Google Chrome Stripped
December 20, 2008
Lifehacker has a useful x-ray of Google’s Chrome. You can read the article here. The write up provides short cuts and set up options. For me the most interesting segment was “Chrome’s secret Diagnostic Info”. A happy quack to Lifehacker’s Gina Trapani for a quite useful compilation. Highly recommended.
Stephen Arnold, December 20, 2008
Google’s Crazy Cool Idea: Native Client
December 19, 2008
You will want to click here and read Neil McAllister’s “Native Client: Google’s Craziest Idea Yet”. The title appeared to suggest to me that Google made a fatal exception with Native Client. I think Mr. McAllister gives Native Code a fighting chance. If he’s right, there is trouble looming for some enterprise and Web outfits. Native Code is, said Mr. McAllister:
Google Native Client</a> is a new set of components that allows Web browsers to download and execute native x86 code. It’s not an emulator, and it’s not a virtual machine. The code runs on the actual processor with access to memory and system resources and negligible loss of performance. It even gives browser-based apps access to modern, accelerated CPU instruction sets, such as SSE.
(InfoWorld enjoys tossing in acronyms. I guess the company is too busy booking ad revenue to make clear their “in” lingo. Anyway, SSE is an instruction set extension to the x86 architecture. The addled goose is not that lazy.)
What’s going on, Mr. McAllister continued:
A sand castle strong>Google claims that its Native Client improves upon any of these past technologies by building a “sandbox” security layer around native code downloaded from Web sites. You can think of it as a kind of “virtualization lite” — except that Native Client avoids the overhead of full-blown virtualization environments such as VMware by placing strict limitations on what kind of code is allowed to run.
So, it’s containers; that is, Google’s method for keeping the operating system on the computing device at bay so Google can deliver Googley applications within the “browser”. Interesting notion.
Stephen Arnold, December 19, 2008
Larry Ellison May Not Understand Cloud Computing but Oracle Is Doing It
December 19, 2008
Not long ago, Larry Ellison, the wizard who built Oracle to a multi-billion dollar colossus said he didn’t understand cloud computing. I don’t understand it either. I think the idea of a data center and a network connection is old hat. But today’s Brown University graduates enjoy coining new phrases to put lipstick on a very old pig. I liked the IBM data center. I got paid to terrorize people who needed their punch card decks run. What a power trip.
Now, AT&T and Oracle have fallen in love and will be offering a cloud-based subscription to that nifty enterprise system, PeopleSoft. You can read the TMCnet.com story “AT&T and Oracle Team for Subscription-Based PeopleSoft Solution for Midsize Businesses” here. The comment I found glinting like a diamond amidst the gray prose was:
Keith Block, executive vice president, Oracle North America Sales, said: “We are excited to work with AT&T to address the need for a cost-effective, predictably priced human resource service for companies that prefer to focus their efforts on their core differentiators. This is especially true in today’s uncertain economic climate where companies of all sizes are looking for ways to reduce costs, increase flexibility and decrease business risk.”
With a snappy description like this, maybe Mr. Ellison could not figure out that this was a cloud computing play. AT&T and Oracle have the Midas touch when it comes to making money. This venture might be the home run both companies need to make 2009 a banner year. However, both companies have to become agile, deal with latency, and deliver a service that outshines similar services already in the market. AT&T. Oracle. Agile? Absolutely. These companies can turn on a dime and their executives often work weekends at Cirque du Soleil. Such versatility is the norm. I wonder of Secure Enterprise Search 10g is part of the package? If you know, use the comments section to share your knowledge.
Stephen Arnold, December 19, 2008
Cloud Computing Challengers: Pundits Cheer for Their Clients
December 15, 2008
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Briefings Direct. The link pointed me to a transcript of a discussion among a group of analysts. I am fascinated by the prognostications of pundits. The deepening economic crisis and miserable track record of large information technology projects make me hungry for information about the future. These pundits are responsible for approaches to systems that some companies embrace. I could draw a connection between pundits and the present crisis in information technology, but I will not. Instead, let me capture the points that I noted as I worked my way through “BriefingsDirect Analysts Handicap Large IT Vendors on How Cloud Trend Impacts Them.” The set up is that cloud computing is a trend and the large information technology vendors are horses in a race. The participants in this discussion will, in theory, give the odds for selected vendors’ in the cloud computing horse race.
First, one of the pundits asserts that Microsoft “has the most to lose.” I believe that “lose” means revenues from on premises licensing of Office and products such as SQL Server. Okay, I understand that point and I see a grain of truth in the “most to lose” remark. One thought I have is that Microsoft is spending to make its software and services’ strategy viable. The spending coupled with erosion of on premises revenue ups the ante. Maybe the Briefings Direct session will focus on the economics of the Microsoft “to be” architecture.
Second, one of the panelists points to big companies like IBM and SAP who sell direct and who have established reseller channels. The idea is that these vendors are trying to maximize their sales impact. I am uncomfortable with the implication that big vendors have their act together. SAP, one of the companies with this sell direct and rely on an ecosystem approach, is in a tar pit. SAP’s missteps may be a glimpse of what will happen when more big companies with zero track record in offering software from data centers on a subscription basis try to make money. Again, the combination of capital investment and lack of experience may make these initiatives bleed red ink. IBM, for instance, tried Internet services and dumped the business to AT&T. IBM is a consulting company that also pushes software and hardware. There are too many assumptions about big companies succeeding in the cloud for me to be optimistic.
Third, the notion that cloud computing is a wide open race is intriguing. I think cloud computing, like telephony in the early 20th century, is one of the those utility services. If a single company has an advantage, that company could make it difficult for competitors to get sufficient market traction to survive. Customers unwittingly act to make a monopoly come into existence. I see a hint of this in Google’s dominance of Web search and advertising. A company like Google or maybe Google itself could capture a dominant position. The Google Effect, then, is companies without Google’s technology advantage and customer base spending to catch up. Google keeps moving forward incrementally and retains its dominant position. I think that Google’s 70 share of Web search could be replicated in other cloud markets as well. The diversity dies out even some vendors offer better solutions.
Who will win? IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, or SAP?
Fourth, the cloud approach means “flex sourcing”; that is, (I think) using what you need in the cloud and having some software on premises. My thought is that this is a commonsense approach. I don’t think “commonsense” applies to cloud services. The cost and complexity of on premises systems is probably a deal breaker for many organizations in today’s economic climate. The shift to cloud services may be forced upon companies. If a flash point exists, the cloud shift could be somewhat sudden, maybe like the emergence of the Internet as a utility. In that type of situation, the rules go out the window. Commonsense says, “That’s not likely to happen” as the shift occurs. These pundits are supporting the status quo and the status quo is crumbling as they opine.
Finally, one of the pundits suggests that a Microsoft – Yahoo tie up is good for Microsoft. This point caps a discussion of tie ups for cloud services; for example, Amazon and Oracle. Wow. I am not sure if Microsoft has the technical savvy to fix up the nicks and scratches in the Yahoo infrastructure at the same time it is struggling to build out and optimize its own data centers. I think the cheerleading for the big companies ignores the fundamental problem of getting from “to be” to “as is.” I am no Google fan goose, but I think the GOOG is going to stomp on some of these assertions relative to Microsoft and the other big companies mentioned in this discussion.
Chrome Bumps Firefox
December 14, 2008
Chrome, which is viewed as Google’s browser, has run over Firefox. According to PC World here, on Saturday, Google replaced Firefox with Chrome in the Google Pack download bundle. The article “Google Dumps Firefox from Download Bundle, Swaps in Chrome” said that in non-English versions of Google Pack Firefox is still included. Chrome is much more than a browser. My research suggests that Chrome is an umbilical to the infrastructure of the Googleplex. Chrome is, therefore, a very big deal for the GOOG. Firefox just became road kill as Google’s Hummer grinds forward. Who’s next? I guess we will have to wait until next week end to find out.
Stephen Arnold, December 15, 2008
Google Netscape: What the Dickens!
December 14, 2008
I read Joe Wilcox’s articles for the eWeek Microsoft Watch section. I noticed “The Ghost of Netscape Past Is Google.” I must admit the allusions confused me. Netscape, a company without a means of generating sufficient revenue to stay alive. Netscape is no Marley. Netscape died because its business model could not withstand the shock of Microsoft’s giving away Internet Explorer. The passage I most enjoyed in Mr. Wilcox’s write up was:
The Ghost of Netscape Past later comes and hauls the goosebumped Steve Ballmer from his bed—gads, clothed only in an XXL Microsoft Softwear T-Shirt and boxer shorts. The ghost takes Steve to Netscape’s headquarters in late 1995, where employees celebrate an amazing IPO. Time moves forward some months to meetings where Netscape employees brainstorm about creating a Web-based operating system.
Microsoft’s retro clothing makes an appropriate entrance, but the metaphors did not illuminate; they darkened. The checklist of notable developments that plague Microsoft is interesting. But the dénouement is not satisfying. Mr. Wilcox’s last sentence is supposed to be the kicker: “He [Steve Ballmer] will go back in time and buy start up Google.”
Microsoft’s real problem is the ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. Will the firm survive the Google of the now and tomorrow?
This doesn’t do much for me. Here’s my take.
First, Netscape lacked a business model and was easy to Microsoft to deprive of oxygen. Google has a business model that is disruptive and, as it turns out, not so easy to derail or duplicate. The Google business model is the “now” for Microsoft. The Dickens’ Ghost of Christmas presence has effectiveness because the main character is excluded. Scrooge, in Mr. Wilcox’s article, is on the outside looking in. The mention of Scrooge’s name throws water on the Cratchit’s celebration. Scrooge starts to “get it”, but I don’t see any significant understanding in Mr. Wilcox’s protagonist (Steve Ballmer).
Second, the real problem is the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come. The ghost for the future presages death, oblivion, and emptiness. When Scrooge understands the fate he will face, he begs for another chance. Microsoft in Mr. Wilcox’s version of this story does not have a second chance. The company has its “now” and decisions are not remediable; for example, who can undo the acquisition of Fast Search & Transfer with its complexity and police troubles. Who can undo the whipping that Nintendo continues to administer to the Xbox? Who can fix the Vista gaffe? Who can address performance issues with certain Microsoft cloud services? Who can address Internet Explorer security?
Third, the miserable Scrooge changes. Scrooge reforms himself, which is deeply satisfying to both Victorian readers and today’s readers who lap up sentimental porridge. Unfortunately, Microsoft Mr. Ballmer (whom I assume is Scrooge in Mr. Wilcox’s article) exists within a bubble. Cultural shifts are glacial, and I don’t think Dickens would feel comfortable with the notion of buying Google to survive. If — and it is a big “if”– Microsoft could go back to 1998. Microsoft would try to squash Google like a tick plucked from a show dog. What was there to buy? Search. Search was a loser in 1998, and Microsoft was riding the portal bandwagon while collecting millions for upgrades to its desktop software.
Here’s one possible way to create a “21st Century Digital Christmas Carol”.
The math club takes over the world. A new application platform replaces windows. Amazon, Apple and Google divide up the spoils and yesterday’s leaders get satisfying jobs as Wal*Mart greeters. What do you think?
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2008
HP ROI: Hundred Million Billion
December 13, 2008
I am confident that the phrase “hundred million billion” is a typographic error. I make them all the time. Have you ever tried to type with webbed feet? Navigate to BMighty.com and take a gander at “How Do You Manage Servers in the Big Leagues: HP Shows One Way” by Lamont Wood here. The article contains some return on investment data, which I find useful. One never knows when an example from an ink company will be needed to add color to a presentation. For me, the interesting data were:
- HP had before rationalization to three data centers “85 official data centers, plus another 400 unofficial locations that were found to harbor servers, totaling about 700 “data marts”
- The way to squeeze down this astounding number of data centers and marts was to use more hardware and virtualization. The payoff was, according to the article, reduce the number of servers by 40 percent and chop energy costs by 60 percent. Sorry, there were no actual numbers in the BMighty.com write up.
- “Hewlett-Packard cut IT spending from 4 percent of revenue three years ago to less than 2 percent today.”
I want to quote the hundred million billion number because you probably doubt that such a number is used by either HP or Mr. Wood. Here is the statement:
With revenues of slightly more than $100 million billion, this should save it an extra couple of billion yearly. But to get to that level they had to undertake a sort of surge, spending 2 percent of one year’s revenue on hardware upgrades.
The hundred million zillion reminds me of Yahoo’s statement that a Web indexing system would cost $300 million. Pulling numbers from outer space is not something this goose does. One fly in the ointment is that Mr. Wood’s data does not match the information here.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2008
Microsoft Architect Heads to Amazon
December 13, 2008
My goodness. First, Microsoft reigns in its spending for data centers. Then Redfin dumps Microsoft maps for the speedier Google alternative. Now, according to Todd Bishop’s Microsoft Blog, James Hamilton, a key data center architect, will leave Microsoft and head to Amazon. You can read the full text of “Key Data Center Architect Leaves Microsoft, Headed for Amazon” here. My question is, “Will other wizards involved in Microsoft’s cloud push seek greener pastures?” If I were a betting goose, I would say, “Yep”. Here’s why?
First, building big data centers does not mean the data centers can deliver data quickly. In fact, big data centers based on technology with known bottlenecks won’t go fast because of bottlenecks. Google created MapReduce to minimize one type of bottleneck about eight years ago. Microsoft is playing catch up and the bottleneck with SQL Server is a real deal problem. Second, coordinating work within a data center or across data centers requires a different type of file system; specifically, a smart file system that minimizes message traffic. Microsoft does not have a smart file system, although I have heard the company is working on this problem. Finally, replacing purpose built equipment with commodity gizmos is a good idea. When the commodity gizmo requires one hot spare and one additional computer to handle overflow conditions, the good idea goes bad. Microsoft is working to resolve these types of problems now. I have heard that the Google uses brand name network devices when these devices make sense. Commodity for commodity’s sake may not be the correct approach.
What’s your take on Microsoft’s data centers? Mine is that Microsoft’s data centers are expensive and probably plagued with some bottlenecks just like old style data centers have been for decades.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2008
Google Chrome EULA
December 13, 2008
You will want to click to ReadWriteWeb.com and read the article “Your New Agreement with Google, Chrome Users” here. We have Chrome on an isolated machine and use it with Tess’s Gmail account. Tess doesn’t pay much attention to EULAs. So far, she’s ignored my demands for her to scrutinize these easily changed, fluid, and maybe unenforceable Webby injunctions. You, however, may be more discriminating than Tess and, therefore, need to know what the GOOG is morphing in the Chrome EULA. I don’t want to repeat what Marshall Kirkpatrick has dug from the Google prose. I would like to quote the comment that resonated with me: “…Google is now making moves to promote Chrome over Firefox and a Mac version is in the works.” Chrome is an important technology for Google. Think containers. Chrome does containers quite well.
Stephen Arnold, December 13, 2008
Microsoft and Scudding Clouds
December 12, 2008
Update: December 12, 2008 A reader sent me a link to this Los Angeles Times’s story about Mapquest. “Mapquest Tries to Stem Flow of Users to Google Maps”. My hunch is that Google is working like a big magnet, pulling customers to them.
Original Post
A happy quack to the reader who directed my attention to Robert Scoble’s comment about his former employer’s computational performance. The Scobelizer here said:
…when I go to my wife’s blog, which is on Microsoft Spaces, it is TONS slower than WordPress. WordPress doesn’t have the huge data centers available to it that Microsoft has. Same when I use my Hotmail account. Gmail is faster. Same when I go to other things, because I’ve seen lots of people praising Microsoft’s Live.com services lately so I’ve been testing them out. Tonight ReadWrite Web, for instance, talks about the new Microsoft Labs bookmarking service.
The point I carried away is that Microsoft’s fancy new data centers aren’t the fastest hamsters in the cage. Keep in mind that I chastise the Amazon outages and I chew into the GOOG’s increasingly common glitches. But comparing WordPress with Microsoft Spaces is brutal.
The core of this story appeared on the Redfin Corporate Blog here. The Redfin wizards switched from Microsoft Virtual Earth and some Google to all Google.
Speed wins, but speed is not a data center. Speed is dependent on engineering solutions to known bottlenecks in distributed, parallelized computing system. Google has solutions, not perfect, mind you, but pragmatic. Microsoft has solutions as well but the core remains anchored to my old pal SQL Server and other Microsoft components. According to Redfin’s post, Microsoft may have to open more engineering spigots.
Stephen Arnold, December 12, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
