Google global wi-fi/satellite based Internet ?

 Business, Google  Comments Off on Google global wi-fi/satellite based Internet ?
Oct 102005

““With rumors of the GoogleNet and Google Wi-fi in the works and
their latest partnership with NASA, I highly expect Google to
announce some sort of global wi-fi or satellite based Internet
connection for the world’s poor to be announced once this One
Laptop per Child program becomes a reality, which it hopefully
will. Funded, by Google AdWords,” writes Baker.

We knew we were witnessing history. We may not have known to what
extent history was being made.”

Do you think this is possible? “

More than likely, Google is going to help NASA develop a method to index technical information needed by engineers, designers, managers and then astronauts and mooners. Google, while I have high hopes, still has yet to wire a moderately sized city, let alone any city, I would say that the time frame for any plan to “connect the world” on this scale is 15-20 years out. Maybe by the time we have a moon base.

Moon bases — now there is a problem. Finding the information you need a quarter of a million miles away from home. With all the radiation on the moon, it doesn’t lend itself as a easy place for computers. So what they are going to need are rugged dependable computers that can access the data they need quickly. This is what Google does best, searching decentralized file system with localized caching, sort of a moon proxy/cache for lack of a better phrase.

 Posted by at 11:47 pm

OASIS: Sanity in a proprietary document wasteland

 Business  Comments Off on OASIS: Sanity in a proprietary document wasteland
Oct 102005

Dave Kearns, Network World, 10/03/05, Massachusetts Open Doc moves lack logic.
While I generally enjoy Dave’s articles in Network World, I am left aghast at what he has writ of late. I do not ever recall reading such a factually incorrect and logically flawed article from him, ever. My only guess is that he was under the weather and needed to make his post time. I’ll leave the medication to Dave’s doctor, but I’ll take care of the facts and logic.

First off, Dave contends that the 1.0 version of OASIS OpenDocument specification is a brand new work. Straight off the back of some cocktail napkins after an academic social hour. So therefore it is a lacking and hopelessly flawed spec.

“… You are aware, I hope, of what 1.0 means to an “open standards” body, right? It means, essentially, that it has started the process of identifying the area in which its members think they need to create a protocol or standard.

They may even have defined a few terms. But because everything could – and probably will – change by Version 2.0, no one in his right mind will implement it.”

While Dave may be right in general, I would point out the the OASIS OpenDocument specification is a continuation of the orignal XML file format. An amazingly good and complete 1.0 format. While the OASIS standards group may refer to it as a 1.0 specification is in reality a 2.0 specification that has seen two (2) different office packages, OpenOffice and KOffice. I refer Dave to the FAQ easily found on the OASIS web site,, specifically items 13 and 14.

13. OpenDocument previously was called Open Office. What is the relation to

When the OASIS OpenDocument TC was founded, it chose the XML file format as the basis for its work, because the XML file format had already proven its value in real life. The OpenDocument format, therefore, is an advancement of the XML file format. It us usable and used by, but also by other office applications like KOffice.

The OASIS OpenDocument TC itself is not part of the open source project, and only some of the TC members are associated with the project.

14. Isn’t OpenDocument only the file format of the application that has been standardized?

OpenDocument has been developed as an application-independent format by a vendor-neutral OASIS Technical Committee (TC) with the participation of multiple office application vendors. The basis for the OASIS OpenDocument TC’s work indeed was the XML file format, but even the XML file format was developed as an application-independent file format that is not usable by the application only.”

Later in the article later Dave goes on to opine the injustice done the Microsoft Word Viewer. …

“Adobe’s PDF format is specifically declared to be “open” and may continue to be used.

I can only guess that because there is a freely downloadable PDF reader available, the letter of the law’s published intent is satisfied.

But, wait a minute! Microsoft also allows you to download (for free) readers for it’s Office documents. Wouldn’t that let Microsoft qualify, too? Well, yes, it should. “

Oh my! The way they treat those stepchildren back in Redmond. Seriously, Dave –you are attempting to compare a published specification, PDF and the myriads of viewers and writers available from many different sources and available on many different systems with a closed, non-published specification that only offers viewers for a select few Operating Systems, who are of course available for a fee from the same company?

I would direct you first to the primary reason it would be considered open, the published reference: PDF Reference found on the Adobe Developer Site

“The PDF Reference provides a description of the Portable Document Format and is intended for application developers wishing to develop applications that create PDF files directly, as well as read or modify PDF document content.”

Next maybe a look on what we can find in a wikipedia article. Portable_Document_Format is a valuable resource for finding other non-Adobe readers and writers that support PDF format. In fact, I would bet that Mr. Kearns would have a hard time finding a workstation OS that didn’t support PDF’s. So we have a document format, that is published and is supported on almost every workstation known to man versus the Microsoft Word Viewer that only runs on various flavors of windows, specifically Windows 2000 sp4 or better. No love for Windows 95, 98 or ME or any version of Win2k prior to sp4.

and finally Dave suffers from some memory lapses,

“In more than 20 years of specifying and buying software applications and services, I can’t recall one instance where the file formats made a scintilla of difference.”

Dave, I’ve got 4 letters for you — H T M L. The specification and it’s openess make all the difference.

Everybody keeps babbling about whether or not it is the computer or the network. It is all just misdirection.

My friends this is the 21st century and what matters is the data.

 Posted by at 11:07 pm

Internal Projects: A new measure on return

 Business  Comments Off on Internal Projects: A new measure on return
Oct 082005

There has been and will continue to be much opining on developing ROI formulas for in-house projects built or bought. I think that ROI calculations are merely a method to justify your hypothesis. There is an easier method for determining which projects are winners and which are losers. Think of potential projects in terms of Customer, Users and Management. While not lending itself to any form of speakable acronym, I believe these three categories are the primary indicators for ROI ranked by strength of return. All three must have needs met for a project to have any impact at all. Ignore customers and sales will decline. Ignore users and per employee profitability will decline. Ignore management and none of it will work as management won’t be able to direct it.

Customers: Yes, Customers and Users are different entities. I do not buy in to the “end-users as customers” thought experiment. Viewing your users as customers is taking your eyes off the corporate goal. The corporate goal is to increase profitability, the best way to increase profitability is to increase sales. Anything else is a stop-gap measure designed to prolong the life of a company whose feet are made of clay. My customers are the company’s customers. Customers are the ones buying the company’s products and services. Customers are the ones that matter most. Meeting customer needs is always goal #1.

Will this project:

  • make my customers feel valued?
  • differentiate my company from our competition in the customer’s eyes?
  • make our product/services more useful/valued for the customer?
  • increase my customer’s confidence in my company?
  • make it easier for customers to do business with us?

Users: Users are the employees who directly interact with the project either in terms of feeding it data, responding to its output and acting as a primary link between it and the customer on an on-going basis. For example, if the project is an e-commerce site, then your web management team and customer service reps (CSRs). If the project is a returns/repairs tracking application then your CSRs, Repair Department, Accounts Receivables and Warehouse are your users.

Will this project:

  • make it possible for my users to make our customers feel valued?
  • enable our users to differentiate us from our competition in our customers eyes?
  • allow our users to show our customers how are products can be even more useful?
  • allow our users to serve the needs of even more customers?

Will this project:

  • allow them to monitor and debug our efforts in meeting the customer’s needs?
  • enable our ability to expand our sales by more accurately meeting customers desires and needs?
  • help in recovering lost opportunities?
  • help them utilize resources more efficiently?
  • help them focus their attention on our customers?

In my view – A project needs to answer yes to at least one question in each category for Customers, Users and Management. If a project can not answer yes to at least one question for each then the project is most likely born from a checklist of wants from someone who just finished reading a business article. Customer questions should be given more weight than Users, and Users more than Management. That is how I break a tie between projects. The more wins you have closer to the customer the bigger your financial return.

 Posted by at 4:52 pm