Duane Gran’s log of thoughts

Paul Thurrott has written a nice comparison between Windows Vista Beta 1 and Mac OS X 10.4 “Tiger”. The write-up is generally good and informative, but a cultural artifact jumped out at me:

I’d like to remind you that Windows Vista is only in Beta 1. Lots of things are going to change, and many, many features will be added by Beta 2 and beyond. This stands in sharp contrast to Apple’s approach with Tiger. If you go back and look at the WWDC 2004 keynote video, you’ll see Steve Jobs demo virtually every single major new feature in Tiger. A year later, when the product actually shipped, little had changed and nothing major was added. This isn’t how Microsoft works. Beta 1 is a minor subset of the overall functionality we’re going to see in the final Windows Vista product.

The actual meaning of a beta release is quite different as viewed by software developers. I quote from Wikipedia:

A beta version or beta release usually represents the first feature complete version of a computer program or other product, likely to be unstable but useful for demonstrating internally and to select customers. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, as a technical preview (TP) or as an early access. Often, this stage begins when the developers announce a feature freeze on the product, indicating that no more features will be added to this version of the product, only bugs will be removed. (emphasis mine)

There are exceptions, and I’m guilty of adding features to beta software as well, but either Microsoft doesn’t faithfully interpret the meaning of a beta release or the author of the article is overly optimistic that new features will emerge to close the gap between Windows and the Mac OS. I certainly hope that Microsoft innovates and closes the gap, as it is better for everyone involved, but if they slip features into beta releases I have a dismal prediction concerning the quality of the next Windows version. Stable software is built when someone slams the door on feature creep.

An Independent article summarizes a study that suggests health benefits from drinking coffee:

A study has found that coffee contributes more antioxidants - which have been linked with fighting heart disease and cancer - to the diet than cranberries, apples or tomatoes.

My recent choice to pick up drinking coffee seems wiser all the time, but naturally the study has some strong disclaimers.

The Beloit College Mindset List is annually published as a reminder about the world view that incoming freshman harbor. While it is always fun for curmudgeons to sigh about their lack of context, the list is intended to foster understanding. Be that as it may, three entries of the list concern me.

With little need to practice, most of them do not know how to tie a tie.

The necktie has a history of over 3,000 years, as I’ve noted before, so it would be a terrible tragedy if my generation (or whereabouts) is remembered as the visigoths who ransacked sartorial civilization.

They have grown up in a single superpower world.

This is almost more concerning than a five years ago when they never experienced the Soviet Union or the related red scare. I certainly hope that they don’t presume that this is the natural order of things or that it is appropriate going forward.

They have always been challenged to distinguish between news and entertainment on cable TV.

No surprises here, but I have some hope for bi-directional media. If you are watching something for news it is almost certainly a race to the bottom for broadcasters to opt for entertainment value over newsworthiness.

I’ve written an article for CodeSnipers.com that advises other project managers and technical directors on the decision of changing programming languages. In particular, I talk about the transition from Java to Ruby on Rails. David Heinemeier Hansson was kind enough to mention the article on the Rails weblog. As always, feedback and comments are most welcome.

Buzz over Participatory culture was in the air as Sean Tubbs revealed the inner workings of the C’ville Podcasting Network to over sixty people at last night’s Neon Guild meeting. Tubbs has been building the network over the past ten months as a venue for wider distribution of interviews, music and public proceedings in the Charlottesville area. After some brief stumbling over technical jargon surrounding the medium, the audience rapidly “got it” in a way that leads me to believe that more people will be producing original content soon.

It will be interesting to see how this trend evolves over time. Tubbs doesn’t intend to replace traditional media outlets, but rather intends to complement radio and eventually television. The project currently re-broadcasts the WNRN morning show in hopes to reach an audience that may not be able to listen at prescribed times regularly. Such “time shifting” techniques for existing media may be the most useful application for podcasting at present, but I’m eager to see how citizen media emerges into its own.

A Times Online article announces a British endeavor to extend copyright law:

In America, copyright protection lasts 90 years — and British ministers are considering a similar period. Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, is also planning to set up a Music Council to be run along the lines of the present Film Council. The music industry believes this would help with cross-industry initiatives such as stamping out piracy.

This is wrong-headed on so many levels, but selling a fight against the piracy boogeyman is the most insulting part. The data on piracy’s effect on the marketplace is confusing at best, between trumped up numbers from the recording labels and the idealism of the post-Napster crowd. Nonetheless we are still urged on. Won’t someone please think of the musicians! This has nothing to do with artists and everything to do with the labels, to say nothing of the public interest in free culture. I think Max Berry said it best:

Copyright extensions, of the kind popping up everywhere lately, have nothing to do with encouraging more creative work, and everything to do with protecting the revenue streams of media companies that, a few generations ago, had an executive smart enough to sniff out a popular hit. It’s a grab for cash at the public’s expense. The fact that there is any posthumous copyright protection at all proves that the law is intended to benefit people who are not the original creator: that is, heirs and corporations. The fact that copyright extensions retroactively apply to already-created works proves they’re not meant to encourage innovation. The only reason copyright extension laws keep getting passed is because the people and companies that became fabulously rich through someone else’s idea are using that wealth to lobby government for more of it.

While it would be better to return these works to the public domain sooner, there is some progress to distribute the profits of longer copyright to the content creator. A Financial Times article offer some details.

Whenever I have met a dealer or a collector, they always seem wealthy; and whenever I have met an artist, they seem poor.”

These sharp words were uttered by Chris Bryant, a British MP, during the discussion of a new law by which a living artists or their heirs for 70 years after their death will receive a cut of about 3 per cent whenever a piece is sold. Some commentators argue that this gives poor artists a slice of future success. Others believe it threatens to cripple the market. The law is causing conflict throughout Europe, especially in Britain, where the Patent Office is currently deciding how to implement it.

Meanwhile, in the United States there is some sign that the free culture movement may inject some rationality back into the discussion. A sign of hope comes from an urge from The Economist:

To reward those who can attract a paying audience, and the firms that support them, much shorter copyrights would be enough. The 14-year term of the original 18th-century British and American copyright laws, renewable once, might be a good place to start.

A controversy is brewing over the government providing free weather information to citizens. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, usually an advocate of free markets, has been lobbying for legislation to protect the interests of AccuWeather, a private firm that is upset about the public weather service. The legislation could, among other things, prevent the National Weather Service from providing weather information that is available in the private sector.

AccuWeather defends their position in a press release, but let us not forget that they exist because it was built by the federal government as an incubator. Their claim is for the most part baseless since the public pays for weather data and the government shouldn’t obscure public data for the benefit of private enterprise. As it happens, the public service has recently been upgraded with XML/RSS feeds of their alerts, observations, and forecasts.

Aside from free culture arguments, of which I’m sympathetic, people will experience real harm if the legislation is enacted. It has no provisions for which information would remain free, such as severe weather alerts. No compelling reason exists to deny relevant weather information to the public which has paid for it.

(via slashdot)

This writing space gives me practice for communication, which I like to think of as a useful life skill since I neither live on an island (apologies to visitors from Hawaii) nor am I antisocial. The Poynter Institute has a fantastic guide to 50 writing tools for improvement. In the coming months I hope to stamp out that passive voice and seek out my inner grammarian.

For some fun, check out a guide to writing good (sic).

Elliotte Rusty Harold has issued a plea for web site maintainers to make email addresses, or some form of contact, available on web sites:

As I read more and more blogs on a variety of subjects, (and not just blogs but other sites too) there is one consistent mistake I keep seeing again and again and it’s becoming more common: lack of e-mail addresses. This is killing so many sites, and they don’t even know it.

I couldn’t agree more. As it happens, I checked my contact form and found that it wasn’t working, but it is back up.

I would like to add to Elliott’s rant a bit about my own peeve: Businesses that avoid answering phones. When I call a business and I’m routed through all manner of phone prompts I can’t help but get the feeling that they would prefer that I give up and stop bothering them. One reason I chose my auto insurance company was because they delighted me with surprise when a human being answered the phone. The phone is usually my last resort, having done fair diligence with a web site and other research, but when I make a phone call I like to think that it isn’t an imposition.

Update: (9/21/05) A helpful site lists phone numbers for various companies and tips to reach human beings on the other end of the line.

It’s a wonderful life, by Andrew Sullivan:

You know the litany of the cultural declinists: the ubiquitous boorishness, the declining standards of public behaviour, the collapse of education, the fragility of the family, the cult of selfishness, vulgarity and hedonism that permeates public life.

…

The real shift can only come from below — from a million small decisions to scrub a wall of graffiti, to rear a child, marry a loved one, teach an immigrant, turn off a mobile phone, look out for an elderly neighbour, decline that last beer. These things change not when politicians or bishops demand that they do. They change when people have finally had enough of the boorishness that selfishness sustains.

I’ve been thinking lately about the fine line between skepticism and cynicism, as well as how one can be an optimist while still urging for social justice. To be progressive means that something is awry with the status quo. This means you need to be upset and irritable. Right?

I certainly hope not and try to keep upbeat, but cynicism is all too easy of a trap to fall into. For example, while I sympathize with many of the ideas at DailyKos I have no patience for partisans who find fault in anything the “opposition” does. The rancor in some forums is hard to bear and I believe that some people have insulated themselves in the dialog of cynicism to the point that the glass is perennially half full, if that much.

Sullivan’s piece is a good reminder to retain optimism while we look to improve the world around us. What a novel idea!

There is a thin line between civilization and savagery, as evidenced by a mob scene today in Richmond over the sale of some cheap Apple computers. From the article:

A rush to purchase $50 used laptops turned into a violent stampede Tuesday, with people getting thrown to the pavement, beaten with a folding chair and nearly driven over.

I knew about this event well in advance, because of membership on the UVA-MESS listserv, but I thought better of it. Thank goodness. It is scary how these things happen. Someone in attendance produced an online photo gallery of the 2 minute stampede.

Sad. Just plain sad.

There are several words I try to keep out of my vocabulary concerning views held by individuals or groups. The working list thus far:

• all
• none
• always
• never

For example, I avoid claiming that all Conservatives never care about the plight of the working poor, even if it seems plausibly correct. These terms are rather extreme and lend themselves to requiring only one exception to the rule in order to invalidate the statement. Worse yet, when you say that some group always behaves a certain way it alienates and puts people on the defensive to find the exception. The whole point of the statement is lost.

This applies in personal relationships as well. If you catch yourself saying “you always” or “you never” to another person as a lead-in for a critique, make a real effort to not do it. It diminishes the good that we all do by exaggerating the negative. A better solution is to speak realistically about the issue at hand without inflaming the matter with absolutes. Taking my example above, it can be rewritten as a concern about how Conservative policies seem to indicate a lack of empathy for the working poor.

Phrased in that way I might expect a defender of the policies to explain a long-term positive outcome, or possibly he or she might consider the issue worthwhile. Either way, the conversation is more productive and unencumbered by absolutes which don’t really exist.

I’ve been invited to be a guest writer at Code Snipers, which is authored by a group of entrepreneurs and interesting people in the technology industry. It should be fun. My inaugural post is a short piece to encourage software developers and IT managers to listen to users and make their lives a little easier.

The Fading Memory of the State

Imagine losing all your tax records, your high school and college yearbooks, and your child’s baby pictures and videos. Now multiply such a loss across every federal agency storing terabytes of information, much of which must be preserved by law. That’s the disaster NARA is racing to prevent. It is confronting thousands of incompatible data formats cooked up by the computer industry over the past several decades, not to mention the limited lifespan of electronic storage media themselves. The most famous documents in NARA’s possession–the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights–were written on durable calfskin parchment and can safely recline for decades behind glass in a bath of argon gas. It will take a technological miracle to make digital data last that long.

I would venture to say that in a few hundred years people will know more about Italy in the year 1500 than they will know about America in the year 2000. The task of maintaining current digital media is fraught with problems. A few that come to mind:

• The formats are idiosyncratic and constantly evolving. We have all experienced frustration opening an old wordperfect file. The specifications for these formats lie outside of the file themselves, making every file format a type of hieroglyphic record for some future archivist.
• Migrating from one file format to another is difficult and error prone. Unless you wrote the document yourself you are unlikely to notice disastrous errors in translation. Modern formats, such as XML, don’t make the problem any easier since companion transformers, often encoding many assumptions about the user interface, also need to be upgraded.
• The entire notion of digital media is predicated on the assumption of a reliable and consistent electric grid.

The last point slips a little into doomsday territory, but there are many difficult decisions surrounding digital materials. NARA faces 16,000 different file formats and 347 petabytes of data that must be archived, by law. Any plan that assumes all of it can be archived is untenable — they will have to prioritize.

I used to work at the Library of Congress, where we built software for metadata capture in a project to digitize analog films and audio recordings. Many of these source objects were films that were literally turning to acid on the shelf. Our estimates said it would take 70 years at peak production to digitize everything, yet many films would be ruined in less than 20 years. If the experience at the Library bears any resemblance to NARA, the first job is to prioritize.

Consider the following from the article:

Because the Archives has no good system for taking in more data, a tremendous backlog has built up. Census records, service records, Pentagon records of Iraq War decision-making, diplomatic messages–all sit in limbo at federal departments or in temporary record-holding centers around the country. A new avalanche of records from the Bush administration–the most electronic presidency yet–will descend in three and a half years, when the president leaves office. Leaving records sitting around at federal agencies for years, or decades, worked fine when everything was on paper, but data bits are nowhere near as reliable–and storing them means paying not just for the storage media, but for a sophisticated management system and extensive IT staff.

But all is not gloom and bad news. There are some efforts that emphasize the migration and use of materials as a key to their ongoing survival. The Born-Again Bits report comes to mind:

[I]t is useful to think not just of keeping electronic literature alive, but of giving it new lives—of allowing “born-digital” literature to be reborn. The long-term preservation and dissemination of e-lit requires a strategy of hardware and software migration.

via slashdot

Narcissism Goes to Church

Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified.

I couldn’t have said it better, but I believe the current preoccupation with self-esteem goes beyond affects in religion. I’m reminded of a recent story where teachers are urged not to use red ink because it is damaging to a student’s self-esteem. Ludicrous examples may be a straw man, but what the most troublesome aspect to me is the uncritical acceptance of the belief that higher self-esteem leads to other positive outcomes. While an upbeat outlook and good mood seem to reinforce good habits, I have serious doubts that building up one’s self image displaces bad habits or creates new good habits.

After all, that is what maturity is all about. Good habits are built from practice and, in the beginning, a bit of well intended coercion. Some correction and discipline comes with instruction, and I also suspect some bruising of the ego. Good self-esteem comes from internalizing those good habits, not being let off easy. I’ll readily confess to harboring some bad habits in case it appears that I’m casting stones.

Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel, the authors of One Nation Under Therapy summarized this point nicely in a Spiked essay:

Young people are not helped by being wrapped in cotton wool and deprived of the vigorous pastimes and intellectual challenges they need for healthy development. Nor are they improved when educators, obsessed with the mission of boosting children’s self-esteem, tell them how ‘wonderful’ they are. A growing body of research suggests there is, in fact, no connection between high self-esteem and achievement, kindness, or good personal relationships. On the other hand, unmerited self-esteem is known to be associated with antisocial behaviour - even criminality.

I’m not an expert on education or religious order, but my gut instinct tells me that an honest complement builds good will and that flattery helps no one. To bring this back to the initial topic of faith, I’m reminded of a proverb from Ecclesiastes 7:5 which says, “It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools”

Wikipedia to tighten editorial rules-founder

Wikipedia, the Web encyclopaedia written and edited by Internet users from all over the world, plans to impose stricter editorial rules to prevent vandalism of its content, founder Jimmy Wales was quoted as saying Friday.

I routinely cite wikipedia and consider it a successful project. This latest move seems to represent a coming of age for wikipedia and I’m not too surprised by the decision. Each time a wiki entry is referenced from slashdot, or another high-traffic site, I cringe to click the link because some smart alec will undoubtedly vandalize the content. If anything, the new policy will raise the credibility of the resource.

Update: It appears that this a Rumor. Wales denies it emphatically. How unfortunate, because it sounds just like what the project needs.

The Man Who Made Kathie Lee Cry

For more than a decade, Kernaghan’s National Labor Committee — four staffers, including himself — has launched a steady stream of highly publicized campaigns, taking on the labor practices at factories producing clothes for Liz Claiborne, Fruit of the Loom, the Gap, Disney, JCPenney, Kmart, Kohl’s, Nike, Target, Levi Strauss and Sean Jean.

And who could forget Kathie Lee? Kernaghan will perhaps forever be known as the activist who made Kathie Lee Gifford cry when he revealed during congressional testimony in 1996 that child laborers in Honduras were making the Gifford clothing line sold at Wal-Mart.

Pressure from activists like Kergaghan serves a useful purpose to raise consciousness about the living conditions of workers who produce textiles and other products. However, a Independent Institute Working Paper (pdf) has raised a serious and credible counter point worth considering. I quote:

In 9 of 11 countries, the reported sweatshop wages equal or exceed average income, doubling it in Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras (at 70 hours). However, these figures do not include non-monetary compensation. Nike’s employees in Indonesia, for example, receive free health care and meals in addition to their wages (Jones 1996). Since 7 of 8 Indonesian examples alleged Nike factories to be sweatshops, not including non-monetary compensation causes our Indonesian sweatshop wage estimates to appear far lower than they should. If firms in other countries also provide additional benefits, their wages may be similarly understated. Overall, even with our data limitations, Figure 3 demonstrates that most of the jobs that some anti-sweatshop advocates protest raise their workers’ standard of living above their nation’s average.

On one hand it is clear that industrialization represents an improvement in abject poverty, as defined by the UN as earning less than one US dollar per day, but on the other it is clear that more progress is needed. Economics is the dismal science, but the bar seems rather low to praise this as meaningful progress, as some have done. Its puzzling how an athletic shoe is made for less than ten dollars overseas yet it still commands a price tag well over $100. The retail price of shoes has been steady — some brands increased — while the cost to the manufacturer has decreased substantially through the use of sweat shops. The standard answer I expect from an Economist is twofold:

• It is normal and right to charge all the market will bear
• Given time, wages will keep increasing through competition and various byproducts of industrialization

I disagree emphatically with the first point and the second is becoming tiresome. We’ve been hearing this since manufacturing jobs left the country in the 70s. Libertarian advocates reason that things will be alright once everyone is paid as little as they can tolerate, yet these cost savings seem to accumulate at the top instead of trickling down to the product shelf, in the case of sweat shop textiles.

While I’m glad to see that sweatshops improve the living conditions of workers, there are still valid reasons to continue applying pressure on the companies and governments in which they operate:

1. Activists want higher wages and better working conditions abroad, not simply marginal improvements.
2. There is a political element to raising people out of poverty that isn’t addressed by globalizing markets. I quote from Joshual Michael Marshal:
   

   To put it more concretely, one part of a real market in labor is the ability for people to protest conditions, either actively (through organizing) or passively (through quitting or refusing to work). But if people who try to form labor unions are murdered then that whole theory falls apart.

Agile Project Planning: Can user interface design be agile?

So for a typical agile process, you’d work closely with the customer to develop user stories (requirements), then go off and produce something quickly, and touch base with the customer to see what they think.

Here’s the problem - this assumes that they are capable of telling you how to adjust the user interface to better meet their goals. Chances are, they are just representative of the end users, and may not even understand what the best interface is for another class of user. Someone is going to have to make UI design decisions, and our customers might not be the best people to do it. Uh oh.

Clear communication in software development is always challenging as it involves translating the subject domain into computer code, but I think the above linked article highlights a key difference between architecture and interface. The core functions of software with a modest user interface lends itself to agile methods. A refined user interface is laborious and runs up against the limits of iterative development.

A good paper sketch does wonders to test a user interface with users, but they need the sophistication to imagine the idea on-screen. Ideally, such a mock-up should catch obvious errors. Another set of users may have different needs and direct development in another direction, which underscores the value of involving real users with the paper sketch. The customer/client is not necessarily the user.

I’m a big believer that good software has users. If you are developing software and you don’t know who your users are, get acquainted with them. If you are building software of a speculative nature — where the user is hypothetical or the purpose of the software is for research — get some people unacquainted with the project to help debug the interface. Odds are likely that some good ideas will emerge.

Can user interface design be agile? In as much as a group of people can sketch together and use a white board, I think interfaces can be agile, but I would hesitate to do this process with code too early.

Update (1 Sept 05): Some of the ideas in this entry made their way into an essay I wrote for Code Snipers.

How one airline flew back into the black

From the maintenance floor to the cockpit, American Airlines is daily scouring operations to increase efficiency and find even the smallest cost savings. It’s paid off: Last week, the company announced its first profit in almost five years.

Just a few years ago American Airlines workers threatened a strike upon learning that upper management had protected its pensions from creditors while exposing the majority of employees. The new management at the airline is opening up lines of communication and thinking creatively together about ways to operate efficiently that don’t necessarily imply cutting wages and benefits for the majority of employees. The results thus far are impressive. While downsizing and the like may be necessary, it is nice to see a company working together, rather than against, its employees to address its budget concerns.