Delaware "license".) was brisk. While collection of accounts receivable remains a problem we recently employed the services of consultants to provide remediation to the problem. We feel confident our activities will be rewarded by further increase in revenue.

 

Who's crazy this year? It all depends on how far "within the law" people are forced to go that portends and pretends how far outside the bounds they would go. THAT is what makes mom and pop swallow their pride and their mortgages and seconds and thirds into a bloated sense of 'empowerment' as an 'associate'.

It works for Walmart because it's a community applied. But, when does a corporation become a community? I submit the answer to that question will be very evident within the bounds of the activities predicted by VCSY technology (SiteFlash, XML/Web collection, Emily pending) for empowerment of the little guy as opposed to protection of the treasure amassed by non-monopoly and great competition. When patent laws protected old man Hughes' patents for drill bits, that wealth became a source of innovation that went a long way toward saving America's butt through innovation through oil production during World War I and through technology during World War II.

If we had used the Microsoft pardagim as our model we would have waited until the Japanese were in San Francisco and then hold a feng shui conference to see if we would undermine the 'encroachment'. If Microsoft were out in the world of real competioin, their 2 out of 7 'ain't bad' ratio for successful 'competition' score is a bit dismal.

Twenty billion dollars in R&D over a three year period and still nothing to show for it after two years passing? Been there, junior. watched it all unfold right here on the new improved spoofolator. So don't give me any of your lip, wisenheimer or we'll take a tree branch and woop you into submission. 'Yes mister pinkenshear.'

I do appreciate the calls for patent reform as a remedy for silly litigation as it does place a crippling scab on the business and social environment. The Pilgrims annexed all lawyers to an island in the early days of this countries anglo existence. Apparently somebody loaned them a few boats.

I definitely agree there's a problem in American IP. How does a little company like VCSY cow something as big as Microsoft and there not be something "wrong" with the American patent system? But let's consider the entire range of issues beyond what Mister Carnegie and Mister Rockefellor ... er... I mean, whoever is the latest to fill the pantheon chair of biggest and wealthiest boards etcetera etcetera etcetera.

And now here are the Linux people chiming in and say "Yeahhh... quit picking on our brother, big guy... uhhh... I mean, little guy. You had your chance when the open job positions went out. Thanks for your contribution."

Isn't it funny a common practice on software development teams is for management to say 'Don't think about the origin of ideas you have. We'll take care of the patent research and IP research. You guys just innovate your little hearts out.'? All companies say they do that to learn and innovate. Some demonstrate they intend to do quick end runs around those who have been working on similar ideas for years. Some press the advantage of size and dominance to press the originator into a compromised position... closer to the ground with no headroom.

Isn't it funny every engineering company (that I know of at least) owns all the ideas you discover while on their time. Why doesn't the little guy own the ideas he discovered in his time? He does? How? Through the patent system? You mean the one the larger players want to get rid of? No? Is that what we're saying Mister Microsoft? MISTER Linux?

Is this what's called "being bufalloed"? All the bulls step out shoulder to shoulder with the pointy things on their heads pointed out toward the wolf. The pointy hooves of each beast must stand the ground beyond the herd's collective head and the out-turned horns. Each fiercely independent beast must press up to the next animal's belly rib to rib to form a cage to keep out the wolves advance. Each soft underbelly is fended by the hooves in front and the large main of hair. Call it an obfuscation perimeter making the wolf bend lower to the ground... a vulnerable place for a wolf.

Dividing is what conquering is about. You go for the strongest and make the flanks face inward. That's a cool wolf tactic. Confront the leader and the other independent members of the herd turn inward to face the threat. Even though there is dire competition between male buffaloes, the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend.

But, when they each turn in to meet a specific aimed threat, the concave arch of distributed resistance turns convex and it's easy to eat out the supporting ends, collapsing the herd into stampede. Beyond that is where the bull$#!@ is and after that, nice tender baby buffalo and mama-fat storerooms for the winter.

... and so it goes and so it goes and where the egghoes no-one knows.

I saw a kid fall off a bike yesterday. Heroic little guy. He'll be getting a healing scab over that knee (trying to push out the embedded rocks he didn't have a microsoft ... I mean mikerscope to see where the rocks were, but they were there allright) to enable a protective layer of goo and ugy crap to cover what good stuff was going on underneath. It's only natural. I'm sure, being a little man and all, he'll do what his Mom says. But he really wants to rip that scab off and see what's under there. Ooooh and goooo and no more itch for a while.

When they put a wall frame up and it's not yet stable, you put a "scab" on it to keep it from sagging to the side. You stick a two by four across a partially constructed wall. That's a scab.

Like when you bring in workers who are willing to get insulted (or shot... like Louie says. It's your choice.) for crossing a plant entrance being picketed by "the union", the stalwart bastion of 'we's all in it together'.

A scab. Some want it to stay there. Some want to rip it off. I say go with the more learned proposition to 'leave it there; it's protecting the wound from fresh injury' than the kid's desire to pull it off irresponsibly.

Let's see, it says here that Microsoft makes thirty something million dollars each day they can hold on to their treasure. That's all they have to do is hold on to their treasure and they will be happy. And how do they hold on to their treasure? Day by day. If they can delay an unpleasant outcome for one day they save thirty something million dollars.

That sounds like a whole lot when you have nothing. I can't even imagine that. But it's real and it belongs to the guys who had the idea first and they were protected by... ignorance on IBM's part and arrogance on CP/M's part. I remember that. I worked in the computer electronics industry then. What were you doing then? Wetting your tricycle? Do it in the bushes like a real man, dammit and learn something from an old codger, junior.

I petition the common man to vote and tell me if a guy who thought something up and is the originator of the idea and did the work to flesh it out and registered for codified recognition and establishment and was forced to not talk about his stuff because somebody was pushing him around... and all...

Mister Microsoft, uhhh, what guy? THAT guy. The guy that's pushing the you around? I don't see nobody but a seven year old kid with a peashooter. It's a blowpipe? Dude, look. Come sit with Mother Mary from the Conjoined Dominational Heaten and Brethren Church of the Epockelyptic and she'll get you some bread and water. Bless you brether. Tell our sister (yours and "mine" metaforickly) Jimmie Jones says hello. Here's my number. Don't let me down. Hooray for the little guy, right?


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 8:28 PM EDT
Updated: Friday, 1 June 2007 2:55 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
A Simpleton's Plan: Do it more than once and say you never did.
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: 'Breaking the Ice' Story of Washington double crossing the Delaware. (Political Intrigue)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Hey, check it out. Folks are using a service and nobody's the wiser... well, those using the service are much wiser, but then they actually read what they get. 

By: arthurarnsley
28 May 2007, 12:22 AM EDT
Msg. 186088 of 186093
(This msg. is a reply to 186077 by techlaw.)

techlaw - Yes I did register with PACER.

I can look at a lot of stuff and not pay anything. Some stuff I can copy to my word processor and save to a file or print from there. Yesterday all my looking was free and the documents I printed by PACER amounted to 72 cents. Some stuff does not allow me to copy and I have to use PACER print at 8 cents a page. Its almost nothing. Actually it is nothing for me; PACER bills once a month and if the amount is less than $10 they do not bill.

PACER site is set up so that attorneys or other interested parties can organize their work in PACER private file systems and create separate PACER files for each of their clients and cases. PACER will charge them for all that service but PACER states that they do not bill any charge unless a user's bill exceeds $10 for the month.

Actually, so far, there are only a few pages in PACER relating to the VCSY vs. MSFT lawsuit. There are 4 pages for the complaint and 9 pages for "EXHIBIT A" which shows detailed drawing sheets and the 53 patent claims, at least 25 of which VCSY alleges that Microsoft has infringed.

Microsoft was served 4-23-2007, answer due 3 weeks later on 5-14-2007. Microsoft has been granted an extension until 7-13-2007 to answer. VCSY concurred in the extension.

The rocket-docket or fast-track Marshall court really did get this lawsuit off to a flying start.

I may possibly have an error or two in the above post.

Arthur

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Hold; LT Rating- Hold)


---------------

By: arthurarnsley
28 May 2007, 12:48 AM EDT
Msg. 186089 of 186098
(This msg. is a reply to 186078 by techlaw.)

techlaw

In Document 8-1 filed 5-7-2007, near the bottom of page 1, it says, "...the parties have met and conferred, and plaintiff does not oppose this request."

Apparently VCSY did agree to the extension. The extension was not granted by the Judge without consulting VCSY legal staff.

Otherwise your statement: “Primarily, I think the main area where the Marshall court effectively shortens the overall time of litigation is in the Discovery phase. This and the court's own quick turn-around time when deciding motions submitted by the parties probably accounts for the bulk of the time saved in any given case.” is very similar to what I have seen written by media sources regarding the Marshall fast-track court.

Best wishes

Arthur

(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Hold; LT Rating- Hold)


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:39 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 28 May 2007 3:42 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Sunday, 27 May 2007
I called the utility company and they said they're trying to get the Sun to work.
Mood:  cool
Now Playing: 'A Cold Day in Hell' Population wonders what happened when Sun doesn't rise. (Rocket Science)
Topic: VCSY

To all of you (this one's for all those intransigent relatives out there, Benjy) who may be on the fence wrestling with the idea that something as small as VCSY and a few scraps of government issued paper can have such a disrupting effect on the software (and hardware) industry, I offer you one more brick through your window to wake you up.

(for those who don't know; a jar is a zipped file for distributing Java code)

Timothy M. O

Wednesday May 23, 2007 7:42AM

Wait a minute. There’s something wrong here, Sun isn’t even sure about the license for the JavaFX jars. This is definitely more fuel for the “JavaFX isn’t real” crowd. And, the only thing I’m taking away from this discussion is that it is illegal to do anything with JavaFX at the moment. That’s certainly what I take away from the user discussion.

Here is a message to users@openjfx.dev.java.net from Guillaume Pothier from May 22nd. The emphasis is mine, and it’s a question I’ve had myself…

Hi, I would like to know what is the current legal status of JavaFX.
In particular:
- Can I redistribute javafxrt.jar, Filters.jar and swing-layout.jar
with a GPL application? With a commercial application?

- Can I redistribute JavaFXPad?
- Can I distribute a modified version of JavaFXPad? Under which license?

Regards,
g

And the response from Nandini Ramani on users@openjfx.dev.java.net:

Guillaume,
The licensing terms for JavaFX are still under discussion. So, you
cannot redistribute JavaFXPad or any of the jars.
I will keep you posted
once we have something in place.

-Nandini

you don’t introduce The Big Product at The Java Conference without figuring out what license the thing is going to be under. I’m trying to give this technology a chance, but this is insane. They’ve created this “open source community” which isn’t really open or transparent in the least sense of the word. The fact that Sun can’t just tell us what the licensing and redistribution terms for JavaFX are right off the bat should give us some pause.

Add to this the fact that all of the source code has the following header:

/*
* $Id$
*
* Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
* SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
*/

Great, so what are those “license terms” again? I’m thinking GPLv2 + Classpath extension. Anyone else have any suggestions for Sun?

Suggestions? Yeah. How about telling Steve Ballmer and the rest of the squid school at Microsoft to swallow the mud and settle with VCSY so Sun can move forward with a legit license for JavaFX... a bogus copy of Emily.

You nitwits.

click

Bobby Baker's Sun Dried Bricks

Bricks for Everyone

The Old Paths

One or a Zillion

Old is New

Many Uses From One

Brighten Up the Place

E Pluribus Brickus!

Getting There One Object at a Time Has Never Been Easier

Leverage Your Community


Not as Old as You Think

 

 
Buy a Brick
 
Mail a Brick

Make Everything You Build Lighter and Easier to See

Works on Paper

Works for Inventors

Knowledge in a Box

It's Child's Play

And Fun!

Get YOURS Today!

Brick's a Killer App for Mice and Men!

What Could YOU Make in a Pinch?


A Needle in a Brick


If you're old enough to pick one up, you can be a builder.

Brick Sales Sampler

Ready for the Road.


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 2:36 PM EDT
Updated: Monday, 28 May 2007 12:58 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Saturday, 26 May 2007
When you hear the whistle blow, open your eyes.
Mood:  accident prone
Now Playing: 'Run Aground' Ship's engineer climbs to top deck to find all hands have abandoned ship without him. (Mystery / Educational)
Topic: Calamity

SOME people say they know a lot more than the rest of us. Always beware of anyone who says "It's always been like this. It will always be like this." Those are the kind of people who will steer you right into one of those moveable icebergs.

Where X86 Architecture Hits the Wall

Where X86 Architecture Hits the Wall

April 17, 2007 11:50AM 

X86 chipmakers face a challenge that IBM and Sun do not -- namely, zero control over software and hardware. An x86 CPU and its surrounding architecture must be ready to run system software coded for the least capable platform and every peripheral on the market.

...the weaknesses of the x86 approach to superscalar operation are starting to show. Professional workstation and server buyers who look to x86 systems to replace RISC machines have high expectations that include true parallel operation. In science and technology, creative professions and software development, to name a few, high-end client systems should be able to parallelize their way through heavy-lifting tasks while leaving enough power for real-time foreground interaction.

Likewise, buyers at the high end expect to be able to mix compute-intensive and I/O-intensive server applications, along with multiple virtual machines without sacrificing smooth and balanced operation of all tasks. When these buyers double the number of server CPUs, they expect a server's total performance to rise on a near-linear scale.

If RISC users came to PCs with those expectations, they'd walk away disappointed. While modern x86 server and workstation CPUs are outfitted for parallelization at the core level, PCs' intra-CPU communication, processor support components, memory, peripherals, the host operating system, the VMM (virtual machine monitor), the guest operating system, device drivers, and applications spin a web of interdependencies that, at times, requires that execution or I/O follow a specific path, even if sticking to that path calls for cyclically standing still. The result: You buy more high-end x86 systems than you should have to.

More at URL

What most people do not understand (particularly people who work in an industry [they are easily blinded by career attachment to old ways]) is that what used to be is no more. What will be is not yet readily visible and, as with all disrupted technologies, the adoption spikes catch manufacturers, vendors and users off guard.

Large corporations with preset agendae and large user masses with preset expectations get swept aside if they are not able to adapt rapidly to change.

With Microsoft, the entire software industry is changing around them while they maintain a stoic "wait and see" profile. That sort of management inertia is a common element in the failed business models of the past. The model worked right up to the tipping point in the disruptive wave. After that point, they can't unload product or assets fast enough to prevent the entire mass from rapidly becoming obsolete and worthless.

UPDATE

For more detailing and one of those cutsie air fresheners to hang off your mirror go here: 

http://vcsy.blogspot.com/2007/05/emails-from-edge-tales-from-crypto.html 

References for Your Edification:

RISC compared with CISC = http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/

RISC: Reduced Instruction Set Computer

CISC: Complex Instruction Set Computer  

From above URL:

"The Overall RISC Advantage
Today, the Intel x86 is arguable the only chip which retains CISC architecture. This is primarily due to advancements in other areas of computer technology. The price of RAM has decreased dramatically. In 1977, 1MB of DRAM cost about $5,000. By 1994, the same amount of memory cost only $6 (when adjusted for inflation). Compiler technology has also become more sophisticated, so that the RISC use of RAM and emphasis on software has become ideal.

 

More Update 

Intel: Software needs to heed Moore's Law
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6186765.html
 

By Ina Fried, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: May 25, 2007, 12:39 PM PT

SAN FRANCISCO--After years of delivering faster and faster chips that can easily boost the performance of most desktop software, Intel says the free ride is over.

Already, chipmakers like Intel and Advanced Micro Devices are delivering processors that have multiple brains, or cores, rather than single brains that run ever faster. The challenge is that [1] most of today's software isn't built to handle that kind of advance.

"The software has to also start following Moore's law," Intel fellow Shekhar Borkar said, referring to the notion that chips offer roughly double the performance every 18 months to two years. "Software has to double the amount of parallelism that it can support every two years."

Things are better on the server side, where machines are handling multiple simultaneous workloads. [2] Desktop applications can learn some from the way supercomputers and servers have handled things, but another principle, Amdahl's Law, holds that there is only so much parallelism that programs can incorporate before they hit some inherently serial task.

Speaking to a small group of reporters on Friday, Borkar said that there are other options. [3] Applications can handle multiple distinct tasks, and systems can run multiple applications. Programs and systems can also both speculate on what tasks a user might want and use processor performance that way. But what won't work is for the industry to just keep going with business as usual. 

[4]  Microsoft has recently been sounding a similar warning. At last week's Windows Hardware Engineering Conference in Los Angeles, Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie tried to spur the industry to start addressing the issue.

[5] "We do now face the challenge of figuring out how to move, I'll say, the whole programming ecosystem of personal computing up to a new level where they can reliably construct large-scale applications that are distributed, highly concurrent, and able to utilize all this computing power," Mundie said in an interview there. "That is probably the single most disruptive thing that we will have done in the last 20 or 30 years."

Earlier this week, Microsoft's Ty Carlson said that [6] the next version of Windows will have to be "fundamentally different" to handle the amount of processing cores that will become standard on PCs. Vista, he said, is designed to handle multiple threads, but not the 16 or more that chips will soon be able to handle. [7] And the applications world is even further behind.

[8] "In 10 to 15 years' time we're going to have incredible computing power," Carlson said. "The challenge will be bringing that ecosystem up that knows how to write programs."

But Intel's Borkar said that [9] Microsoft and other large software makers have known this shift is coming and have not moved fast enough.

[10] "They talk; they talk a lot, but they are not doing much about it," he said in an interview following his discussion. [11]"It's a big company (Microsoft) and so there is inertia."

He said that [12] companies need to quickly adjust to the fact they are not going to get the same kind of performance improvements they are used to without retooling the way they do things.

"This is a physical limit," he said, referring to the fact that core chip speed is not increasing.

Despite the concern, Borkar said he is confident that the industry can rise to the challenge. Competition, for one, will spur innovation

[13] "For every software (company) that doesn't buy this, there is another that will look at it as an opportunity," Borkar said.

[14] He pointed to some areas where software has seen progress, such as in gaming. He also identified other areas that might be fruitful. [15] In particular, specific tasks could have their own optimized languages. Networking tasks, for example, could be handled by specific optimized networking code.

Intel has also been releasing more of its own software tools aimed at harnessing multicore performance. Another of [16] Intel's efforts is to work with universities to change the way programming is taught to focus more on parallelism; that way the next generation of developers will have such techniques in the forefront of their minds.

[17] "You start with the universities," Borkar said. "Us old dogs, you cannot teach us new tricks."

 

My take:

[1] Was Microsoft promising to Intel things Microsoft can not now deliver? Look at Intel articles over the past year. The plans Intel made as detailed back in June 2006 when they sold off their cell phone division were probably based on hopes Vista would be a barnburner. As it is, Vista promises to be the horse (or the bull) locked in the barn afire.

[2] Notice the complaint about parallelism. In other words, Intel is saying 'Hey, we can build the architectures, but, if the software producer (Microsoft is no doubt inferred ) doesn't provide the kind of virtualization and command/data pipeline management needed to make use of the architecture, don't blame us.' Longhorn and the associated XML/Web-based operating capabilities were intended to allow a processing platform to reach out to the inter-connected outside (via intranet or internet) for interoperable resources (other processor sets able to handle parts of the workload- here is where interoperation is no longer a 'play nice' file content but is a 'play along' operational block on the clock [aka deterministic interoperation]). With the cutting of things like WinFS and the elemental technologies that enable applications like WinFS to operate from Longhorn/Vista, the processor is doomed to remain alone... unable to reach out beyond its own proprietary buss structure for help.

[3] The 'Business as usual' comment can arguably be pinned on Microsoft's various rewrites of their operating system from 2004 when advanced capabilities (those that would have allowed x86 processors to reach outside their local processing structure to outside processing capabilities in a virtualized form) were cut from Longhorn (aka Vista) and Microsoft returned to the traditional programming and operating systems they had before their vaunted XML/dynamic languages efforts which apparently failed or were failed. I don't think Intel can be blamed for not knowing how to architect chips. Chip design, engineering and manufacturing per se is not the problem, I think. Management CAN be blamed for taking the word of a software company that's already demonstrated they can't deliver on their promises or projects. That alone will ultimately prove to be the lead weight around the neck of chip maker's swimming upstream efforts.

[4] I'll bet they have. They either can pin the blame on somebody else preventing them from developing the kind of software resources that can virualize, arbitrate and manage processing chip resources or  they will have to take the blame for strangling Intel's future.

[5] Well, we who've been watching what VCSY has been claiming their patents can do (they claim such by describing the architectural structures in their patents) and any nitwit with an eye for architectural processes can see what kind of  "...large-scale applications that are distributed, highly concurrent, and able to utilize all this computing power" may be theorized (and one would then reasonably say deployed) by the VCSY intellectual properties in conjunction with other virtual arbitrated managed and governed technologies such as IBM is able to field.

[6] Good, because Mister Gates and Mister Ballmer have aleady said the next operating system they make will be different... promise. Uhhh... Mister Microsoft, I hate to break it to you but wasn't WinFS/Longhorn/Yukon supposed to be the basis for just that software revolution? Are you telling Intel to just hang on you'll be there eventually? Should they mothball their processing facilities while your campus roller blades around to some sort of viable option beyond Vista and the Windows XP ME 2 aka Vista/Longhorn? Not trying to be ugly but this is getting to be a political and marketing farce and Microsoft appears to be counting on the rest of the technological and investing public to simply not see what VCSY has. No wonder shutting down discussion about VCSY would be such an important goal to certain people possibly representing some of these companies on boards such as RagingBull where most of this speculative information (based on easily googled fact) can be found?

[7] Well, now, just who is to blame for that when Microsoft is late fielding development tools for dynamic virtualized and arbitrated applications? Hmmm?

[8] In 10 to 15 years, Mister Carlson, Intel will be a gaming chip manufacturer and the business world will be running on IBM power architectures and cell processors. The x86 line will be a distant expensive memory if things continue at this rate.

[9] Well well well... after how many paragraphs we FINALLY get up enough nerve to name names and point he finger? Well done, Intel. You've finally bought a clue. How much will it have cost by the time you figure out the secret phrase?

[10] Talk and no action is not cheap. Not cheap at all, is it?

[11] Microsoft certainly doesn't seem to have much inertia when they want to get into advertising to find some way out of the business application quandary they seem to have gotten their Office and Operating System lines into. Money in the right management hands tends to have a fascinating lubricative effect. In the hands of incompetent and intransigent management, money empowers inertia.

[12] Retool? Microsoft has had virtulization and arbitration technology on their shelves since 2004 and beyond. What retooling are we talking about here? Change the engineering teams or change management? Let's have some avocados here, folks, so we can go about making guacamole'.

[13] I believe you are correct, sir.

[14] Your homework, dears, is to figure out for yourself what the nice man is saying here to the world at large. I have said for some time I believe Microsoft is burying the technology they should have fielded in Vista in XBox where it can't be dug out easily (they think).

[15] A core element in VCSY technology is the Very High Level Language Emily which is specifically targeted precisely at providing higher level languages for specific verticals and the term 'verticals' may mean work-tasks at very granular levels just as it may mean 'verticals' in industry disciplines and businesses.

[16] Just what would you teach in those universities? How to program like Jeff Davison and Aubrey McAuley and Luis Valdetaro? Would you mind giving them a bit of credit in your textbooks? Hmmm?

[17] That's right, Mister Borkar. In humane societies, old dogs who are put in a position where they can no longer look after themselves are put up for adoption by someone else or euthanized. Which will it be for Intel's management and staff if they can't convince these mean nasty software companies to step up to their responsibilities and make or buy some healthy dogfood for a change?

As Amdahl's Law points out, all the preprocessing and parallel plumbing in the world won't help you when the software you're running can't arbitrate virtualized operations within a serial stream and can't distribute virtualized and arbitrated functions. 

What do you think, children? Am I being too harsh on Intel? Not any more harsh than analysts will be once the story gets out. We currently have less than 700 people reading this bilge I put out. What will happen when the number is in the thousands and these reader take these writings to experts and those experts agree? What do you think will happen? Better to take care of your own problems than to preach to someone else's family how they should take care of their wayward relatives.

Perhaps the dawning is happening at Intel and it's over a year after Microsoft themselves recognized the problems they would have once long-delayed Longhorn would start using the architectures for real (not just in mock ups and simulations).

PS - Speaking of putting "credit" where credit is due, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge I probably never would have taken Intel to task for mismanaging expectations and realities in the software they have grown so dependent on were it not for the writings of a poster on Raging Bull VCSY who happens to have worked for Intel at "times in the past". I don't know if that past is "years" ago, "months" ago or mere "days" as someone like a consultant can work for somebody one day and "not" the next. Makes no matter to me. Where ever he may have gained his knowledge, we all owe him a debt of gratitude for opening this doorway on our view of the software/hardware dependencies that govern these two huge industries.

yers truly - portuno 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 10:28 PM EDT
Updated: Sunday, 27 May 2007 1:25 AM EDT
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink
So I see this guy standing in the crosswalk and then I hear this 'bump bump'.
Mood:  sharp
Now Playing: 'Muckmuck Does Manhattan' Caveman barricades one way street at intersection.
Topic: Integroty

Worth reading because it indicates Microsoft is not sitting as pretty as they would appear to want everyone out in the Linux FUD world as they would surely like. Here are excerpts of interest but worth having in the hopper for reference as we move forward.

Did Microsoft get their money's (and reputation's) worth in this deal with Novell? Perhaps not. In fact, they may have tied themselves to a rolling stone headed for a cliff. 

May 26th, 2007

Novell publishes details on its Microsoft patent deal

Posted by Mary Jo Foley @ 8:43 am Categories: Corporate strategy, Legal, Linux, Novell Tags: Novell Inc., Patent, Agreement, Microsoft Corp., GPLv3, SuSE, Mary Jo Foley

Excerpts: 

Novell has posted ... redacted versions of the company’s patent, business and technology agreements with Microsoft, ...

Novell officials said ... they would post these documents before the end of May.

If the final version of GPLv3 contains terms or conditions that interfere ... Microsoft may cease to distribute SUSE Linux coupons in order to avoid the extension of its patent covenants ...

So now it’s even more obvious why Microsoft has been throwing around the “235 patents infringed by open source” claim. Novell is confirming that Microsoft may have to stop distributing SuSE Linux coupons if the Free Software Foundation’s General Public License (GPL) version 3 goes through with the current patent language in place.

Having to eliminate ...  would hurt Microsoft’s campaign to convince other open-source vendors to sign similar deals. It also wouldn’t make Microsoft look too good to the handful of large corporate customers...

More at URL 

This deal between Microsoft and Novell is not as advantageous and ironclad as Microsoft wants everyone to think. 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 3:58 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 26 May 2007 4:12 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
You shouldn't have. No, really. You shouldn't have.
Mood:  incredulous
Now Playing: 'Why Didn't You Tell Me You Was a Miner?' Angst and delirium in marketing underworld. (Comedy/Home Shopping)
Topic: Integroty

Hokey smokes. If it's not one problem it's another with these people! What now?

PDC R.I.P. Means 'What?'

Joe Wilcox

May 25, 2007 12:06 PM

Jeepers Creepers, Microsoft has unexpectedly canceled its 2007 Professional Developer Conference. "Say what?," you say.

In the past, Microsoft aligned developer conferences around new operating system releases—with Windows Server 2008 being the right candidate and the right time, given Microsoft's stated intentions to deliver the software this year.

My reaction: PDC cancellation likely foreshadows a delay in Windows Server 2008 release to manufacturing. Microsoft already delayed "Viridian" virtualization software, which is closely tied to Windows Server 2008. It's hardly a stretch to presume, with PDC's cancellation, something is amiss with Windows Server 2008.

With many businesses holding back Office 2007 and Windows Vista deployments for Windows Server 2008, any delay could have far-reaching impact. If there is no server software delay, there is the question of what does the cancellation mean?

For one, the timing is terrible. Apple's developer confernce is just weeks away, where Mac OS X 10.5 will be front and center. Apple's planned release of the operating system is October, the same month as Microsoft's now cancelled developer conference. No doubt, Apple will make hay out of this mess.

We call on developers to tell us what you think of the PDC `07 cancellation. Maybe you are stunned and flabbergasted. Maybe you already were overwhelmed by Office 2007, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista testing—and the change is a relief. Whatever your reaction, please share it. For people that would like to be quoted in a future story on the topic, please offer a link to your Web site with your comment or use our Tips Mailbox, providing your name, profession, company and company e-mail address, with your comments.


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 4:32 AM EDT
Updated: Monday, 28 May 2007 12:49 PM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink
Friday, 25 May 2007
Guess who's not invited for dinner.
Mood:  hungry
Now Playing: 'How to Clean a Pullet One Feather at a Time' Instructional (Adult - D for DUMB)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY

Bobby Baker's Kook Book

CHICKEN

pluck pluck pluck

"There still is a ban on .NET code in core parts of Windows. They aren’t getting enough performance yet from .NET to include code written in it inside major parts of Windows. This is a bummer, because .NET is a lot easier to write than C++ and letting Microsoft’s developers write .NET code for Windows would unleash a bunch of innovation." - Robert Scoble.

Before every MVP jumps me in the alley yes, I know the .NET runtimes ship with Vista. But almost no Vista code was written in .NET (if any, actually). Microsoft tries to keep this secret because they know it gives a black eye to .NET. After all, if Microsoft is unwilling to use it to develop Windows or Office, why should the rest of us base our life on it?” - Robert Scoble

It also means that Ray Ozzie’s team probably doesn’t have anything dramatic to announce yet and they aren’t willing to have live within the bounds of a forcing function like the PDC (PDC forces teams to get their acts together and finish off stuff enough to at least get some good demos together).” - Robert Scoble

A Compact History of Chicken

Cleaning Instructions

Preparation (E-Z Bake):

So many fowls – so little time

How to clean your chicken.

Your bird should look like this:

Step 1: Pluck

Step 2: Serve

Step 1: Knock chicken in the head with little hammer.

Step 2: Use trash compacter and vacuum cleaner to remove feathers.

Step 3: Let chicken run around yard to blow remaining feathers off.

Results may vary. 


Posted by Portuno Diamo at 5:04 PM EDT
Updated: Saturday, 26 May 2007 4:13 AM EDT
Post Comment | Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older