Posted 8:57 AM (0) comments

ICANN can't get it right.

In one of the greatest bits of political chicanery and hypocrisy that even this thoroughly discredited group has ever attempted to foist on the public, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) claims to have approved a framework for greater public input by forming "...local, regional and global groups, in what the organization said is a step toward more involvement from the user community in decisions affecting how the Internet is run. "

Of course, they've already removed all of the public members from the board where they would have, at least, some control. The "user community" input now will be akin to that of neighborhood associations at a city council meeting - a place to let off steam, hopefully, but not change the "important" work of the governing body!

The sooner congress recognizes its foolish error in creating this haven for megalomaniacs and reverses itself, the better.

Posted 8:39 AM (0) comments

Microsoft wins Java appeal - but so does Sun!

The press is filled with stories proclaiming that Microsoft wins Java appeal, and - while technically correct (it was Microsoft who appealed and they did get a ruling in their favor) the real winner here is Sun.

There never was much hope that the ludicrous ruling requiring Microsoft to ship Java with Windows would survive appellate review. But the court did affirm that there's enough evidence that Microsoft breached its contract with Sun that the case can go on. More importantly, Microsoft is enjoined from shipping their own version of Java - its either Sun's or nothing.

With browser technology where it is today, its really a no-brainer to download and install Java - it can be handled almost 'automagically' by Java-enabled websites. What would have fatally killed the ubiquitous language, though, would be allowing Microsoft to create their own version and muddy the waters completely.

Posted 12:09 PM (0) comments

The Politics of Technology

The Register reports ("Aussies back Open Source attack") that legislators in Australia's state of South Australia are poised to pass a law mandating the use of Open Source software. Why are they doing this? Because they're technologically ignorant. Even open source advocates are freely admitting that "There is not a lot of understanding among parliamentarians about open source, (and how it differs from) open systems standards" (Michael Gadiel, the IT Committee chair of the New South Wales Labor Council and an OSS advocate).

If the legislature were proposing that only Microsoft (or only proprietary) software could be used then you can bet the street agitators would be out in force. But evidently such things as security and support have little meaning to politicians with no technical skills whatsoever. The OSS people are cheering but they should realize that the tables could turn with the drop of a campaign donation.

Posted 8:53 AM (0) comments

Selling Identity Data

In an odd little article "Glenbrook advisory Report : Rethinking Authentication", Glenbrook's Carol Cove Benson postulates that organizations with large amounts of identity data (banks, schools, ISPs, etc.) have a business opportunity: "it may be a straight revenue proposition, in which case relying parties pay credential issuers. Compensation to a credential issuer may be transactional in nature, or it may take the form of a bounty or commission if the relying party realizes a sale with the credential holder."

But this sounds a lot like the widely castigated and hopelessly flawed proposition Microsoft tried to implement with its "Hailstorm" initiative. As I said at the time Microsoft abandoned the project (which had been renamed ".NET MyServices", "Microsoft compounded its problems by insisting on a subscription model of payment for users and vendors making use of MyServices."

This model didn't work for Microsoft, and its not going to work for anyone else, either. A tip o'the hat to Eric Norlin from SourceID for pointing out this study.

Posted 11:13 AM (0) comments

Jobs: new Mac "better than any Windows PC"

Steve Jobs has never outgrown the pre-teen "mine's bigger than yours" culture of his youth. Yesterday, at Apple's annual developers conference, he announced that the new Macs would be "Better than any Windows PC." But what he meant was that the new boxes (if they ever get built, if they ever ship, if they can maintain inventory - all problems that have bedeviled Apple in recent years) have faster clock speeds. He did talk about some sort of Adobe Photoshop benchmark, but no one has ever claimed a Windows PC was better than the equivalent Mac for photo processing.

Show us data on databases, spreadsheets - even word processors - Steve. Then maybe the business community might be willing to at least take a look. Evidently, though, in Jobs' cultural environment Office productivity isn't "way kewl".

UPDATE According to an article in the Register ("Apple accused of cheating over G5 benchmarks"):
"Benchmark results cited by Apple at the launch of its Power Mac G5 desktops yesterday have already come under fire for seeming to not only tweak the Mac test system to improve its performance beyond anything an ordinary user might experience, but crippling rival systems to deliver below-par average user performance. "

Not at all "kewl", Steve!

Posted 9:27 AM (0) comments

Have Your Cake and Eat it too?

The US Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Children’s Internet Protection Act which requires content filters on computers in libraries supported with federal tax dollars. The American Library Association has reacted with a rant which essentially says "give us the money then leave us alone."

The ALA goes on to demand that companies creating filtering applications reveal all of their trade secrets so that libraries can judge "...what sites filtering companies are blocking, who is deciding what is filtered and what criteria are being used. "

Here's a better idea, ALA: create your own filtering software and give it away to the libraries. Then you'll know what's blocked, what isn't and why.