Michael Flanakin

Interesting First Impressions with the IE9 Preview

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:27:00 GMT

It's been almost a year since my plea to the IE team. Windows 7 has rocked, Office 2010 is looking very nice, and, most recently, Windows Phone 7 Series has amazed the world. All these great things coming together are really putting pressure on the IE team to deliver something revolutionary. Back in Nov 2009, the team talked about the tremendous performance improvements, sub-pixel text rendering, and HTML5/CSS3 support. All-in-all, there was a quick burst of information and buzz around what IE9 could become, but then it died off very quickly. I admit, I was quite skeptical -- and still am -- but at least it showed the team is heading in the right direction. In what seems to be the IE team's typical process, silence happened and annoyance returned.

Today, Microsoft announced the release of an early IE9 developer preview. I was pretty excited about this, since I've been waiting for it since they first started talking about IE9 in November -- well, maybe since IE8 was released without some of the big features I was hoping for. Nonetheless, I was grounded pretty quickly. For better or worse, there are some interesting things that came out of the preview.

1. Uhh, What's This Window?

I'm pretty willy-nilly with new software. Not too smart, but whatever :-P I installed the preview and expected magic. As it installed, I started closing other IE8 windows. All of a sudden, a new Window popped up. "Woo-hoo, it's done! IE9, here I come!" Then I noticed I left one IE8 window open. I switched over to close it and hesitated -- "Why is there an IE8 window still open?" I switched back to the new IE9 window and thought, uhh, this isn't a browser. There's no back button; no address bar; nothing. "Ah, maybe it's just a 'Welcome to IE9' dialog before the IE9 greatness kicks in!" I close the IE8 window, open another with the pinned icon on my taskbar. "Uhh, nothing changed." *Help > About...* Still IE8. WTF!? I guess this is more of a literal "preview" than I thought. No browser; just a chance to see how their pre-built tests work. Meh.

2. The Tests Work... Mostly

I've said it before and I'll say it again, just being part of the game isn't going to fly. And, if this is all the IE team has to show, I'm not impressed. Don't get me wrong, I love everything they show, from performance to sub-pixel text rendering -- seriously, this isn't something to scoff at, it's a very noteworthy improvement for any browser -- to all the HTML and CSS improvements. But it's not enough. Heck, the "Falling Balls" example didn't even work. I really want to bash the performance improvements. I even wrote this paragraph a few different ways to express my disapproval in different ways, but it all comes down to this: you won't realize how drastic the improvements are until you see IE8 and IE9 running side-by-side. The Flying Images example seems obvious, when you see it in IE9, but when you go back and watch it in IE8, you think, "Is this seriously what I'm putting up with today!? I feel lied to; cheated. How dare you, IE team; how dare you!" With all that said -- and seriously, the perf improvement is tremendous -- I'm still not happy (here's where my desire to bash performance comes in). While you definitely notice that aspects of performance have improved, the perceived performance really sucks. It's not the page loading that I'm talking about, tho; it's the standard page interaction that's defunct. Even clicking some of the links used by the examples were ridiculously buggy. I guess there's a reason they called it a "developer preview"... wait, that doesn't say "developer," it says "platform"...

3. "Platform Preview"

In an effort to find the hidden navigation controls, I scoured the lifeless window edges. The best I could find was the Page > Open... menu option. Well, at least that's a way to test out other pages. I figured, what better way to test out the new browser than to write a blog post. Let me just tell you that I'm dying here. I mentioned the perceived performance sucks already. Try typing in this thing. I feel like I'm clawing my eyes out -- and I'm talking about with freshly trimmed fingernails. You know what I'm talking about, when you trim your fingernails down to the nub and putting even the slightest pressure on them hurts. Now, try to claw your eyes out with that. That's why I feel like I'm doing right now. Every character is painful. *Ouch, oooh, ouch...*

Okay, I'm exaggerating; but it is painful. But, now that I'm able to get past the examples, I'm realizing I have two versions of IE installed. Hmm... very interesting. Remember the days when IE was a crucial part of Windows and couldn't be unbundled? Well, they seem to have figured out how to install a new rendering engine without touching the old one, hidden deep in the innards of Windows. Of course, they did introduce the ability to completely uninstall IE in Windows 7, so maybe that's a moot point nowadays. Either way, this is a first for IE, as far as I know. Then it hit me... "platform preview." Are they saying something with that? Are we talking about a rendering engine completely detached from the Windows desktop OS?

4. IE9 on Windows Phone?

In the original Windows Phone 7 Series announcement at Mobile World Congress 2010, Joe Belfiore commented that the phone is more than just the Mobile IE we see in Windows Mobile 6.5 and its predecessors. He said it came from the desktop browser code-base. This alone doesn't mean much, but when he called out the sub-pixel text rendering, my mind started adding things up. Is this IE9 on Windows Phone!? Nobody has said that, but you have to wonder. I've read that Windows Phone 7 Series is based on IE7 with some back-ported features from IE8, but that doesn't really make sense, when you consider that sub-pixel rendering is only coming in the next version of the browser. I still have to wonder about this. It doesn't make sense to back-port that feature two versions. Maybe it's IE8 with that one feature back-ported, but maybe it's IE9. If that's the case, IE9 will need to be on a hyperactive beta period and, as I mentioned before, they definitely aren't close to being done, yet, and I'm admittedly not confident they even know how to do that.

5. Where's the Navigation?

I really want to get back to the preview. I'm still annoyed at the fact that I have to get to sites in a hacky way. Why would the IE team do that!? Do they not want us to use the browser? That can't be it. Maybe they didn't have time to finish out the preview and just crammed some stuff together to make the Mix10 keynote. Maybe, but I doubt it. I didn't notice this at first, but the menu options aren't standard. Specifically, there's a "Page" menu instead of a "File" menu. Perhaps I'm reading into this too much, but "Page" sounds like more of a ribbon tab than a menu option. Maybe the reason we're getting such a scaled-back browser is because the old chrome isn't there anymore -- we could be getting the first ribbon-based browser. I'm very excited about this possibility. At the same time, I can't ignore the fact that this will be a very touchie UI, given the ever-popular tab-based browser. IE7 brought me back from Firefox because the UI was slim and just looked and felt more professional. IE9 with a ribbon done right -- extra focus on "done right" -- could seriously bring people back to IE. At the same time, it's an opening for haters to complain about the ribbon. I whole-heartedly believe the ribbon interface is demonstrably better than menu-based interfaces. So much so that, if I had my way, I'd never use another menu-based interface again. I'm not saying the ribbon is the way to go in every case, but I don't know why a traditional menu would ever be the "right" experience. It just isn't optimal.

With all that said, maybe the ribbon isn't the IE team's target. Maybe they've put a lot of thought into how users should be interacting with the browser. In either case, I welcome the change. Chrome took an interesting move with minimization, but I don't think it was drastic enough. Google played it safe with Chrome. Microsoft's not afraid of taking big risks when it comes to user experience -- just look at Office 2007, Windows Phone 7 Series, and even Visual Studio 2010 to a lesser degree.

No matter what happens, I'll be eagerly awaiting either the next preview/beta. At the same time, I'm not holding my breath. The IE team has a lot to prove with respect to being agile and, if they really are creating a new UI, that'll just complicate things more. I'd like to say we'll see something by the end of June, but who knows with that team. All I can say is, IE team, prove me wrong; please, prove me wrong!

My First IE8 Post

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:23:00 GMT

I just downloaded IE8 and have to say I'm liking it so far. I was pretty concerned that it was going to be a horrid experience, but it hasn't been. Of course, the next thing I did in this self-centered world of ours was check my website. Being built on DotNetNuke, which is notorious for non-standard HTML, I was concerned. I was happy to see no problems. I'm sure there will be some, but at least I'm looking good so far. I guess all that work I did trying to keep tables out of my design was well worth it.

My only real disappointment has been the fact that web slices have to be explicitly coded into web content. For some reason, I was thinking we could simply select a portion of the age and tell IE to create a web slice from it. I guess not. Maybe I was just thinking of Dapper.

Microsoft's Official Position on UML

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:44:00 GMT

I made a few comments about Microsoft's work around MDA and how I don't quite understand Microsoft's official position on UML. David Cutler pointed out that I should take some initiative and dig around for some reasoning behind that. Well I did, and I found out that things are changing. Visual Studio "Rosario" will have a number of UML designers built on the DSL Tools designer framework. I'm very glad to hear this because I've been looking for them for quite a while and remember scoffing Microsoft for not investing more than a class diagram in Visual Studio 2005. I had hoped Visual Studio 2008 would have included some new designers, but alas, it didn't. The November 2007 CTP includes two new designers in Team Edition for Architects (Team Arch) and obviously the all-up Team Suite. I haven't used the new sequence or logical class designer, yet, but I'm definitely intrigued by them. I doubt the sequence diagram will be auto-generating at first, but you never know. Either way, I'm glad to see Microsoft is embracing UML more.

Of course, this doesn't answer the question of what Microsoft's official position on UML is. That's a hard one to answer, considering we're a company of individuals who have individual thoughts and ideals, just like any other company. Most of the people I talked to were the vocal few, but it's clear that UML isn't the unanimous terror that Microsoft seems to have made it out to be. I'm glad I'm not the only one to believe that. While I'm not making any anouncements today, I can say that we will get a clearer message of where Microsoft is going with respect to UML. As I understand it, there will be more designers on the books for the next CTP in the March/April time frame, so I think I can finally say we're on the right track. Better late than never, right?

What to Expect with Open XML

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:29:00 GMT

If you're not familiar with the story behind Open XML to date, Rob Weir of IBM has a decent overview. I'd be remissed if I didn't say he was somewhat biased, tho. An example of this is a comment he made about how he believes Microsoft will drive change in Open XML with every release of Office. This, in itself, shows how little he understands about the Open XML format and why its proponents believe in it as a superior format to ODF. I have no doubt Microsoft will try to push modifications as more and more customers ask for new and innovative features, but that's exactly why Open XML is better -- it was built with extensibility in mind, unlike ODF.

Here we are, waiting for the last leg of the process to kick off at the end of this month and some skeptics say, "While you're waiting [for the ISO decision on standardization], don't save in OOXML format." Should you listen? Probably not. There are some seemingly logical arguments behind the comment, but the position is flawed. He states that you should use the legacy binary formats to ensure a truly "open" experience. To word that another way, you should use a proprietary binary format instead of one based on open standards, such as ZIP and XML. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with my Open XML file formats, which I have full control over and can get data out should I need it, unlike formats like the legacy DOC and PDF formats, which require binary interpreters. I can get my data out of Open XML files without any document reader. I simply need a tool to extract the content and read text files -- not that I expect everyone to feel this way. Also, with more and more format converters out there, I fail to see the importance of constantly saving to a format your tool of choice doesn't natively support without translation. You'll get a much better experience working in native formats and only converting to another when you need to publish or share your content externally.

We're not looking at all bad news, tho. With the 3522 comments made on the original specification, most overlapping on similar concerns, 662 responses have been made. I don't know if there was truly that much overlap that would support 662 answers to 3522 comments, but you can browse the comments and responses online. In another attempt to ease the community into the new formats, Microsoft has also published the legacy binary formats.

What's perhaps more interesting is the fact that, in a truly independent study, the Burton Group found Open XML to be a superior format. You can get that report online, but I doubt most people will see it. Perhaps developers at traditional Open XML opposing companies like IBM and Google read it, tho, seeing as their products seem to support the new formats. Of course, I think this is a must-have. You can't have a tool that neglects the native file format for the de-facto standard when it comes to productivity applications.

What do I expect? I expect the format to be approved. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a doubt in my mind, but the evidence is there that it's a superior format. The fact that these open source companies are so up-in-arms about Microsoft wanting to push its own formats thru the standardization process says something about their motives. Microsoft wants options and, with that, extensibility. If the format is judged on the merits, like all good arguments, the answer is clear. If you ask me, the worst thing about Open XML is Microsoft's name on it. If that weren't there, it'd already be a standard.

Mix or SD West: The Decision

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:32:00 GMT

In early December, I asked myself whether I'd rather go to Mix or SD West this year. I haven't been to either, but have wanted to go to Mix since its inception. After some thought, I've decided to go to SD West. The main reason for that is because I feel like it'll have better content given my focus. The first year of Mix was all about the web and the second year was a mixed designer+developer event, but still heavily rooted in the web world. I definitely feel at home with that mix, but things seem to be changing again. This year, it sounds like there's going to be even more focus on designer content, so I'll let Mix shake itself out one more year and check out SD West. I look forward to it.

Mix o SD West: La Decisión

En Español

En Diciembre, me pregunté si debo ir a Mix o SD West este año. No he estado a tampoco, pero tengo quise ir a Mix puesto que comenzó. Después de pensar en él, decidía ir a SD West. La razón principal es porque pienso tendrá mejor contenido, basado en mi foco. El primer año de Mix estaba todo sobre la web y el segundo año estaba un acontecimiento para los diseñadores y desarrolladores, pero todavía basado pesadamente en la web. Soy cómodo con los dos, pero el acontecimiento está cambiando otra vez. Este año, pienso que habrá más foco en contenido del diseñador. Dejaré Mix solidificar uno año más y iré al SD West.

.NET Source Now Available

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:41:00 GMT

As promised three months ago, the source code to the majority of the .NET Framework is now available... and ahead of schedule, I might add. Check out Scott Hanselman's short list of requirements before digging in. Looks like we'll get a download version as well as having it integrated into Visual Studio 2008's debugger. Bon apetit!

El Codigo de .NET Está Ahora Disponible

En Español

Como prometida hace tres meses, la mayor parte de codigo de .NET está ahora disponible... y por delante de la programación. Míre la lista corta de requisitos de Scott Hanselman antes conseguirlo. Parece que tendremos una versión de la transferencia directa así como tenerlo en eliminador de errores de Visual Studio 2008. Bon apetit!

Searching for a Search Solution?

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:34:00 GMT

Microsoft’s search story has been a bad one. Not because the tools are lacking; it’s the marketing that has hurt the product. You’re probably asking, "What search story?" Windows Desktop Search has been out for desktop users for a while, but I have to say the WDS experience on XP sucks. I’m not sure why it changed so much for Vista, but it’s completely different. After experiencing Vista, I look for search everywhere; and, when it’s not there, it’s my first complaint. Vista sold me; search needs to be completely ubiquitous. If your app doesn’t incorporate search, you’re probably not doing your customers justice.

What is Microsoft doing for enterprise search? The answer over the past year has been SharePoint for Search. Now, you’re probably asking why you need SharePoint. This is exactly the problem. You don’t need SharePoint and, honestly, SharePoint doesn’t have anything to do with it, hence the marketing problem. Well, it seems like things are changing. Microsoft is now pushing Search Server (MSS) 2008. Perhaps one of the best things with this announcement is the lighter-weight companion, Search Server 2008 Express. I don’t know all the rules behind when you would want to use one or the other, but this is a great opportunity.

If you’re asking yourself why you’d want MSS when Google has such a strong search technology, I’d have to argue that perceptions aren’t always reality. I’m not saying Google doesn’t have a good product on their hands; I’m just saying MSS is better than you probably think. I live in search and have for the past 9 years. I picked up on Google fairly early and made it part of my life. When I switched to Windows Live, I thought I’d be missing something, but I wasn’t. I haven’t looked back. I’m not saying it’s been a better experience, but it hasn’t been worse. It’s equivalent. With respect to enterprise search, MSS is hands-down a better choice than Google. Why? Security. Google knows search in the public domain; that’s what it’s good at. Grabbing everything and making it discoverable to the masses. Tell me; do you want your company's contract details and competitive info made available to everyone who has access to the intranet or just those with the right need-to-know? Google can’t give you discoverability and security of sensitive material -- it’s all or nothing. Microsoft has been very good at only showing results to those who have access to them. For this reason, I think Microsoft has a stronger enterprise search story. What’s great is that you can now take advantage of this search and the security included in that within your applications.

You're probably wondering what’s new in MSS. Not much. I’ve seen some talk of a streamlined installation and admin experience, use of the OpenSearch standard, performance and indexing enhancements, and my favorite, no pre-set document limits. This last one surprised me a little. Most of these products, especially “express”-style product lines have limits. That’s right, you heard me correctly. MSS Express has no document limits. Well, at least that’s what I’ve read. I find this pretty astounding, honestly. There’s gotta be a catch somewhere, right? Well, there is one, but I think it’s one you can probably live with. MSS Express only supports single server installs. Most people looking for something like this will probably be perfectly fine with that. Others might be just as happy to know they can get MSS Express to create a prototype and then scale up from there, if necessary.

If you’re interested in search, keep an eye on the MSS team’s blog . The official release won’t be out until March-ish 2008, but there is a release candidate available. The only other thing I should really mention is that MSS is intended to be a search-only solution. If you have your sights set on collaboration, SharePoint is still going to be the answer for you. Personally, I’m interested on what MSS can do for applications. It may not be the right fit, but it’s something I’d like to look into more.

Microsoft's MDA Foundations

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:16:00 GMT

I don't know if I'll ever understand Microsoft's official position with respect to UML. Sure, the concept behind domain specific languages (DSLs) is sound, but is it truly necessary? I haven't seen any proof of that. Well, to be more specific, I should say I don't see a need for DSLs when it comes to software analisys and design -- UML has just about everything I've needed and extending it seems to be the logical answer. On the other hand, DSLs are absolutely fantastic for applications that can visualize their data. Honestly, I think more apps should consider DSLs, but when most developers either don't know or don't use software modelling tools, I have to say I'm not surprised. I, for one, have been meaning to dig into Microsoft's DSL Tools, but haven't had the time. One of these days, perhaps. Either way, this is the foundation for Microsoft's MDA approach... well, the development environment, at least. There's an interesting story there, but I'll blog about that later.

Brief Intro to HTML 5

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:16:00 GMT

To my surprise, HTML 5 has been in the works since 2004. While still 5 years late, in my mind, this just shows the ridiculous nature of these standards. I'm not saying all standards are this way... who am I kidding? I love the idea of having standards, but they take entirely too long to make it to the real world. It's like seeing a fantastic project in a research firm. It most likely resolves something you've been pained by for years, but you won't be able to benefit from that work for several more years, most likely. But, I digress... HTML 5 seems to have 3 main goals in mind: flexibility, interactivity, and interoperability.

When thinking about flexibility, HTML 4 gives us a lot. One of the problems HTML 5 seeks to attack is the lack of meaning to one of the most popular tags. No, not the <table>, which is used entirely too much; the <div> tag. Wondering what the problem is? So was I at first glance, but I think what the group is coming up with is better. There will be new tags to represent different sections of a web page. I liken this a lot to a newspaper or magazine, but it works fairly well for the web. The idea is, instead of creating <div> sections to correlate to your header, navigation, different sections and the footer, you'd use more descriptive tags (i.e. <header>, <nav>, <section>, and <footer>). Consider the following images. The first represents what you might do in HTML 4 and the second in HTML 5.

The markup would then look like this for HTML 5...

The first thing I thought was that this new model may not map 100% to all sites. Then I realized, they're just websites. You may not think about things as "articles," but that doesn't mean there isn't an equivalent in your context. There are, of course, more and more apps are moving to the web, so depending on how that happens, these may not work. I don't see this getting rid of the <div> tag, tho; merely offering something more specific to use, when applicable. Mixed with CSS, these new tags could be very nice.

There will also be better support for the head (<h#>) tags. Currently, most people use different tags at different levels and style them appropriately, so every <h1> looks the same, no matter what level they're at. With HTML 5, head tags will be more contextual, where different levels will be treated differently. Actually, I'm making an assumption here that probably isn't true at this time -- that CSS will know the difference between the different tags at different levels. CSS 2 most likely won't be able to, but hopefully CSS 3, whenever that's supposed to be out, will. Here's a block of HTML to portray the structure I'm referring to...

<section>
<h1>Level 1</h1>
<section>
    <h1>Level 2</h1>
    <section>
      <h1>Level 3</h1>
    </section>
</section>
</section>

My vision is that the 2nd and 3rd <h1> in this example would be treated as <h2> and <h3> tags today.

While the new tag structure is nice, it's more for designers than developers. The feature developers will be happy to see will be the additional interactivity support, which will require much less work and more compliance across the board. Given the rise of multimedia content online, native support for multimedia content via <video> and <audio> tags is one of these improvements. One of the things that aggravates me about the current talk of these tags is a controls attribute, which specifies whether to use the default or custom controls. This is an attribute with no value, which isn't XHTML compliant. I know HTML isn't XHTML, but it'd be nice if the damn standard would at least take a step in the right direction. The additional ="true" wouldn't polute the spec. Despite that, the tags look promising. With the ability to customize the UI and built-in support for common actions like play, pause, and setting the current play time, I think most people will be fairly happy. That's not it, tho, there will also be APIs to support 2D drawing, storage, offline capabilities, editing, drag & drop, messaging, and my favorite, back button management. I haven't seen much about these, but I'm very excited about storage, offline, and back button management capabilities. These are problems that plague web developers.

As for interoperability, HTML 5 will be represented by its structure, rather than syntax. The key benefit of this is that it allows better support for the two formats HTML documents support: HTML and XHTML. As I understand it, the dual support is to provide better backward compatibility support with HTML. I see this and think, "Then why the hell would I even use HTML?" Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather use the markup language that provides the most forward compatibility. XHTML also provides some integration with external XML formats. The argument for HTML seems to be all about supporting lazy designers/developers who feel burdoned by the enforced structure. To me, they just need to get over it. The lack of structure in HTML is one of the main reasons the language sucks so much and causes so many problems across browsers. You could probably liken this to the VB vs. C# wars that were kicked off 7 years ago. To me, forward compatibility is more important than backward compatibility (aka laziness ). Different strokes, I guess.

Open Document Foundation Down and Out

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:35:00 GMT

Within the past month, the Open Document Foundation officially declared it would no longer support the Open Document Format (ODF). I had my speculations about the reasoning behind this move, but I can't say I would've guessed the foundation would close its doors. Of course, that was before the W3C knocked its own contender who the Open Document Foundation has chosen as its next poster-child, Compound Document Format (CDF), down a few pegs. That may sound a bit harsh, but apparently, W3C's Chris Lilley stated, "CDF... was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use, as an office format." There's nothing really wrong with this, but it definitely took the wind out of the foundation's sails. So much so, that there doesn't seem to have been any public announcement of the end of the foundation. All we know is the official website (broken link) has been taken down.

So, what will this mean for ODF? Who knows. It would've been nice to have seen the foundation approach Microsoft regarding Open XML, but that obviously didn't happen -- surprise, surprise. ODF won't simply go away. Sun and IBM are pushing it with pretty big budgets, hoping it'll grow the dying Open Office initiative. There have been some speculations noting that this could be the early stages of ODF's slow death, but I don't think it'll go so easily. I guess the astonishing thing is that the foundation just called it quits on the effort they supposedly felt so strongly about. If they really felt so strongly, I imagine they'd have worked a little harder to find a viable solution, even if it was to back Microsoft.

The State of IE and Firefox

Michael Flanakin — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 00:29:00 GMT

Maybe it's just me, but I keep waiting to see some major reason to switch back to Firefox and it just isn't happening. I picked it up pretty quickly at about 0.7.something and fell in love. Well, maybe it was more lust. I still go back and forth between the Firefox and IE, but that's more about getting things to work in both major browsers. Since IE7 was released, it's been my default; and, after looking at Firefox 3 Beta 1, that won't be changing anytime soon. There are only a small handful of features in Firefox I feel really out-step IE and I find most of those in add-ons. Honestly, there's only one feature I miss. Well, it's not really a feature, but the actual architecture. Firefox reminds me of two other very successful applications, Visual Studio and Eclipse. Why? Because all three are biult on extensibility. All three are merely skeletons to be built upon. Everything you get when you download/buy these apps is an extension that was merely packaged with it on the install. If IE had such a framework, I'd argue that it was better than Firefox. The lack of this framework is why I believe Firefox is so successful... aside from great timing given Microsoft's lack of improving IE. A lot of good work went into IE7, but it's not enough. IE8 is fairly hush-hush and, while I have a few ideas of what will be added, I don't think we're going to see a change in the underlying architecture. From what I've heard, there's a potential for a small revolution, but that all depends on implementation, of course. If you ask me, tho, I'd like to see a complete rewrite for IE9. I don't think that's necessarily out of the question, either. There are some good things we could see out of it. Anyway, what I really started this post for was how disappointed I am in Firefox 3. Aside from the architecture, Firefox doesn't bring anything revolutionary to the table and I'm still waiting for more. One day we'll see something big. The question is, who will push it out first and when? I have a feeling that'll be IE.

Microsoft's New Open Source Licenses

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:36:00 GMT

A month late, but still newsworthy, Microsoft's Reciprocal and Public Licenses, Ms-RL (via OSI) and Ms-PL (via OSI), have both been approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). If neither of these sound familiar to you, you're probably more familiar with the Reference and Permissive Licenses. The Microsoft Reference License is Microsoft's most restrictive license and is what was chosen when .NET went open source. So, where did these two come from? Well, they were renamed. Originally, these were submitted as the Microsoft Community and Permissive Licenses. I remember noting some debate on the name of the Permissive License, so I imagine the same debate forced a rename of the former. I think the name changes were good -- they seem more direct and explanatory. I know some things were questioned, but don't honestly know how much changed about the licenses. Perhaps my favorite thing about these licenses, including the Microsoft Reference License, is their brevity. Too many licenses are over-complicated *cough, cough* GPLv3 *cough, cough*

Open Document Foundation Drops ODF

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:06:00 GMT

Apparently, the Open Document Foundation is dropping the Open Document Format (ODF) in favor of the W3C's Compound Document Format (CDF). There are a number of reasons for this decision with Sun's control over ODF being at the top of the list. I have to say I find this very amusing. Will this signal the begining of the end for ODF? I don't think we can say that just yet, but it's not good, that's for sure. I took a very brief glance at CDF and thought it was an interesting mix of technologies, but I don't know if I really like it. While HTML has worked for us over the years, there has to be a better presentation technology. Sure, XHTML is a slight improvement, but not enough, in my mind. I'm very curious about XAML, but I don't expect to see that supported in browsers anytime soon. Of course, maybe the pain I associate with HTML is the how developers, web designers, and tools [ab]use it. If everyone used the most recent standard and embraced the minimalistic ideals of CSS-based layouts, I probably wouldn't feel so bad about it. I am intrigued by CDF because of my web experience, tho. Given the lack of tooling support at this time, all I see this doing is fragmenting the ODF initiative, which would strengthen the Open XML initiative. Personally, I think there's a need for Open XML when considering ODF; but, I don't know enough about CDF to say whether or not that would suffice.

Why Shelving is Better in Subversion

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:00:00 GMT

Shelving was a heavily touted feature for TFS when it was first released in early 2006. Microsoft seemed to try to sell it as a new concept, but I argued it was simply an adjustment to an old concept: branching. I will say it's probably a good thing Microsoft put so much into selling the idea. Without it, I don't think most developers would know about such a capability. Then again, there seem to be a lot of developers who still don't know about it. Anyway, back to my point... After playing with shelving in TFS, I'm getting mildly annoyed with it. I guess the reason I say that is because I want it to be treated more like a branch. I believe in the concept of committing logical changesets, meaning I make small changes and commit them individually. Perhaps I take this to an extreme, but I want each change to be tracked independent of any others. When I shelf code, it's usually a sizable change. I'd like to be able to shelf the first change and then incrementally update the shelf with my changes as I go along. I'd also like the ability for others to commit to my shelves, which speaks to the collaborative nature of shelves. This is all a given when you use Svn shelving (aka branching); I just wish TFS was up to it.

Keyboard Standardization

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:13:00 GMT

I've always shied away from laptops. Laptops, in general, aren't extensible enough and tend to be too expensive. Over the past few years, tho, as I have become more and more mobile, laptops have become a necessary evil. The worst thing about laptops is the keyboard you're stuck with... and I do mean stuck with. If you had some level of flexibility to switch out keyboards, that'd be a different story, tho. Heck, now that I think about it, with a little reverse-engineering, someone could make some money replacing standard laptop keyboards. I imagine most don't question their laptop keyboards much, but as a touch-typer who tries to ween every bit of productivity out of the system as possible, I want... no, I need my keys to be in a standard location. Honestly, when I look into buying a laptop, the keyboard is the first thing I look at. If you don't have a keyboard that at least closely resembles the standard layout, I take my money elsewhere. What do I look for? Perhaps the first thing is the Insert/Delete/Home/End/Page Up/Page Down buttons. I want the 2x3, horizontal layout. Most vendors get dropped out here. Next, I look at the arrow keys, which must be in the inverted "T" formation. From what I've seen, most vendors who pass the previous test pass this one, too. From there, I glance over the other standard keys like Ctrl, Fn, Win, Alt on the left and Alt, Context, Ctrl on the right of the space bar. I can live without the context menu button being there, but it is the "standard" location. These are the main things I look for and, believe it or not, most laptop vendors fail to meet them all.

I don't know why laptop vendors insist on placing keys in random places. It's almost as if they just shove the qwerty keyboard on a canvas and just toss the rest of the keys on to see where they fall. Perhaps the best vendor I've seen is Dell. HP does a pretty good job, but not as good as Dell. On the other hand, HP has been using extended keyboards with a full number pad. I always get annoyed when I see a laptop -- like my 17" Dell Inspiron from 2004 -- that has plenty of extra room on either side of the keyboard, but no number pad. When you see a laptop with a number pad, you know the vendor is putting more thought into its user. The other thing I like about HP is the button to disable the mouse touchpad. When I've mentioned this to people in the past, they talk of a software disabler, but I have yet to find one; either way, a button is nice. I've pretty much dismissed all other vendors (especially Toshiba *grumble, grumble*)... well, that was until I got a hold of my Lenovo. People told me how "solid" these laptops were and I always wondered what they really meant by that. Since I've tried various other laptops already, I figured I'd give it a shot. Let's just say I was sold. Lenovos are missing some of the consumer conveniences of other vendors' laptops, but if you can get past that, Lenovos can be summed up in that one word: solid. Unfortunately, they're not all that and a bag of chips, tho.

When it comes to Lenovo laptops, I have four complaints. Let me start with the small one: the touchpad buttons are too low, which makes it awkward to use when the computer is in your lap. If the stupid trackpoint buttons weren't so huge, it wouldn't be a big deal. I've always hated those annoying mouse "nubs" and it irks me that it degrades my experience. The second is another minor annoyance; a nicety that was added to enhance users' web browsing experience: Back/Forward buttons on either side of the up arrow. My annoyance is that I've hit these keys several times when I wanted to use the arrows. This can be very annoying when you lose a lot of data (i.e. a blog post). As if that wasn't enough, the capability already exists with the use of one additional finger about 4" away (Alt+Left Arrow). Adding buttons with trivial benefits like this annoys me; especially when there are obvious negative effects. I wish they would've opted for a smaller button that wasn't as easy to accidentally push, like one the shape/size of the volume buttons. My third complaint is the Esc key, which is above the F1 key instead of to the left of it. I keep hitting F1, which makes the system hesitate while it brings up the help. This derails my productivity, like the Back/Forward buttons. Speaking of derailing productivity, this last one baffles my mind: the left Ctrl and Fn keys are switched. This is the first time I've seen something this stupid. What really gets me is how a vendor who has such a quality laptop can miss something this obvious. Most people seem to think it's ok; that you'll just get used to it. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept this. Of the 7 people I know who have a Lenovo, all of them say this is their #1 complaint. Another handful of people complained about this when I sent an email internally polling for a workaround. Unfortunately, the Keyboard Customizer Lenovo offers doesn't cover this.

This is obviously a common problem, tho, and Lenovo isn't the only one to blame. The broader topic of keyboard standardization came up in Hanselminutes a while back. Some of my concerns were voiced there. Perhaps there's a need for a true standard. I don't see anyone pushing that, tho, so I'm not sure where to go for a global resolution. For now, I guess we're left with our voices.

Is IBM the Open Office Community's Last Hope?

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:39:00 GMT

About a month ago, I commented on Sun's controlling nature with respect to Open Office . We saw it before with Java and we're seeing it again. I find it quite amusing to see this company scrape by on community-focused ideals, hiding behind the guise of openness. Now, the community behind Open Office seems to be setting their sights on IBM . IBM is a mammoth and supporting open source initiatives is about all it can do to stay "fresh," in my mind. IBM's efforts with Eclipse did a lot for the company and could do a lot here, but it's definitely an uphill battle. Despite their positive relationship over the years, Sun won't give up their control easily. Hell, it took a CEO change to loosen grips on Java. Either way, I don't see Sun's actions killing the open source project. I do see it's relevance dropping. To be honest, I don't think there is much relevance at this point besides a jump in attention due to the ODF vs. Open XML debate. The real competition seems to be more in the connected world, rather than on the desktop. There's been a love/hate relationship with the ribbon UI of Office 2007, but it's the first real innovation we've seen in a long time. While I don't expect such a drastic improvement in the next release, I'm interested in seeing what's next. We have Office dominating the productivity application market, Open Office making minor steps with the document format debate, and Google quickly putting some skin in the game with their online offering. There's much to see in the coming years. The question is whether or not it's too late for Open Office.

Searching Your Site

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:14:00 GMT

Tim Barcz talks about options when it comes to implementing search for a custom site . He suggests two answers: Google and custom built. I'd recommend two more; both of which I've used and been very happy with.

From what I've seen, Google is not quite what I'm looking for when I think about integrating search into my site. It's not bad, but it doesn't give me the feel I'm looking for. Admittedly, I haven't played with it. I'm simply going off of what I've seen around the web. I want something wholly integrated into my web application, not just Google with a logo. Ok, I understand there's more than just that, but I have yet to see a Google search inserted into a site; every implementation I've seen has been the other way around. On the other hand, there are ways to do this with a bit more work... but I'm lazy.

The second option is just plain crazy. Sure, if you've got the time, go for it. Who does, tho? Even if you do have the time, who says you'll implement something completely bug-free? Yeah, right. For this, I have one suggestion that gives you search and a host of other capabilities without limiting your ability to create great .NET sites: DotNetNuke (DNN) . DNN is an open source portal framework or content management system, depending on who you ask. It's absolutely wonderful. That's what I use. While I'll probably get some flack on this comment, think about it as SharePoint-light. DNN is a little rough around the edges and I don't think I'd want to claim the vast majority of the code I've seen, but it is a very good foundation with an excellent extensibility story. Since I'm mentioning it, tho, SharePoint would also be an option; however, I'm not convinced it's the best story for anyone looking for a website. It'll do what you need it to do and then some, but it might be overkill. SharePoint is much more polished and provides a host of features DNN couldn't touch, but the developer experience isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm going to stay hopeful for the next release, tho. But, I digress...

Lastly, I have to mention my favorite: Live Search Box . I love this one because it's totally non-intrusive. Try it for yourself. The search box I have at the top-right of every page is Live Search. A nice AJAX-y popup shows your results without intruding on your look and feel. In a sense, it adds to it. I love it! As if that wasn't enough, I was able to be as lazy as I wanted. It's simply takes adding a little JavaScript and you're done. Like I said, I love it.

JSR 168 and WSRP

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:29:00 GMT

Someone briefly mentioned Java Specification Request (JSR) 168 to me a little over a month ago. As most would, I asked what the heck it was about. I know what JSRs are, but I don't make a habit of knowing each one. JSR 168 turns out to be all about portal applications and, specifically, calls out a Java-specific way to implement Web Services for Remote Portlets (WSRP) . Any time I'm asked about integrating Java and .NET, two things come to mind -- and, no, one is not replace the Java with .NET... although, that is a good idea Those things are JNBridge and Mainsoft . I don't know much about these tools besides their existence and high-level goals. After talking to Simon Guest a month and a half ago about user experience , he mentioned how JNBridge works. I'm going to liken it to how Visual Studio allows us to easily consume web services. JNBridge creates a proxy class on the target platform that hooks into their system, which wraps the original code, be it .NET or Java, if I understood it correctly. I'm not sure how MainSoft does the job, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's a somewhat similar method.

Of course, anyone who paid attention to the fourth sentence above will notice I said JSR 168 is about web services, so you might ask why one would need to integrate Java and .NET at a component level. I'm going to chalk this one up to a mild case of stupidity. I say mild because there is some logic here, but not enough. Being the brilliant person that he is, an "architect" at a client's site determined that web services were too slow to accomplish what they needed. At first, I started to accept that. Then, I thought about how web services can be streamlined and asked what numbers they had to back up that claim. Apparently, there aren't and never have been any benchmark tests. People: If you're going to claim something is too slow, at least have some numbers to prove it. Later, I found out JNBridge was mentioned to this person before, but was shrugged off. I don't know if it's the presence of Microsoft that made him change his tone, but he was very accepting of the idea. To me, this guy is one of those zealots we run into occasionally. They always have something hateful to say about the competition, but rarely add to the conversation. In this case, he was (and still is) trying to push Microsoft solutions out of the conversation. I find that funny because... well, let me just say Microsoft has brought a lot of value to the client in the past year. We're not alone, by any means -- we work with some really good... and, with any project, some not-so-good people. I guess one of the key differentiators is our extensive training mantra along with our connections and resources back in Redmond and abroad.

What the %#@&!!! .NET is Now Open Source

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:17:00 GMT

As if the subject of this post doesn't clue you in on my initial reaction to finding out about this, I was quite surprised by the fact that .NET is now open source under the Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) . I'd like to see open source zealots' reactions to this one. I'm sure they'll say it's all in a move to push Windows licenses... however that might work. On a lighter side, I'm curious what the Mono folks will do with it. As I understand the license, I don't believe they can simply run with the code. Then again, it looks like they are utilizing some key components of the framework.

On the other hand, Miguel de Icaza claims the license isn't an "open source" license ; however, I'd argue this. By definition, open source is about access to source code. This doesn't mean you can use it for whatever you see fit or even contribute to it. That's why there are so many different types of open source licenses. Miguel's idea of open source seems to be more about open use, open contribution, or perhaps solely on whether or not a license has been Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved. Ms-PL hasn't, but that discussion is underway . After reading a little bit of Miguel's thoughts and opinions, it seems to be more about open contribution. I'll have to stand by the fact that this isn't and should never be the utmost important tenet to becoming "open source." I will agree that it is key to the greatest level of openness. Honestly, tho, I don't think I'd accept anything from everyone if I managed an open source project. There's just too much crappy code out there. Miguel's last comment in the aforementioned post indicates he wants it all, tho.

No matter what Miguel's thoughts of what it is to be "open," I think everyone will agree this is a fantastic move for the community. I love having source to look at. This is why Reflector has been so popular. As Miguel mentioned, I've made use of the Mono source many times when I wanted a peek into .NET. This isn't the same, but it's been close enough. I think more people will be interested in what Microsoft has written than Miguel and company... not to devalue their effort.

Microsoft Seeking XPS Standardization: What's in XPS?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:10:00 GMT

So, what is the difference between PDF and XPS? I know the storage format of XPS is based on XML and ZIP technology, which makes the format head-over-heels more "open" than PDF as well as more approachable for us geeks who like to hack documents. For that reason alone, I'm excited about XPS. But that provides nothing for end users, so the question remains... Why do we need a new format?

One thing PDF has today that XPS doesn't is some dynamic capabilities. Of course, this is just a matter of time. Being based on WPF opens XPS to a world of possibilities. On the other hand, I've seen talk about XPS being "safe" because it doesn't contain scripts or macros. I hope this isn't the position Microsoft is taking, but you never know. Either way, I think this is something that has to be added to truly compete with PDF. As-is, you can create forms with XPS, for instance, but have no way to fill them out electronically. Actually, I can see how one might achieve this somewhat easily. Hmmm... There's definitely an opportunity here.

Versioning is another aspect that's been quietly touted. Apparently, Adobe frequently introduces breaking changes into new releases. These have historically broken both software and hardware built to the older spec. I'm not sure how they've gotten away with this for so long, but apparently XPS has an answer to the problem. This is huge for hardware and software vendors.

The last difference I'm aware of is with images. PDFs embed images in a proprietary, lossy format. XPS includes images as they are, in all their high-def glory. Oh yeah, did I mention high-def? As I understand it, XPS has support for HD Photo and just provides all-around better image quality. I know I've noticed this with a few presentations I've saved in both formats.

In my opinion, XPS seems like a great power user upgrade and a decent end user upgrade; but is it really worth the effort Microsoft has ut into it? Doubtful... At least not at this time. I'll be more excited to see v2, which is typically where Microsoft products start to shine.

Open XML

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:10:00 GMT

Most probably know the outcome of the ballot to fast-track the Open XML standard thru ISO approval: it was denied. That isn't the end of it, tho. There are some important facts that should be pointed out. First off, I should explain how the voting process works. To get approved, the ballot must be approved by 2/3 "P members" and 3/4 all voting members. The Open XML ballot fell short of this on both accounts, achieving 53% P member votes and 74% all-up. The next is for the measure to go to the ballot resolution meeting in February 2008, where the members will have an opportunity to change their votes. In order to pass, 5 P members must change their vote from disapproved to approved or all 9 non-voting P members plus 2 disapprovers must all change their votes to approve it. Note that I may be 1 off on these numbers, depending on whether they round up or down in their ballots. The real challenge is meeting the 2/3 vote. The 3/4 vote is all but in-the-bag, needing 1 converter or 3 new voters.

As far as I'm concerned, achieving a 74% vote in favor of Open XML is tremendous; if for no other reason than, it's 74%!! I guess I was expecting a 2/3 vote to pass. Not sure why "P members" are so special, but I'm guessing some green-backs come into play, as they always do in these cases. I am hopeful of the future, tho. From what I saw, there were some good comments coming from both sides. The #1 being the dependence upon proprietary, legacy Microsoft file formats. I honestly didn't know this was included in the spec, but would have to say they should be removed. I feel like removing these would go a long way to making the spec feel like a community standard. Heck, I'd go as far as transferring key patents to ISO to show my interest and desire for full openness. Then again, I don't know what all would be involved with this or its implications. I'm merely looking at this from an objective standpoint. A showing of good faith would mean a lot to the opposition.

Another thing I'd do is officially change the name of the standard to Open XML, removing the "Office" moniker. I'm not sure where this came from, but I've always hated it. The name gives this assuming ownership by Microsoft, care of "Microsoft Office." This isn't what Open XML is about, so let's just remove the point of confusion.

We'll have to wait and see how things go, tho. There were comments about interop with ODF, but I don't think doc compat is necessarily something that should belong in a spec. That might depend on how intrusive it is, tho. As long as extensibility is built in, explicit compat shouldn't be necessary. Thanks to Sun's doing, ODF falls short on both of these counts , which is the main reason Open XML exists. Unfortunately, Microsoft's desire for competitiveness and consumer choice isn't shared. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the tables have turned: Microsoft wants choice , while historic open source supporters, like IBM and Sun, are pushing against the standard for commercial gain . In the long run, I don't think it'll matter. This whole ballot is about speeding up the standards process. Win or lose, the standard will ultimately go thru the entire process. The advantage to fast tracking is for consumers.

Silverlight on Linux

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:39:00 GMT

In a somewhat interesting turn of events, Microsoft has officially launched Silverlight 1.0 with support for Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expected Linux to be left out forever, but I didn't expect it this soon. Good stuff! What I really thought was newsworthy about this, tho, wasn't that it happened, but that it happened in collaboration with Novell . Not sure if this has anything with the much-debated Microsoft-Novell deal, but I kind of doubt it. I get the impression this is more about Microsoft wanting to provide Linux support and the Mono team already having an implementation . I do wonder how long this collaboration will hold, tho. Not because of either party's interest in that collaboration, but because of the .NET support in Silverlight 1.1. If the collaboration would continue, I can see this growing and possibly even expanding into cross-platform .NET, the exact Mono was created. This wouldn't be the first time Microsoft stepped on its partners. Of course, Miguel de Icaza has mentioned that he'd be happy to see Microsoft pick up .NET on Linux. I don't know how this would go over in the community, tho. Those on the Windows side looking for cross-platform solutions would love it, but those on the Linux side might see it as an anti-competitive strategy. Of course, those who do think that will most likely be the zealots who think anything coming out of Redmond is pure, unadulterated evil. Unfortunately, that would never change.

Sun Limiting ODF Capabilities?

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:09:00 GMT

There's a lot flying around the web about the document format debate. In one corner, we have Sun pushing Open Document Format (ODF) and in the other we have Microsoft pushing Open XML . If that wasn't enough, the de facto standard, the old binary Word DOC format, is nipping at both competitors' heels with interop demands coming from every direction. Of course, interop is more about tools than file formats, but apparently that line isn't as cleanly drawn as we might like. As you might imagine, this was a top priority for Microsoft as the Open XML format was designed, so migration between formats (at least in Office) is 100%. ODF on the other hand is a whole other story; and this sounds like more than just a tooling issue.

Sun is a key driver of the ODF specification and even oversees the committee that approves the spec. Gee, I don't see any conflict of interest there. I'm not the only one. The Open Document Foundation's founding president, Gary Edwards, recently noted that Sun is opposed to adding any features not already implemented in Open Office , the core of Sun's own Star Office. Gee, that doesn't sound controlling. No "standard" should be limited to one single application's boundaries when so many others exist and provide a greater deal of functionality. Therein lies the key problem with ODF and the main reason Microsoft had to create Open XML: ODF doesn't support any mechanism for extensions. Maybe its creators didn't fully understand the problem they needed to solve, but I'd argue that extensibility should be an absolute must-have on any wide-reaching solution; especially a standard! This is the key differentiator between the 2 formats. Simple enough to fix, right? Apparently, not. Of course, it's looking more like Sun push-back than a technical blockage. The Foundation pushed a plug-in proposal, but without Sun's buy-in, it won't be going anywhere. According to Edwards, "Sun has successfully blocked or otherwise neutralized all efforts to improve ODF interop with Microsoft documents." Are you starting to see the pieces fit together, too?

Perhaps the best option lies within another of Edwards' comments: "What's really needed is a standards process not controlled by big vendors with big applications and big market share appetites." I couldn't agree with this more. It's obvious Sun is trying to take advantage of their position and try to wedge Microsoft out of the game. Unfortunately for them, this could backfire. As the de facto standard, anything less than full support may be detrimental to adoption. The real truth is that Sun isn't only slowing adoption with their choices, but also limiting functionality. I see this as the biggest problem with ODF and Sun's stance. However, the need for a truly independent standards body is much bigger. Until that happens, I'll have to put my support behind the more functional Open XML standard, which seems to be more focused on what end users truly need -- and not just what Microsoft thinks, which is what ODF is about. Think about it. What would you choose?

Microsoft Seeks XPS Standardization: How Many is Too Many?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:38:00 GMT

Apparently, Microsoft is now pushing for its XML Paper Specification (XPS) to get standardized by Ecma International . Is it just me or has Microsoft made Ecma? Don't get me wrong, the assocation was around long before Microsoft first approached it to standardize the C# language and Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) . Heck, Ecma actually dates back to the early '60s ; long before Microsoft came on the scene. I guess my point of view is in part due to what I'll call "narrow-sighted, Americanism," but that's a whole other topic for another day. Another part is probably because I'm fairly heavily focused on .NET, web development, and the standards that revolve around these areas.

I guess one thing I'm wondering is, how many standards organizations do we really need? Seriously. Off the top of my head, I know of 7 that affect the work I do: ANSI , Ecma, IEEE , IETF , ISO , OASIS , and W3C . At the time of this writing, Wikipedia lists 35 international standards organizations as well as a slew of regional and national organizations. Do we really need so many? As with most software that seems to be duplicated, I'm guessing these were each brought up on their own, individual need for standardization within their area, whether that be location- or field-based. I just can't help but think we have a bit too much redundancy. I admit, it is sometimes hard to submit to someone else's opinions about such matters as standardization, but how good is a "standard" if there are 100 of them? Of course, what good is a standard if it doesn't meet all needs? The truth is, nothing is 100%. We all know this. I'm just thinking it's probably about time we had a standard for standards bodies. I'd like to see standards bodies come to an agreement on who decides what can or can't be a standard. With that, I'd like to see some of these 7 organizations we hear about daily go away. I'm not going to say who I think should be merged with who, but someone should.

While I'm on the topic of "how many is too many," there's the obvious question of: How many standards do we really need? Bringing that home to what started this rant, XPS has one primary competitor today: Adobe's Portable Document Format (PDF) . We all know about and love to hate PDF... I'd like to stress the "love to hate" part, as PDF is the one document format I'll go out of my way to avoid. Then again, Foxit Software has made this much more bearable with its Foxit Reader and PDF Editor applications. The main benefit PDF has over other formats has been its read-only nature. You can publish a document as a PDF on the web and feel pretty safe about it not being re-published by third parties with customizations you didn't approve of. XPS has that same feel, but is much more open than PDF, which is why I like it. Of course, there's still that glaring question: What's the difference? So, what is the difference? Why do we need a second read-only document format? That's a good question...

Microsoft and Open Source

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:15:00 GMT

As a part of my never-ending backlog of interesting posts I've saved off, I finally took the time to read Jon Galloway's post regarding Microsoft and open source, Why Microsoft Can't Ship Open Source Code . I have to say I whole-heartedly agree with Jon's position. As nice as it would be to dump some of the disregarded apps included in Windows (i.e. Notepad and Paint) for their open source counterparts (i.e. Notepad2 and Paint.NET), it's just not feasible for Microsoft. I can't blame them at all. If you've ever wondered why Microsoft doesn't include open source software in Windows, this is a great place to start. I imagine there's more to the story than this, but the position Jon explains is very logical. Well-put, Jon.

Ubuntu vs. Windows (c/o Information Week)

Michael Flanakin — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:26:00 GMT

Information Week did a quick run-down of the latest versions of Windows and Ubuntu . Here's a summary of that comparison for those interested...

Feature	Ubuntu	Windows	Why?
Installation	X		Ubuntu has a slight edge here, if only because it can be run directly from the CD and tried out non-destructively.
Hardware, PnP		X	On the whole, Windows still deals with hardware more elegantly and efficiently than Ubuntu.
Software Installation	X	X	It's a tie. Both operating systems show much the same centralization and efficiency in dealing with applications, protocols, and programs.
Networking/Web Browsing/Email		X	Windows, but only by a hair. Windows has a bit of an edge in terms of sharing network connections -- but both platforms have possible mail migration complexities.
Word Processing	X		Ubuntu, because it comes with OpenOffice -- although that can be added to Windows easily enough.
Indexing/Search		X	Vista, for having its search function integrated from the ground up through the shell and the OS.
Multimedia	X	X	Another tie -- the functionality of the default multimedia programs on both platforms is about even.
Image Editing/Management	X	X	Again, 50-50 -- Vista for its Picture Gallery; Ubuntu for having a better native image editor than Paint.
Backup/Restore	X	X	A tie, but only because both platforms fall short in some ways. Vista's roster of backup features aren't available in every SKU of the product; Ubuntu doesn't have anything like Vista's shadow copy system and its user-friendly backup tools are pretty rudimentary.
Winner	X	X	A tie, but only because both platforms fall short in some ways. Vista's roster of backup features aren't available in every SKU of the product; Ubuntu doesn't have anything like Vista's shadow copy system and its user-friendly backup tools are pretty rudimentary.
The Last Word			Ubuntu's best strength is handling the ordinary task-based day-to-day stuff. Vista has a level of completeness and polish that some people find it hard to do without.

Ok, so I see there's a tie, but looking thru the evaluation, which I think is definitely good and very worthwhile for those who have the Linux vs. Windows questions. Heck, a co-worker just professed to me how great he thought Ubuntu was a few days ago. I admit it... I'm curious. It's been a while since I've played with Linux and it might be time to give it a shot, again. But, to touch on the comparison, if you consider score, this is 6-to-7 in Windows' favor. Putting weights in, I'd even go as far as to say the score comes down to 15-to-24 in Windows' favor, again. Admittedly, my weights can be argued, but here they are in order of decreasing importance (1-5, 5 being the most important): hardware (5), networking/web/email (5), word processing (4), search (4), multimedia (3), image editing/management (3), software (2), backup/restore (2), installation (1). I won't get into the reason I chose these weights, but can.

Of course, I have to mention a few comments. First off, the fact that you can run Ubuntu from a CD is just phenominal, in my book. Granted, I consider this somewhat of a novelty, but I love it. Windows is a long way from doing this, as far as I can tell. Aside from that, however, the install experience is very nice for Windows Vista. No real complaints here.

Next, if we're including Open Office, I'd have to include Microsoft Office. Sure, it's not part of the install, but if I'm going to have an office suite, it's gonna be the mac-daddy office suite, which is hands-down better than Open Office. Not even a competition; especially, when considering Office 2007. In the same breath, I have to express my angst for some of the default apps, like Notepad, WordPad, and Paint. You're kidding, right? These apps just plain suck. We need an Office Express in Windows... to some extent.

I have to touch on search next. I think this point is understated. The ground-up search in Vista makes me question why I've never had it before. Now, I'm looking for search everywhere and just not finding it. I see so many opportunities for the level of ease I get with Windows Desktop Search on Windows Vista.

When it comes down to it, after reading thru this comparison, I still think Windows is the hands-down winner. Tie, schmie. I was surprised to see some of Ubuntu's features and capabilities, tho, so don't take that as me dismissing the OS. I think both have their high and low points, but if I'm choosing an OS, it's Windows Vista and Office 2007 all the way.

Microsoft Pushing for Choice in Document Formats

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:33:00 GMT

Slashdotters never cease to surprise me. The imbeciles are taking Microsoft's move to stop ODF-only madates as a move against open standards. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Roles have been reversed in the ODF v. OpenXML war . The typical open source community is pushing for a one size fits all answer, when they know their solution doesn't support everyone, while Microsoft is pushing for choice. Completely backwards, I know, but people don't seem to see this. All they see is Microsoft opposing an "open standard." I only have one comment for that, tho: OpenXML is an open standard . So, by saying Microsoft is opposing open standards is completely wrong.

FoxPro Moves On

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:27:00 GMT

I have to say that this is something I didn't see coming. Microsoft is planning to stop officially supporting FoxPro and migrate the project over to the open source community . I'm very happy to see this happening. If you ask me, this should've been the approach for VB classic, but I can partially see the reasoning behind not doing that. Either way, this is a bold move for the company everyone loves to hate. Official support will be cutting back in 2010 and finally dropping the line in 2015. That's 8 years to get support from Microsoft. Of course, just because Microsoft isn't supporting it doesn't mean it won't thrive in the community. I'm sure partners will pick up that ball and provide an excellent level of support for both the open source project and as services to those in need. Kudos to Microsoft on this one. I'm glad to see such a move.

My Start++ Startlets

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:36:00 GMT

I love me some Start++ -- thanks to Brandon Paddock ! It's a tool I've been wanting for quite a while . Now that I have it, I had to add my favorite keywords to it. The built in keywords are a great starter, but there are 4 more I wanted: .NET class library on MSDN, IMDB, TV.com, and Netflix. I created two startlets for this so others can use them: MSDN startlet and TV/Movie startlet.

I started with Brandon's MSDN startlet and added the ability to go directly to .NET base class library classes and class members. For instance, if you type, dn system.web.ui.control, you'll go directly to the Control class' documentation page on MSDN. I tried to set it up with an alias of net, but that conflicted with another program. I don't use MSDN's search, but I left it in for good measure. I thought about adding other startlets for .NET, but decided not to since I just use Live Search to find everything.

The tv/movie startlet allows you to search for tv shows and/or movies on ~~your~~ my favorite sites. It's just as easy as imdb 300, tv pretender, or nf king kong. These are pretty simple, but I get a lot of mileage off of them .

ODF Debate

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:40:00 GMT

iTWire pulls together its less-than-factual reporting skills together to get some attention by posting an article claiming standardization of the Open Document Format (ODF) is a threat to Microsoft -- because this is the only one you can find on the web nowadays First, off, I have a big problem with ODF and the stance of its backers: they are professing the need for one and only one standard in this area when they know the format doesn't fit all circumstances. For instance, ODF does not have a way to embed custom data, if I remember correctly. This is one of the [many] big advantages to Open XML, which is used in Office 2007. The article goes on to claim that Open XML is a proprietary format, which is absolutely not true. In fact, Open XML is an Ecma standard . Yes, that's an international standards body; the same standards body that standardized C# and the .NET Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) . The last thing I'm going to say about this [for now] is that Microsoft acknowledges the fact that Open XML may not fit every situation and is actually promoting choice here. Sound familiar? This is what the open source community has been saying for years. Now, it seems the tables have turned. Microsoft is suggesting choice is good and typical open source backers are saying you, the consumer, should have no choice. As proof of Microsoft's dedication to choice, there's an add-in to add ODF support to Word . When has the ODF community done anything to support consumer choice?

Open Source at Microsoft

Michael Flanakin — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:45:00 GMT

A recent post on Slashdot, Microsoft Plays Up Open Source , discusses Microsoft's recent paper discussing PostgreSQL on Windows . The post asks why Microsoft is promoting a competing product -- namely PostgreSQL vs. SQL Server. I can understand the confusion, but the message has been expressed fairly well by the Port 25 team. This seems to be a case of people confusing their perceptions of Microsoft with the reality of today's Microsoft. I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have its moments, but it's not the same company it was 15 years ago. If you ask me, this isn't about databases, it's about opening up to the open source community and helping them solve a problem that isn't discussed much: open source software on Windows, all other products aside. Believe it or not, Microsoft can do that -- today's Microsoft does do that.

Show Us the Code

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 02:09:00 GMT

I figure most people that would end up reading this know about the Microsoft-Novell partnership and how countless Linux supporters are up in arms about it. First off, I have to say I don't think it's a big deal. I honestly don't see anything wrong with the deal. Both Microsoft and Novell have their reasons for going into the deal, of course, but I don't think anything's as bad as the Linux supporters would have you believe. Probably the most notable problem they have with it is Steve Ballmer's claim that Linux code infringes on Microsoft patents. Personally, I don't think Ballmer should've said this, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I can't say one way or another, so I'm not going to get into that debate; but I definitely think it's possible. Apparently, things have become so bad that Linux supporters feel the need to campaign against Microsoft [once again]. ShowUsTheCode.com is directed specifically at Steve Ballmer, as opposed to Microsoft in general, and pretty much demands that he prove his claims that Linux infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property (IP). I have to say that this is pretty ridiculous. I don't have a problem with the concept, but Microsoft won't respond -- not because there is no proof, but because of what I see as an unprofessional, fairly hostile attempt to scrutinize Microsoft in a very similar, if not the same, way BadVista.org has. The only difference is the Bad Vista campaign is more anti-competitive than anything. That's all besides the point. Free and open source software supporters have always been quick to point fingers but tend to fall short of proving their worth. I am an open source supporter when and where it makes sense, but the actions of the individuals involved is just sad. Two other reasons I don't see Microsoft responding to the letter is that it would essentially be sinking to the level of these mindless zealots and it's just not feasible. How many Linux distros are there? How much code does that really encompass? Microsoft would get next to nothing for scouring code for IP violations, so why would they even try? Sure, bragging rights might be nice, but all it would do is force the feable minded individuals who back these sorts of things to push the envelope even further into a never-ending bickering session between the two until someone decides to be an adult about it and just stops. As a matter of fact, by not responding, this is exactly what Microsoft is doing. This reminds me of an image I saw sometime back. It's definitely not politically correct, but it fits well here...

PDF as an Open Standard

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:25:00 GMT

In what I see as an effort to defend its PDF document format against Microsoft's XPS format, Adobe is looking to make PDF an open standard . An interesting move. Granted, this is just my opinion, but I think companies are going this route in an attempt to bring back the old Microsoft stereotype regarding its lack of openness. I don't think that'll ever happen, tho. Microsoft is one of the most transparent companies around, these days. Seriously consider that statement. Think about some of the top tech companies: Microsoft, IBM, Apple, Google, Sun, and Yahoo (I know there are more, but these are my top picks). Microsoft probably shares more information on internal workings than any. IBM is probably the top-dog when considering use of open source; but let's not forget that open source does not equal transparent ethics and operations. Apple is the god of secrecy and has no foreseeable plans to change that. Surprise is good every once in a while, but this is one reason why I hate Apple as a company -- they come up with some nice stuff, but I have no faith in their direction. Speaking of direction, Google is all over the board. Most say Google is a young Microsoft. In the same breath, Google is making a lot of the same mistakes Microsoft made in its early days. This just shows the immaturity of the company. Please don't take this offensively, I'm just saying the company is young and has a lot to learn. Google is perceived as the "good guy" by a lot of people, but I don't think that's necessarily factual. Good service doesn't equate to good ethics. Google has a lot to proove outside of its good search tools. At least the company has been more transparent than Apple, but anyone can do that. Sun and Yahoo are in about the same boat as Google, in my opinion. None of them shares their plans or internal workings that much, except for marketing reasons. Anyway, I can go on and on about this, but you get the idea. This is, of course, just my personal opinion. Each of these companies has its own approach to winning in the market, but I just don't see the same transparency I do as with Microsoft. Anyway, I'm way off topic...

Back to the PDF/XPS discussion, the funny thing is, I thought XPS was supposed to be an open standard. I'm not sure if I read that somewhere, I'm confusing it with another standard Microsoft is working on, or if I'm just plain crazy. My vote goes on a combination of all three.

Version Control Standards

Michael Flanakin — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:01:00 GMT

Standards are very important; especially in team environments. One thing that's been getting to me the past few months is what seems to be a lack of standards when it comes managing Visual SourceSafe (VSS) and Team Foundation Server (TFS) repositories. Since most of my version control experience is with Subversion, I want to bounce back to the fact that data in the repositories is managed very simply. You have three (or four) top-level directories that represent the major version controlled entities: branches, tags, and trunk. The term "tag" may not be familiar to some, so let me just say that tags and labels are the same thing -- an ear-marked version of the repository in a significant state. "Trunk" is another term that some may not be familiar with, but it is essentially the main line of code you're working with. I love the fact that Subversion introduces you to these right off the bat because it almost forces you to learn and abide by good version control practices. You don't have this in the VSS/TFS world. For those who caught on to the optional fourth directory with Subversion, that would be shelves. "What? Subversion doesn't support shelving!" you say? Not true. A shelf is simply a branch in the Subversion world . (Shameless plug: Woohoo! I'm the first result when searching for shelving in Subversion.)

As I mentioned, digging into VSS and TFS for the first time, you don't really see these same principles. It's too bad, because that can cause chaos in the field. Well, maybe the word "chaos" is too strong of a word; but you'll be hard-pressed to find two implementations that work the same exact way. Putting some thought into it, I guess the best thing I can come up with is having an application directory with branch directories sitting alongside it. For instance, if my application is called MyApp, I would have MyApp, MyApp-1.0, MyApp-2.0, and MyApp-2.1. These map to the main and release branches, respectively. Not rocket science, I know, but I just haven't seen a common practice. If anyone has one, I'd love to hear about it. If I have more than one releasable project within my repository, then I'd include all project-related branches within a parent directory called MyApp, or something similar. Then, other releasable projects could sit alongside this one. Again, pretty simple.

Beyond this structure, which will probably change over the coming months, I also have something else of mild interest. Time and time again, I need to explain version control concepts to developers who haven't dealt with configuration management before. Not that I mind, but I recently created an image to visualize this for a project I'm on. I figured I'd share this for others to take advantage of. Looking at it, it's fairly easy to explain how the release cycle works and when/where branching and merging comes into play.

Note that this isn't specific to any type of repository, so whether you use VSS, TFS, Svn, or any other version control solution, it should apply to you just fine. The dark blue line represents the main branch (or trunk). At some point, a code freeze is identified, which is when the codebase is branched for the release. Testing is performed and bug fixes are applied to the release branch while, at the same time, changes are also made to the main branch for the follow-on release. Once the release branch is considered stable, a tag/label is applied (identified by the red star-burst), the release is deployed, and the changes applied to the branch are merged (identified by the orange line) back to the main branch (or trunk). Over time, while development on the main branch is moving along, there will inevitably be bugs in the production system. Let's just say your next major/minor release isn't for another 6 months. In that case, you'll probably want to do a point release to push out a bug fix or two (ok, 10 or 20 ). In this case, developers will pull the latest (aka head) from the specific release branch and apply necessary fixes. This is again tested, tagged/labeled, and re-deployed. To get these changes back into the main branch, the release branch is again merged to the main branch. This process will continue for the life of the project.

Honestly, it's all pretty simple; but as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words."

Why Make Software Open Source?

Michael Flanakin — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:19:00 GMT

Going thru some videos, I ran across an interview with Martin Taylor where he briefly touched on three reasons a company may decide to open its software to the open source community. I thought they were interesting, so I figured I'd share them...

Given up on research and development (R&D)
This doesn't necessarily mean that the company doesn't believe in R&D, tho. Instead, this may mean that R&D isn't cost prohibitive or that the company simply doesn't want to spend the time on it. In my opinion, this is probably one of the main reasons people decide to open software.
Not a market leader, not going to be a market leader
Here's another big one. Being a new swimmer in a large pool can be daunting. You can't expect to jump in the pool and charge for swim lessons right away when nobody knows who you are. Opening software up can give prospective customers the chance to look at you and your solution in a less critical light.
Platform dependencies better enhanced in community
This one I'm not so sure about. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea, but I'm not sure how many people would open their software simply based on this reason, whereas I could with the previous two.

Of course, this makes me wonder what other considerations people put into their open source strategy. A lot of people are simply sharing for the sake of sharing; however, I'd almost say that is implicitly acepting #1 and perhaps even #2. If you come up with a nice tool and don't mind sharing it, open it up to the community and let others grab a hold of it for free. Of course, this brings in the concept of closed open source, which is basically open source software in which you can't truly contribute. This is probably a touchy line, tho, and I don't think I should try to draw it... at least not right now.

S[vn]aaS

Michael Flanakin — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:15:00 GMT

CollabNet, maker of Subversion (Svn), has just released a software as a service (SaaS) offering to allow teams to make use of Svn without having to invest time and money into the resources to manage it. I think I’ve see this before, but it was from a small company. I’m glad to see it with Svn from it’s largest backer. At $55/user/month, I’m not sure I’d throw the money towards it, but thaen again, I’m not sure what an offering like this should cost. I would think it'd be based on a mixture of bandwidth and repository size, but what do I know? Personally, I can get a Svn server up and running on Windows within an hour, including having teams and repositories setup using Active Directory authentication. This of course makes it easier to manage and use, since every project I've worked on has had a Windows user-base.

The only real concern I have regarding the offering is intellectual property. With a company like CollabNet, I'm not as worried, but with a smaller company with little at stake, I would severely question it. I know that, as an individual, I’ve questioned offerings like this and would rather manage my own server at home than utilize someone else’s and risk IP loss. Maybe that’s just my nature. Despite my support for open source, I still struggle with handing over large amounts of code and getting nothing in return except a full inbox, which, in effect, costs me more time and money. Not that I’m not willing to give to the community.

Anyway, I’m glad to see this offering and I hope that it will increase the use of Svn.

IGERSoft/vreboton Rating Module for DNN

Michael Flanakin — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 13:13:00 GMT

I noticed a problem when I uploaded the IGERSoft Rating module to a test server the other day -- the module installed fine, but when added to a page, had an error, which turned out to be because the stored procedures weren't taking the object qualifier into account. Not a big deal, and luckily, it was something I could fix myself. I posted in the vreboton Rating module forum for the module, but haven't heard a response. Just wanted to get the word out for those interested. The module is pretty nice.

Unofficial IGERSoft Rating 3.1.1
Disclaimer: This version is not supported by IGERSoft or the vreboton website. This is an unofficial download which has nothing to do with IGERSoft/vreboton. Once a publicly available version of the module with the aforementioned fix has been provided, this download will be removed.