By pdiamond on Jan 21, 2010
With all due credit to James Gosling...[Read More]
The result was published as a research disclosure - my understanding is that rather than go to the expense of filing for a patent, by filing such a disclosure we protect the ideas that we created.
When I first heard this I was shocked and disappointed.
Shocked because, as a Sun employee, I thought we deserved a heads-up
before it was public (still waiting for an update on why that did not
Disappointed because I felt it was sending a message to lots of
loyal Sun employees that "the hard work you have done to make Sun
relevant in the marketplace has not been enough, and we need to change
stock symbols so that people can find us"
Having read the earlier comments, I now feel OK - the company is
How many people "discovered" Sun because its stock symbol
was SunW = 0.
How many MIGHT discover us because of the linkage with
JAVA = >0. That's enough for me. Don't get the company's name and
reputation mixed up with the stock symbol - that's a mistake I was
making, and now I'm over it.
Today I am reminded how hard it is to communicate, and how much work there is in supporting communities. We are working on improving the support for several of our technical communities at Sun, and yet we are struggling with how best to communicate and collaborate within our own team.
Combined with that is the challenge to prioritize between bringing improved functionality (aka web 2.0) vs. addressing the "boring" old issues our users face every day - how do we help them do what they are doing today, while trying to also show them new ways which will some day be more useful?
My concern is that it is very easy to see how much new exciting technology is out there, while losing sight of the users' everyday concerns. It's a version of the old "win the battle, lose the war" - we can successfully deploy new stuff which gets ignored or rejected because there is no obvious relationship to the old problems.
Maybe this will all look better after some lunch...
If you haven't quite grokked RSS or ATOM feeds yet, and I have to admit that I am still wrestling with the concept, there's a superb (I don't use this word lightly!) video that is short, sweet, engaging, comprehensible - can you tell I like it? RSS in Plain English.
At the risk of using material for a future blog entry, the same folks also did Wikis in Plain English - same comments as above apply
If you saw this story in today's SF Chronicle, or in Linda Skrocki's blog, you will have seen the problems DIGG got into when it tried to censor something its users didn't want censored. Without getting into the discussion of DRM (digital rights management) and whether you agree with the recording industry being able to protect their content (a TOTALLY different topic, with lots of passionate opinions), I think this story shows something broader about Web 2.0 - what do you do when (or if) the crowd is not "right" or "wise"?
This has come up elsewhere in discussions of MediaWiki and how anyone can put erroneous information out there, and until now I had always bought the argument that the erroneous information would get quickly corrected by "the crowd" and therefore little harm done. But this incident points out, what if alot of people want to put out information "we" (whoever "we" are) don't want them to? You remove one reference, they add another. What if there are more of "them" then there are of us?
I guess it's just an extension of free speech, but the implications are vast. Because of the reach of the internet, a determined bunch of people can reach alot of folks with information we may not want them to have - such as how to build IEDs to blow up more people? (Probably already out there somewhere, but hopefully not easily found today?)
This free, unfettered access to the digital world may have some very mixed blessings...
Am I the only one who doesn't "get" tag clouds?
I understand that they can be used to represent the tags users have provided for various information, and that they show larger/smaller font based on the frequency of individual tags being used. Because of this, I can get hints as to which tags have been found to be useful by more people.
What I don't get is how "we" - the creators of the new, full-participation web which has lots of names - are going to leverage multiple different sets of tag clouds, as well as search technology and browsing capability, to help "us" - the users of the new, full-participation web - to store and find things more easily.
But that's probably just me being me - I'm sure you get it!
I am reminded of a song that was popular in the UK in the early 80's when I worked there for IBM - it went something like "job's worth, job's worth, it's more than my job's worth..." The sense was that whatever you are asking me to do is so onerous that it's more than my job's worth to do it, i.e., I'll quit first.
Anyway, after that trip down memory lane, I saw an interesting link from the Sun Global Systems Engineering (GSE) divas blog (they are two job-sharing communications folks for that part of the organization). It takes you to a technorati routine which calculates how much your blog is worth based on the links to it. So I will try here to paste this information in for my blog, and you will be able to tell just how technical (or not) I am. Here goes...
No bookmarks in folder