On the Soapbox

Will Yahoo! Messenger use XMPP?

Kai — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 05:18:02 GMT

From the Yahoo! press release announcing that they are outsourcing search advertising to Google:

In addition, Yahoo! and Google agreed to enable interoperability between their respective instant messaging services, bringing easier and broader communication to users.

Gee, doesn't this sound familiar? Here's to hoping that this attempt at interoperability works better than the Google-AIM one and that this brings another player to XMPP (Yahoo! seems like it would be more supportive of open standards like XMPP than AOL-TimeWarner).

How NOT to do tornado coverage

Kai — Wed, 21 May 2008 00:04:30 GMT

Do not pre-empt the current show. Especially if it's only a tornado warning (no actual tornado). In a mostly rural area with very few people. And the vast majority of the audience in your viewing area are not affected. And the show that you pre-empted was Jeopardy!
Do not show off your fancy-smancy "Doppler XP" (at least they could have picked a less blatantly marketing-dept name than that!). The objective is to present relevant information, not to show off the millions that you have wasted on useless smoke and mirrors.
Do not piss off your audience by talking about the hail that had fallen earlier in the day or about the amount of rain that had fallen during pre-empting coverage or showing traffic cam pictures from an area that isn't even the tornado warning; your audience already hates you for pre-empting their favorite show, and wasting that time talking about such trivia is rubbing salt on the wound.
Present the information statically, so that someone tuning in can get the information with a single glance of the screen--after all, if this had been a real emergency and not just a sensationalized, overblown media-manufactured situation, I do want really want to have to wait for the weather man, who appears to be running in a loop, to loop back and repeat the relevant information. A small inset map in the corner showing tornado watch and warning areas in different colors would be far more useful than an idiot weather man flipping through maps boasting about how great the station's radar is. Or a sidebar bulleting the important points, so that someone turning on the TV can get the info immediately. As a bonus, you wouldn't have to pre-empt the show if you did that. Imagine, less annoying to the user and more useful, too!

This, BTW, was also the first time that a TV station had angered me to the point that I wrote them a letter (well, an e-mail). The TV stations back in Kansas were much better. They didn't pre-empt shows for tornadoes, and despite that, they were still more informative than the clowns here.

What makes Firefox 3 great?

Kai — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:56:48 GMT

Last night, the code for Firefox 3 RC1 was handed off for building, and as I type this, the first candidate builds for RC1 are being spun. I've been using the nightly builds on my test machine (actually, a VPC) for a while now. At first, it was just meant as a test installation so that I could get a feel for what the upcoming browser would be, but now I find that I'm doing more browsing on that test install in a VPC than I am on my Firefox 2 installs on the real computer. That I'm using the Firefox 3 nightlies more than Firefox 2 despite it being run in a virtual machine is a testament, I think, so how great the new version is. So what makes it so great?

Places: the new SQLite-based storage of bookmarks and history is much faster and allows for cool new things like the new location bar. I must admit, like many users, I hated the new location bar at first. It took a bit of getting used to and some adjustment in how I used the location bar, but now, I find it to be utterly indispensable, and it is the primary reason why I am using Firefox 3 more than Firefox 2.
Firefox 3 is noticeably faster and more responsive.
As a result of improvements such as the use of jemalloc and a new garbage collector, Firefox 3 uses less memory.
The new graphics backend offers various benefits, such as the smooth scaling of images.
Firefox 3 strives to appear more native, so it fits in better with the OS that it is running on. Of special interest to me, Firefox 3 looks better than Firefox 2 on Windows Classic.
The download manager has been improved. First, it no longer uses RDF and thus doesn't suffer from slowdowns when the list gets too long (the use of RDF was a perfect illustration of how too many people today are mis-using XML for things for which XML is an insanely bad idea). Second, it allows download resumption. Third, it shows a general status indicator (# of downloads and est. time remaining) in the browser's status bar so that you can keep the manager closed and still keep track.
The remember password prompt has been redesigned so that you could choose to remember the password after you have successfully logged in.

Sensible Product Naming

Kai — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:24:36 GMT

Back in 2004, when the Firebird browser ran into naming difficulties and a search for a new name was initiated, I quietly wished for what I knew was a nearly-impossible outcome: that AOL would relinquish all claims to the Netscape name and donate that name to the Mozilla Foundation, so that it could be used for the name of their new browser. After all, Netscape is a browser's name, and if AOL was no longer in the browser business, why would it keep the name?

There were several reasons I wished that Firebird would be rebranded as Netscape. First, the Netscape logo has always been pretty. The elegant N on a starry background and a ship's steering wheel superimposed with the constellations were beautiful and evocative of the idea of "exploring" the Internet--I remember using Netscape 1.0 and how much that branding imagery colored my initial experience of browsing the web. Second, it would be poetic, for Firebird was originally named Phoenix, and if it could be named Netscape, then that would allow it truly live up to to the intent of its name. And most importantly, it was a name that made sense. "Netscape Navigator" gave some hint at what the product does: it navigates the net.

Back in 2003 when Mozilla announced that Firebird would become their new flagship product, they also announced that the final product name would be "Mozilla Browser", and that Firebird was just the project's temporary codename. Branding discussions from that time talked about the need to reinforce the "Mozilla" name (since Mozilla's first objective has always been the Gecko platform) and the need for clarity about what the product does. The "Mozilla Firebird" name doesn't give anyone any clue whatsoever what the nature of the product. It does not matter for people who are familiar with the product, but given that Mozilla is the underdog trying to claw its way up, a name like that made little sense at the time, and even today, it still makes little sense.

But I suppose this was all in line with modern marketing styles where things are given names that have absolutely nothing to do with the function or purpose of the product. What would have guessed that "Song" was an airline? Outside of the tech-savvy minority, who the heck has any clue what "Twitter", "dodgeball", or "del.icio.us" are? On the other hand, "Facebook" and "MySpace" have names that at least hint at what it is that they do. Similarly, Microsoft and Google are consistent with their naming: "Microsoft Word", "Windows Media Player", "Google Earth", "Gmail/Google Mail" are all examples of products whose use of a generic product name helps shift the emphasis to the parent brand name and clarifies what the product itself is. "Mozilla Browser", "Mozilla Navigator", and "Netscape Navigator" are names that would follow that same pattern of sensible product names.

But alas, to my horror, it was announced in 2004 that the official product name for the Firebird project would be "Mozilla Firefox". This was wrong in so many ways. The initial reaction upon hearing that name from many people then (and still today) is, "what the heck is a firefox?!" The name was appropriate for a code name or for an inside joke, but not for a product name. It offered no clue as to what it did. It adds an extra step to the evangelism and marketing of the product because you must first explain to someone that "Firefox" is a web browser. I was also disappointed because I saw Phoenix as the rebirth of the Netscape lineage, and now the final name had nothing to do with Netscape or Phoenix/Firebird, and the metaphor was, sadly, lost.

Epilogue: With the initial success of Firefox, AOL resurrected the Netscape brand and released a couple of browsers based on Firefox bearing the Netscape name, but these releases played second-fiddle to Firefox, and Netscape slid further into obscurity. Earlier this year, the Netscape brand was closed for good. RIP...

Best game ever...

Kai — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 03:07:48 GMT

That's what you get for defecting, Roy...

Why Microsoft should not buy Yahoo!

Kai — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 13:43:25 GMT

Microsoft made an unsolicited $44.6 billion bid to buy Yahoo! today. This was not unexpected, as there have been discussions, rumors and speculation of a Microsoft buyout of Yahoo! since 2005, but it is very surprising that Microsoft would actually pursue such a course of action.

At $44.6 billion, this would be by far the most expensive acquisition in Microsoft's history and is a 62% premium over the current stock price. Is a sinking company like Yahoo! worth this price? The biggest problem with this acquisition is that neither company has much to offer the other. Does Microsoft really need two AJAX e-mail services that emulate a desktop app interface? Does Microsoft really need two search engines? Or two map services? Or two instant messaging systems (both of which have already interoperable with each other for some time now)? Technologically, Yahoo! has very little to offer Microsoft--much of what Yahoo! has, Microsoft has as well. There would be very little, if anything, to be gained from merging Microsoft and Yahoo! technologies and software, and such a move would also be extremely costly and complicated. What about talent? Microsoft has no lack of good talent, and if stories like this one about the Vista development process is any indication, Microsoft's problem isn't a lack of talent, but an organization that impedes the effectiveness of talent, in which case, how would a larger overall company and a Yahoo! demoted from independence to corporate division help with this problem? This leaves us with Yahoo!'s user base of around 130 million users per month (as of a year ago, in December 2006). Is each Yahoo! user really worth over $340? Especially since Yahoo is a company in stagnation or even decline? How would Microsoft grow Yahoo!'s user base? And vice-versa?

Ultimately, this is a terrible idea. Steve Ballmer and Microsoft's board are yahoos for proposing what could very well turn into the next AOL-Netscape. On the other hand, at a 62% premium for a fading company, Yahoo!'s shareholders would be stupid to not accept such a lucrative offer. So unless Microsoft gains some sense and pulls out of this one, this disaster is a fait accompli.

Finally, AIM+XMPP

Kai — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:02:10 GMT

It's about time! Unfortunately, federation hasn't been enabled yet. Why this matters.

Pragmatism vs. Principle

Kai — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:59:22 GMT

Once upon a time, I had a world view steeped in principle. Of lines that cannot be crossed and, as silly as it sounds now, of clear rights and wrongs. Over the years, principle had given way to pragmatism. Lines blurred. And absolutes became asterisks. This is not all too surprising, as I've long taken the position that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, so whenever I drew clear lines of right and wrong, I knew that such a line was untenable and flawed, but I did it anyway because I was young, idealistic, and stupid.

As I reflected on this trend, I started to debate the general question of pragmatism versus principle, and I've come to the conclusion that it is generally better to act on pragmatism than it is to act on principle, which is certainly a controversial statement, so allow me to elaborate.

First, pragmatism can often get a bad name because what often passes as "pragmatism" is nothing more than short-term thinking and incomplete consideration. Humans are notoriously near-sighted when it comes to decision-making. This is reflected on our tendency to spend instead of save and our tendency to ignore long-term consequences for short-term gain (excessive alcohol, gambling, etc.) Expediency at the expense of ignoring long-term costs is not pragmatic if those costs outweigh whatever expediency was gained, which, if sea levels rise and displace millions of people, will be the case with pollution. Bypassing a law for the sake of expediency is not necessarily pragmatic, either, as President Bush would know (or at least, should know, assuming that he has learned anything from his mistakes). His illegal wiretapping efforts eroded the trust that people here and abroad have in the government and its integrity (this is by far the most significant cost), produced a backlash that will hinder future government activity (even if they are legitimate), and the illegality of the activity helped propel what he had hoped to keep secret into the spotlight. Taking everything into account, the illegal wiretapping wasn't pragmatic because the indirect costs so greatly outweigh what little expediency there was to be had, and thus, this was a case of incomplete consideration masquerading as pragmatism. Similarly, if a leader were to declare emergency rule (and assuming that the leader is genuinely interested in the future of the state and is not just interested in a selfish power grab), then the long-term damage that emergency rule would do to democracy and its supporting institutions and trust would mean that only the most dire emergencies would ever warrant such an act.

Second, acts of pragmatism and acts of principle do not necessarily differ. And in the vast majority of cases, properly-considered (see previous paragraph) acts of pragmatism will effectively be the same as acts based on principle. Principles, after all, often do point people in the right direction. It is only in the fringe cases where an unbending adherence to principle becomes slavishly dogmatic.

So I think we should be careful about what we consider to be pragmatic. So much of what we colloquially think of as pragmatic actually is not, and if we limit ourselves to what truly is the result of carefully considered pros and cons, then we will find that pragmatism often brings about the same conclusions as following principles, and in the more interesting fringe cases, it provides better, more sensible answers.

Happy Solstice/Yule!

Kai — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:10:37 GMT

I was asked recently, "If you don't celebrate Christmas or any other religious holiday, then what do you celebrate?" In my particular case, the better question would've been, "What, if anything, do you celebrate?" since I don't really celebrate anything, not even New Year's or my own birthday. Nevertheless, it was a good question. What winter holiday should agnostics celebrate?

The answer is simple: the winter solstice, which is today, the 22nd of December, 2007.

First, the solstice is a purely astronomical event. While some people may attach religious or cultural meaning and value to this event, it is nevertheless a natural event and is thus recognized across cultural and religious boundaries. It is no wonder that there are so many solstice celebrations all around the world, from the Chinese to the Native Americans to the pre-Christian Scandinavians to the Romans. Except for those at the equator or at the polar extremes, the solstice is also easy to recognize and witness, as the length of day is readily measured, quantified, and observed by anyone.

Second, the solstice is also the closest and best alternative to the dominant winter celebration in the world today, Christmas. In the old Julian calendar, the solstice fell on the 25th of December, and the Romans marked it with celebrations. Early Christians did not like the pagan celebrations, so they Christianized the event by superimposing upon it the story of the Nativity of Christ. It is therefore no coincidence that Christmas is celebrated on the 25th, the date of the solstice in the Julian calendar (in fact, the actual true date of the Nativity is unknown). Similarly, when Northern Europe was Christianized, Christmas simply became a Christianized version of their own solstice celebrations, which is why Christmas is known in Scandinavian countries as Jul (the name of their ancient solstice festival) and why Yule is often used to refer to Christmas in the English language. That Christmas originated as a Christianized adaptation of a pagan/secular event was the reason why some Christian fundamentalists, such as the Puritans of early America, refused to celebrate Christmas (a fact that those who try to politicize Christmas with their so-called "War on Christmas" controversies conveniently neglect). Therefore, not only is solstice close to Christmas in terms of date (it generally falls on the 21st or 22nd), it is also closely related in origin. In fact, one might say that the true winter holiday is really the winter solstice since Christmas is just a Christianized solstice celebrated on the old Julian date.

And so this holiday season, I say to you, Happy Solstice, Happy Yule, and 冬至节好*!

________________
* This is the traditional solstice festival that many Chinese celebrate and that is marked on most Chinese calendars, so I guess if I had to associate myself with a particular brand of solstice celebration, this would be the closest one for me, as this is one that my family used to celebrate back in China.

Outsourcing Labor Protests

Kai — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:10:59 GMT

It warms my heart to see just how much vitality there is in market economics: Outsourcing the Picket Line (from the Washington Post)

Where did WGA Notifications go?

Kai — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:06:01 GMT

Last Thursday, as I was checking something on Microsoft Update, I noticed that I was no longer being offered WGA Notifications in the critical updates list. That's very odd, I thought. I didn't tell MU to hide the item, nor have I installed it. I switched to another computer and fired up Microsoft Update. Still nothing. In the past, Microsoft has withheld certain updates from certain locales (in fact, WGAN itself was rolled out at different times in different regions), so I wondered if, for some reason, Microsoft had disabled the offering of WGAN to certain groups of users. To check for that, I searched the update catalog for WGAN by name and by the KB number. Nothing. It wasn't all that long ago when I last saw WGAN being listed in the update catalog. Of course, people can still find it at its MSKB article and in the Microsoft Download Center, but it's through Automatic Updates and Microsoft Update that Microsoft shovels WGAN onto people's computers, and it's no longer there.

Of course, I don't care much about WGAN, nor do I care much about whether or not Microsoft is shoveling it onto people's computers. But I was interested to see what the reaction was online, so I looked around. Nothing. Nothing? Yes, I meant nothing. Not even on the once-contentious talk page of the WGA Wikipedia entry. Ever since Thursday, I've searched Google Blog Search and Technorati to see what people had to say about it. And here's the amusing thing: all my searches for recent posts about WGA Notifications turned up only rants and tirades against how evil WGAN is, about how evil Windows is, about how evil Microsoft is (though sadly, none of them recognized Jobs' much more pronounced monopolistic ambitions), etc., etc. Not that I have much love for WGAN either, but it struck me as rather odd (and amusing) that all these people ranting about how annoyed they are at WGAN never picked up on the fact that for the past several days, WGAN was missing from its primary distribution channel!

So what happened? I have no idea. Perhaps they temporarily pulled it in preparation for an update? But it is very unlike them to retract downloads prior to an update. Or have they finally recognized the cost of the bad PR and are quietly shelving it? Or is this just a temporary glitch in Microsoft Update? Guess we'll find out in time...

I really should use the MSKB more...

Kai — Sat, 07 Jul 2007 17:57:09 GMT

Normally, when I run into some problem or some sort of quirky behavior with some piece of software, I'll just curse at it, get frustrated, get annoyed, and then accept that it's just how it is. Unless the problem is fairly disruptive, blatantly a bug, or obviously something that I can fix myself, I usually don't give it much thought after the obligatory round of grumbling.

But every now and then, I do get frustrated enough at the minor quirks that I end up trying to fix it, and if it's a problem with Windows, then that means a trip to the Microsoft Knowledge Base (MSKB). It's a treasure trove, and over the years, I have almost always found a KB article that addresses the exact issue that I experienced. Yet, despite this, I have never have gotten into the habit of using MSKB. Whenever I encounter a minor quirk, I tend to automatically accept it as just a part of life, and it often doesn't even occur to me that there may be a fix for this minor thing, and worst of all, this dismissal happens automatically, without me even realizing it.

Anyway, to save power and to reduce the amount of heat produced, I often put my laptop in a sleep mode if I'm not using it for an extended period of time. The problem with this is that every time the laptop comes out of sleep, the network connection sometimes behaves strangely for a short while (less than a minute), and once I bring the laptop out of sleep, I can't put it back to sleep immediately. I have to wait a little bit before I can do that. And all this time, it never occurred to me that this is a problem that could be fixed; I had just thought that this was a natural and normal part of sleeping and waking the laptop and that perhaps the OS needs to perform some tasks after being reactivated from sleep. Well, as it turns out, KB308467 addresses this exact issue. Offers an explanation of why it happens and how to work around it. And now, I can sleep and wake my laptop without any quirky network behavior and the process is now virtually instantaneous: takes about a second to put it to sleep and about a second to wake it up. Neat, huh?

And the problem of some optical drives mysteriously entering PIO mode? Although I've had this happen to me only once, I've seen this happen to other people back when I used to moderate an optical drive forum. We never thought much of it since it was a relatively rare thing. Turns out there's a fix for that too from the MSKB...