mobrec

My Personal Infocloud

So
I would love to make it to the Festival Of Maps in Chicago. Ever since I was a little kid I have been fascinated by maps both in using them and creating them. I even learned how to read USGS Topographic Maps to use when hiking. This came in handy when we were hiking in the mountains near Elko, Nevada. Being able to locate springs and stay on track was invaluable (and a lot of fun as well).

Of course, it seems that proper printed maps are passe with the availability of inexpensive GPS gear but for me, there will always be an attraction to printed maps (just as electronic books have never really caught on with me). Must be a tactile thing deep inside me. Or maybe in an oblique way, it is as Marshal McLuhan observed in the Medium is the Message: you broadcast a concert on the television, or have books on tape and it is just not as satisfying as experiencing it live.

As always, the Britannica Blog as some excellent thoughts on the Chicago festival and maps and mapping in general.

Technorati Tags: maps, mapping, chicago

So
Have you ever found yourself ordering something on Amazon and being excruciatingly close to getting the free shipping but just short of the $25 cut off? Fear not, some enterprising person has created the Amazon Filler Item Finder which will help you find items that will get you to the $25 minimum without too much of an overage. Appears to work with most of Amazon's international sites as well.

Technorati Tags: webtools, amazon, shipping

So
Last week I attended a vendor conference at which representatives from the industry analysis firms spoke. One session that I sat in was just so egregiously bad that I have to comment on it. The speaker was from the firm that kind of sounds like 'someone who tends to plants'.

Before he got too far into his scree, he polls the audience with the question of how many services they manage are part of their SOA activities. 10? 20? 50? 100? His blustery response was of this flavor: 'No, dear audience you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG because if you have Oracle or SQL Server or Windows XP you have tens of thousands of services — and if you didn't know about these services, how could you possibly know about anything, you bunch of morons?! I am the 'expert', listen to me!' At that point there was the needle scratching across the record sound effect going off in my head. Is this guy so clueless as to confuse real business services with APIs and interfaces? Yes, in fact, he was and that was just the start of the idiocy. He further goes on to say that you are not doing 'real governance' unless you are managing thousands of services — a statement unsupported by anything and one that flies directly in the face of the likelihood of a company having thousands of true business services. Unless you are trying to do governance retroactively, it can start with a single service and progress from there.

His formidable supply of malapropos did not add to his credibility. When speaking to a hype life-cycle chart, he continuously referred to the 'thought of disillusionment' rather than the 'trough' as well as repeatedly referring to one of the vendor products as 'InFARvio' rather than 'Infravio'. My personal favorite was when he kept talking about doing 'bottom down design'. No really — he used this expression like six times. This leads me to believe that he really doesn't understand either top-down or bottom-up approaches, they are just words to him, words for him to torture at will apparently.

It is no wonder that there is confusion in the industry around SOA when vapid windbags like this are presented as experts and make outrageous claims that, with a little thought and examination, do nothing other than prove that they know not of what they speak.

Technorati Tags: soa, analyst, bottomdown, suckage

So
Judging from install reports in the aftermath of the Leopard release last week it appears that Leopard is much more demanding on system hardware — in particular RAM. From comments left on this blog, Apple support forums and elsewhere dodgy RAM rather than install media appears to be one of the leading causes for the previously documented install failures.

This bears out my own experience. The Apple Store has had my non-Leopard-installing G5 for nearly a week. First, they were convinced that it was the hard drive; order a new one, replaced it and still couldn't get an install. A call on Friday informed me that they now think it is the RAM (Apple, factory installed RAM, mind you) that is the issue. The new RAM is on order so it will be sometime next week before I find out whether that is the final glitch.

My question is: What is Leopard doing that is uncovering these RAM issues now? These issues are apparently errors/failures that 10.4.10 (and previous) didn't seem to care about. Could it have something to do with 64-bit app support? Fundamental memory handling tweaks or changes? Will there ever be an in depth root-cause analysis that gets published by Apple?

Technorati Tags: apple, suckage, leopard, upgrade, ram

So
Here is the next installment in my Leopard upgrade woes saga.

I spent most of Sunday morning searching around for any resolution on the Apple support site and the Internet in general. Found lots of people having the same problem, a few that had no problem at all, but nothing by way of solid solution. One thing that seemed to work for a few folks was to select an install option that only did a base install, no additional fonts, printer drivers, X11, etc. I thought if I could get at least that far it would suit my purposes. So I initiated this bare-bones install and it proceeds without a hitch. Just as I am about to declare victory (within 2 minutes of completion), I am rewarded with this gem:

The source media you are installing from is damaged. Try installing from a different copy of the source media or contact the manufacturer for a replacement.

Again, this is so not what you want to see after the install program spent 45 minutes 'validating' that the install media was good before it initiated the install.

Right. So still a few hours before the AppleCare phone lines open, I thought of another way to test out the media. I put the G5 that I was trying to update into Firewire target mode (hold down T while the system is booting) and ran the install media from the Intel Duo that I had successfully updated on Friday. Of course this won't work to produce a viable boot image on the G5, but it should tell me 1) can I complete another install on the G5 using the same media and 2) is there some hardware component on the G5 that is hampering the install. I am beginning to suspect the DVD drive or possibly the hard drive itself. However, running the most current version of Apple's recommended diagnostic tool TechTool Deluxe repeatedly on the G5 showed no errors or warnings of any sort. The target mode install was successful, but as I stated previously, would not yield a bootable G5 because of the cross architecture install (Intel->PPC). I am now more confident that the media is not the issue.

After killing time trying various options until the AppleCare support line opened, it was time to open another call on my existing case with Apple. After sitting on hold for 47 minutes (noted from the call timer on my phone) I finally get a live person. I gave him my case number and he went away for about 8 minutes to read the case notes to date. Then he comes back on and it faltering English, reads back the notes to me and asks me if they are correct. Of course they are. When I ask what the next step was he put me on hold again for 4 minutes, came back on the line and asked me if this was something to do with installing Leopard(!). Sigh. Yes. Well, then, I would need to speak with a product specialist. I then get dumped into another call queue. Where I sit for another 48 minutes without even so much as a 'call volumes are high' message. At one hour on hold, I grab the other phone and call back in to AppleCare on line 2. After 36 minutes on hold, someone answers on line 2 (still nothing on the specialist queue). They review my case notes and ask what the product specialist advised. I told them that I didn't know because I am still still on hold now for just shy of 2 hours waiting for a product specialist. I request that this case be escalated because this is now the fifth time I have called. I am told 'there is nothing that can be done'. I ask for a supervisor and am told that is not possible either. So this is what you get for premium support?

After three hours and 12 minutes on hold a 'specialist' answers the line. She (yet again) reads the case notes back to me and asks a few questions. Then she wants all of the serial numbers off of the spindle of the DVD disc, product numbers and other details off of the box. I suspect part of this was to try to determine if I was using some kind of bootleg install media. At this point she proclaims that it is probably the install media. I remind her of the test that I had conducted and the successful install I had on the Intel box. Silence on the other end of the phone. I even pointed out to her that the DVD drives were the same base unit (PIONEER DVD-RW) with different firmware. She then asks me to go into system profiler and tell her what the DVD drive specs where. Sigh. I reminded her that I had just given her that information literally 10 seconds ago. I am then instructed to go to the nearest Apple store and give them the case number and they will give me a new set of media (ie she is not investigating the drive angle at all). I ask what I need to take with me to the store (a 30 minute drive) the G5? the install disc? serial numbers? No, I am told, you just need the case number.

On to the Apple store in the mall. I walk to the back of the store to the Genius Bar. No one behind the bar dares make eye contact. I see three employees standing around shooting the breeze, so I approach the group. One of them asks if I need anything. I explain my situation, reference the case number and that I was sent here to get replacement install media for Leopard. He wrinkles his nose, stares at his shoes and says 'we don't do that here'. WTF! After I press him, clearly losing my patience, he goes back to the Genius Bar and talk to some peachfuzz, who glances up at me slightly, shrugs his shoulders and the other guy motions me over. Starts asking me questions about when and where I bought my G5. I cut him off and try to focus him on the fact that AppleCare support sent me here to get new media because they think it is the cause of the install failure (and now dead Mac). Oh, you want a copy of Leopard? We can get you one, if you give us the old media back. WTF! I asked explicitly about this and was told that I didn't need to bring the old media.

Sensing my growing frustration he offers to have me speak with the manager. She tells me (prophetically) 'service and sales are different organizations, we can't give you anything without getting the old media first'. I explain that AppleCare assured me that I didn't need to return the media and that if I buy a second copy it leaves them open to refusing to accept it as a return because it would have been opened. She offers 'but you'll have a case number'. I point out that I have a case number now and it does seem to be buying me much. Blink. Blink blink. Nothing, she just stares at me.

I tell both of them, that I have the G5 in the car — can I just bring it in and see if the new disc installs (so we can eliminate that canard in the support process)? Uh, yes, if I buy a copy of Leopard because 'service doesn't have their own copy'. What! Why would I buy one when I was supposed to get a replacement for free. Her logic was: I could buy it and if the install worked I could return it and if it didn't work, then I could return it. I pointed out that if the end result was that I was going to return it, why did I have to buy it to begin with? Apparently, she was so desperate to get credit for a sale she would stoop to hatching such a farcical scheme. She was saved from certain death by the guy who I originally talked to. He said jumped in and offered 'Look, let me talk with the guys in the back and see what we can do'. Meanwhile the 'manager' is just standing there, saying nothing, doing nothing. Blink. Blink.

I haul the G5 in from the car, through the mall, back to the Bar. I sit for about 15 minutes, then they finally get to me in the 'standby' queue. The three names before me were apparently no-shows. So the guy behind the Bar starts asking me about the issue. But wait; here comes the guy who was the third name on the list. While he is still three feet away from the counter, he pulls his iPhone out of his pocket and launches it in a clean arch in front of him, clattering to a stop on the bar top in front of him. Bar guy cheerily says, 'I guess I'll deal with you both at the same time...' iPhone boy sneers at him 'No, finish what you are doing so you can focus on my issue, this is the third f**king time I have been here...' Bar guy suggests that iPhone boy talk to the manager (blink, blink) and goes off to wrangle her into what is shaping up to be at least her second near-death experience of the day.

Bar guy returns to me and I cover what the issue is, give him the case number and reiterate that I am here because AppleCare thinks the issue is the install media. After he hears the parts about the successful installs on the Intel box and the Firewire target install, he just shakes his head and says 'its not the install media'. He tells me, 'we will install from the service copy of Leopard that we have — you don't have to buy another copy' as he sweeps the Leopard retail box (that the manager had thoughtfully left for me) off the counter. Hmm, 'service copy' — didn't Blinky just tell me they didn't even have one of those? Liar.

Initial diagnostics appear to point to the volume layout on the disc. He tells me that they can 'see bits and pieces of all of the install attempts that I had made and that was probably what was causing the problem. WTF! In the course of trying to get the install to work, I had re-partitioned the drive several times. It anything was left directory-wise after that, I would be amazed. Anyway, they think they have the directory and partition sorted out and they are going to do the install of Leopard. An hour or so later we return and are told it will take another 45 minutes or so for the install to wrap up. Unfortunately, we need to leave to pick up my daughter. As much as I would like to take the G5 home, I am out of time. I make arrangements to pick it up first thing on Monday morning.

Before we even get home, the Apple store had left a message saying that they had found some other hardware issues and need to order parts (disc drive among them). Might be until Wednesday until the unit is ready. From 45 minutes to 3 days is quite a variation in estimate. In any case, it sounds like they are on to something. Hopefully, I have a working, upgraded Leopard-toting G5 sometime this week. So the Apple store manager was right, sales and service are different — sale's only concern is making a buck, service is there to keep the customer happy. I am waiting for my day to be happy about Apple customer service.

Technorati Tags: apple, leopard, mac, osx, suckage, upgrade

So
I have just spent a very frustrating 8 hours trying to upgrade an iMac that was purchase just 3 short months before the shift to Intel processors. My discovery is, it won't upgrade, it won't Archive and Install and it won't Erase and Install on PowerPC hardware very reliably.

The puzzling thing is, the install was nearly flawlessly on my recent vintage dual processor Mac. When I attempted the same on a recent vintage PPC, it has been hours of frustration. Apparently, the Apple support robots are programmed to tell you that you must Archive and Install, rather than upgrade. Note: I will post a verbatim dialogue with Apple support on this topic in the near future — it does not reflect well on Apple's outsourced support.

I don't understand how the install can spend 45 minutes validating the install media and then tell me within 2 minutes of trying the actual install that:

The installer could not validate the contents of the 'base system' package. Contact software manufacturer for assistance.

Uh, that's you Apple. I also love that, even though I have an Applecare protection plan on the system in question, when I call support I get a message that basically states that Apple can't deal with the call volume of their current cluster f**k, try again later. Click! That's what I get for buying a 'premium' support plan?

I suspect that this is something to do with poor QA on the non-Intel install packages. I will attempt another update on an Intel-based system tomorrow. If that works, I will be convinced that non-Intel install media is suspect and all should exercise necessary caution.

Apple have managed to go from 7-8 years of near flawless OS upgrades to a Microsoft grade f**kup. Steve Jobs, please focus on your base and don't sacrifice the quality of the core OS for the iPhone. I have basically bricked one of my iMacs with no relief in sight. I don't anticipate that Apple will get off their asses until Monday to float some damage control on this one. Sad.

Technorati Tags: apple, suckage, leopard, upgrade

So
I have a few initial observations about the new Mac OS X release 10.5 “Leopard”:

It takes an unbelievably long time to “validate the install DVD”. In my case it was over 45 minutes on a dual processor Intel box. Overall the install took over two hours to complete.

It takes a long time to boot up after the install and with no status messages or displays. Be patient, it will eventually boot up. And don't panic that the dock doesn't show up for a few minutes after your desktop.

So far, I haven't found anything that Leopard has broken. I tried to be diligent about installing all of the application updates before running the apps for the first time. That seems to have worked.

Sherlock is gone. It apparently gets deleted as part of the installation. I don't recall reading anything about this 'feature'. If you have the developer documentation installed and perform a Spotlight search for Sherlock there is “Legacy Document” notice plastered on the top of the Sherlock index.html doc that proclaims “Important: Sherlock is unsupported in Mac OS X v10.5 and later”. Most all references to it have been removed from the apple.com web site. It's a shame, I found that utility very useful.

Cosmetically, I am not wild about the color gradient on the title bar and the cheesy 3D effect on the dock makes it difficult to see what applications are active if you have a lot of applications on the doc. I think it would have made more sense to give the doc icon a contrasting 'halo' to show that it was active rather than a low contrast tiny pip of a 'reflection' in front of a running app. It is also difficult to determine where dock apps stop and where minimized apps begin — the lane marker takes more time than it should to pick out in a crowded dock.

I like the spaces implementation as I am one to open piles of windows when I am working. Spaces makes it much easier to manage than Expose. Cover View in finder is still a 'meh' gratuitous eye candy thing for me at the moment.

My cheap Logitech 3 button USB mouse glitched after the system went to sleep. That is when woke the Mac up, moving the mouse actually caused Dashboard to activate while the mouse pointer remained solidly fixed in place. Unplugging and re-plugging the mouse's USB connector revived it, though.

So far, so good.

Technorati Tags: apple, mac, osx, usability, leopard, sherlock

So
A quick note in case anyone else runs across this issue.

Symptom: Google Reader only partially renders the view page — the top menu and the spinning 'loading' indicator in the middle of the page. This happened to me for the first time when I received the 2.0.0.8 Firefox update — though googling now it seems that people had this same problem back in March of 2007. Not sure if it was some change to webcards, Google Reader, the .8 update or a combination of these.

Diagnosis: After trying clearing the cache, cookie and restarting Firefox to no avail I went in and turned off all of the add-ons that I had loaded. Reader worked again. Next was the slow process of turning add-ons back on one by one until the offending unit was identified. webcards was the culprit. Note that it is only necessary to disable the webcards add-on, not to uninstall it for Reader to become responsive again.

Other microformat and semantic data mining extensions like Operator and Semantic Radar seem to continue to work just fine.

Technorati Tags: firefox, googlereader, webcards, plugins, browser

So
A puzzling new meme regarding Vendor Driven Architecture (VDA) has popped up in around SOA. The thought behind this seems to run something like this: companies should buy 'best of breed' (BoB) solutions for their SOA and not buy a particular vendors suite. Vendor suites are further demonized by calling them “comfort technologies”.

Wow. Didn't we hear all of this 'best of breed' versus software suite drum banging about ten years or so ago in IT? Then the play wasn't SOA but EAI. So, yes, by all means go buy whatever you think is 'best of breed', then spend years trying to integrate it all into something that might meet your shifting/evolving business requirements over the integration life cycle. I can't think of too many companies (if any) that would advocate the BoB approach again.

Another dimension to this decision that seems to get lost is that there is value to the Enterprise by constraining technology choices — this is part of what Enterprise Architecture does (or should do). If every project is free to pick their own 'best of breed' the corporation will quickly wind up with an unmanageable mess of disjointed products (and integrations, etc). Many of us in large corporations have seen this one play out as well. Enterprise standards are a necessary 'evil'.

Further, it is entirely possible, valid and valuable to compare business requirements to the vendors/products that the Enterprise has already decided on as standards. It would be rare that there wasn't a 70% or better 'fit' with any contemporary enterprise application portfolio. My point is, the decision to choose a vendor product doesn't have to be 'just because'; it can be because an existing vendor can solve the problem without having to introduce another technology/vendor. Stated differently, vendor selection doesn't by necessity have to start outside of the existing enterprise standards.

Let's say that the analysis is performed and finds that a BoB vendor has a few more bells and whistles than one of the approved vendors. In my mind, the next step is not to jump to the BoB vendor, but to perform a further analysis around when (realistically) the enterprise would be ready to take advantage of the differentiating feature(s). If the answer is 2-3 years, then there is a good chance that the “comfort vendor” technology will have caught up to the niche vendor. This is one of the tricky things around requirements analysis that often gets overlooked — much of the functionality will not be consumed out of the box, but only after there has been a significant amount of analysis, design and implementation. The industry and products keep evolving, just as the requirements do. Here it is valuable to have a vendor who has an articulated technology roadmap that will guide the follow-on analysis.

So, to me, it seems VDA is a symptom, It is a bad thing only if you blindly follow whatever your vendor is telling you. But at that point, you certainly aren't doing architecture nor are you doing due diligence on your requirements gathering and analysis. That would appear to be the bigger problem and is much more likely to have far more damaging consequences that 'catching' VDA.

Technorati Tags: architecture, soa, vda, enterprisearchitecture

So
In the spirit of the segment that Bill Maher does on his HBO show, here are a few of my New Rules for SOA:

1) Stop telling me that 'there is nothing new about SOA'. Everyone knows. No, really, they do. The fact that services can finally be implemented in a shared, non-prorprietary manner is what is new. And while it shares some conceptual similarities it is not 'just like CORBA'. There is nothing about this observation that adds anything to a discussion of SOA.

2) Stop calling it SO-UH. My experience so far has been that anyone who says 'SO-UH' instead of S.O.A has a better than 90% chance of not knowing what they are talking about. And then they go on to prove it over and over by saying clever things like 'SO-UH Architecture', 'SO-UH Services' and 'SO-UH Orientation'.

3) Stop using the tired old expression 'boiling the ocean' when referring to SOA projects. I may be overly optimistic in thinking that businesses have learned quite a bit about implementing large projects over the last 30 years and recognize that a phased approach is almost always the best way to go. This is an interesting one because while most true practitioners advocate a quick, iterative approach, several of the big consulting outfits have talked about 'not thinking big enough' for SOA and advocating huge, overly complicated rollouts. And, as previously discussed, the agile 'failing to plan' dream doesn't work.

4) Stop saying that SOA isn't a 'product'. I am not sure who doesn't get this. The architecture part of the acronym should give that away. There are any number of vendors who what to sell you their SOA-enabling products, but none of them has an SOA for sale. Similarly, there are also companies that will sell you an Accounting or ERP system. The purchase of the product does not instantly give you balanced books or a bill of materials. The business must take the building blocks they purchased and make them work in support of the business (which is rarely exclusively a technology exercise). SOA is no different.

5) SOA is not EA. SOA is one tool/approach in helping to achieve some of the technical goals of Enterprise Architecture — it is not a substitute for EA. I would be willing to say that without a well functioning EA discipline, any SOA effort will wind up not providing true enterprise services and value. Instead it will yield pockets of unmanaged services that may or may not interoperate based on which project developed them.

Technorati Tags: soa, enterprisearchitecture, newrules