Gustavo’s posterous

Why Cloud computing is safer?

Cloud Security: The Sky Is Falling!

Are clouds fundamentally less secure? A story today in the Guardian lists cloud security as one of the things we’ll worry about in 2009, citing a recent survey commissioned by — big surprise — security companies.

I don’t believe that clouds themselves will cause the security breaches and data theft they anticipate; in many ways, clouds will result in better security. Here’s why:

    * Fewer humans – Most computer breaches are the result of human error; only 20-40 percent stem from technical malfunctions. Cloud operators that want to be profitable take humans out of the loop whenever possible.
    * Better tools – Clouds can afford high-end data protection and security monitoring tools, as well as the experts to run them. I trust Amazon’s operational skills far more than my own.
    * Enforced processes – You could probably get a co-worker to change your company’s IT infrastructure. But try doing it with a cloud provider without the proper authorization: You simply won’t be able to.
    * Not your employees — Most security breaches are committed by internal employees. Cloud operators don’t work for you. When it comes to corporate espionage, employees are a much more likely target.

So where are the risks?

“The potential exists for security challenges like data breaches, data intermixing with other vendors, and exposure to security vulnerabilities that [enterprises] may not be exposed to in the infrastructure they own and manage,” John Pironti, chief information risk strategist at Compucom, told me.

With any new technology, there are bound to be exploits we haven’t thought of. But they’re more likely to be part of the management tools used to transfer and modify cloud data, as well as remote tools used to access applications in the cloud, than the clouds themselves.

There are real reasons to be careful when moving your data into a cloud. But be sure you’re worried about the right things. Otherwise you risk looking like a panicky server-hugger who wants to sleep with a copy of your data under your pillow.



Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Facebook May Be Growing Too Fast. And Hitting The Capital Markets Again.

Facebook May Be Growing Too Fast. And Hitting The Capital Markets Again.

When Facebook raised $240 million from Microsoft in 2007, and another $235 million in debt and equity in 2008, everyone thought they had plenty of cash to get through their big growth phase. With that kind of cash, the company could hire as many people as it needed to and not worry about profitability or going public until at least 2009, as board member Jim Breyer said in 2007.

But a confluence of factors may be conspiring to throw those assumptions out the window and force Facebook back to the capital markets much earlier than they originally planned. We’ve heard from multiple sources that they are testing the capital markets right now, in fact, and may be considering a near term capital raise at terms that could be much more favorable to investors than the previous $15 billion round that Microsoft kicked off in October 2007.

Facebook Is Growing, But So Are Costs

There’s no doubt that Facebook is growing at a breathtaking pace. A year ago, according to Comscore, they had just 74 million unique monthly visitors and 35 billion page views. Today those numbers have grown by 118% and 74%, respectively, to 161 million unique visitors and 61 billion page views per month.

Facebook’s growth, thanks to all these user-created translated versions of the site, has probably exceeded even their own internal projections. And running this engine isn’t cheap.

The company is likely spending well over a $1 million per month on electricity alone, say experts we’ve spoken with. Bandwidth is likely another $500,000 or more per month on top of that. The company has earmarked $100 million to buy 50,000 servers this year and next. And sources say they’ve been buying one NetApp 3070 storage system per week just to keep up with all this user generated content. At up to $2 million each, that adds up quickly - we’ve heard estimates that they may have spent as much as $30 million this year alone with the company. And the icing on the cake - earmark another $15 million per year in office and datacenter rent payments.

And don’t forget those human assets. With 750 employees and growing, Facebook is spending at least another $10 million per month on payroll.

It costs a couple of hundred million dollars a year just to keep the lights on at Facebook. But the real problem is keeping up with growth, particularly storage needs. Add another $100 million or more per year for capital expenditures, and you’ve got a company that’s doing exactly the opposite of printing money.

So How ‘Bout Those Revenues?

eMarketer estimates $265 million in revenue for Facebook in 2008. That’s great, right? Well, not really. The company is still losing money - lots of it - at current revenues. And it’s not clear that revenue will grow as robustly as costs.

Most of Facebook’s growth is outside of the U.S. A year ago, according to Comscore, Facebook had 31 million U.S. visitors, about 42% of the total. Today, U.S. visitors have grown to just 41 million.

19 million live in Africa and the Middle East. 26 million are in Asia (16 million alone in India). Europe, with 48 million Facebook users, has a larger share than the U.S. Another 16 million are in Latin America.

Just one in four Facebook users come from the U.S. today.

As we wrote last summer, most of these international users can’t be monetized today. And to make things worse, bandwidth costs in those countries is generally much higher than the U.S. So the users cost more, and they don’t bring in any revenue.

That international growth might be ok if U.S. growth remained strong. But the U.S. market just seems to be tapped at this point, and gaining market share from MySpace is a battle. As we wrote in August, at current growth rates it will take Facebook 18 years to overtake MySpace in the U.S.

Uh Oh, The Economy

So costs are skyrocketing, and revenues can’t keep up. Ok, But Facebook still has plenty of money, right?

Wrong.

The economy isn’t looking so hot, and it may get worse. If revenues don’t grow substantially, the company’s runway of cash gets much shorter. 2008 revenues are likely $100 million less than the company anticipated a year ago. If the economic train really derails, Facebook could be in big trouble.

A big chunk, probably a majority, of the roughly $500 million the company has raised is already gone. Even more will be spent next year, particularly if international growth rates remain constant (and there is lots and lots of room to grow internationally). Facebook could be down to just a year’s worth of cash at this point, with no IPO horizon in sight.

And even if they have cash into 2010 (its nearly impossible to figure out exactly how much they’re burning), the economic downturn is likely to be much, much worse than they anticipated. If they don’t grab the money now, it may not be available later on.

Which Explains Why CFO Gideon Yu Is In Dubai

Sources have told us that Facebook CFO Gideon Yu was in Dubai this week, possibly meeting with Dubai International Capital, exploring fundraising options.

U.S. investors, including VCs and hedge funds, aren’t interested or aren’t able to invest at the valuation Facebook expects. That leaves Sovereign Wealth Funds as the only viable funding solution. And the window to get money from them may fast be closing, too.

Which explains why Facebook may be looking for money sooner rather than later. If they don’t raise a big chunk of money now from someone who’ll pay whatever it takes to own a piece of Facebook, there may be a heavily dilutive down-valuation round for Facebook in the next 12-18 months.

Source: Techcrunch

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

10 Reasons Why Joost's New Service Fails

Good article about Joost failure.

Source: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/10_reasons_why_joost_fails.php

Gus

10 Reasons Why Joost's New Service Fails

Last week, the internet video service Joost relaunched as a Flash-based online portal, having finally ditched their downloadable player for good. The service, once hyped as the next big thing, has long been overshadowed by the much sleeker Hulu, a joint effort between NBC Universal and News Corp. Joost hoped that with their relaunch they would finally be able to compete again.

Having played with the new version of Joost for awhile, it's obvious Hulu has nothing to fear. Joost currently has several issues that need improvement if they ever hope to succeed.
1) Annoying Us Right Off The Bat

Have you been to the new joost.com yet? If not, go ahead, check it out now, we'll wait. Once you come back, tell us: how did you like that opening cartoon? We found it annoying and obnoxious. We get the idea - they're trying to be cute, but it felt like we had just accidentally tuned into Nick Jr. in the middle of the day.

2) Random Content Playing Upon Login

Let's say you take the plunge and sign up after the cartoon character prods you into doing so (Sign up! Sign up!), upon login you're not greeted with a slideshow of new and popular videos to choose from a la Hulu, you're greeted to some random video auto-playing for you. Sorry, but welcoming me to your site with Britney's latest video already blasting does not give me a good first impression.
3)Poor Navigation

When you first arrive on site, you're probably going to do one of two things: you're going to search for a particular show or you're going to explore what sort of content there is on Joost. If it's the latter, your eyes go to the top navigation to guide you. From the links available (Home, Friends, Groups, Shows, Music, and Film), only the last three are pointers to the site's video content. Each link takes you to a page where you can explore those top-level categories further by genre (comedy, drama, etc.).

Compare that with Hulu's navigation. At the top of Hulu.com, there's TV and Movies available to click on. Underneath those options is a nav bar that features Channels (a drop-down list by genre), Popular Episodes, Popular Clips, Popular Shows, Alphabetical (an A-Z list), and Network (for finding shows by airing network). These are tweaked slightly when you select "Movies." For example, "Network" becomes "Studio." But Hulu doesn't just stop there - beneath their slideshow of new videos are even more ways to navigate. Essentially, it's the same categories at the top (like "Recently Added," "Popular Shows," ), but here they're in columns where video thumbnail links take you directly to the hottest content.

Joost, on the other hand, only offers three static links at the top and the rest of their navigation is crammed into a confusing sidebar next to the video. The tabs across the top of this sidebar scroll horizontally, so you don't even know all your options without clicking around some.

4) Searches Don't Work Well

Let's say that instead of using Joost's navigation, you try to search for content. Using the popular MTV show "The Hills" for test purposes only (promise!), an initial search seems to return no results for that show. Instead, the first page of results lists shows like "The Hill," "Fire on the Hill," and others. It's not clear how they order search results, but it's not alphabetical. "The Hills" doesn't appear until page 4.

But a user isn't necessarily going to click into page after page of results to find their show, they're going to use one of the filtering options in the left sidebar. A quick scroll down the page shows a list of "Series" available, but nope, "The Hills" isn't there.

However, search for "MTV The Hills" and then you'll see a "Reality" sub-genre appear (it wasn't there before). Clicking on that will reveal the episodes. So what was that "Series" option for then? It must be for series where "hills" is in the episode title, but that's not intuitive by any means.
5) Watching Episodes In Order Is Hard

Let's say you've somehow managed to find episodes of a show you want to watch. Now, you're probably going to want to see the most recent episode...but which one is that? Continuing with the above example, the first episode of "The Hills" in the list is "An Unexpected Call," and the next to the thumbnail it notes "Added: Over a year ago." That can't be the most recent one? No, it's not. IMDB says that's Season 1, Episode 3. Most of the episodes listed in the search results, which appear in a completely random order, don't show Season number or Episode number, so unless you know exactly what you're looking for, Joost is no help here.

Now, for comparison purposes, a search on Hulu returns episodes in reverse order, most recent first, with Season and Episode number listed by each one.
6) Inconsistent Naming Convention

Continuing the example from above, the search results return an array of episodes from the MTV show, but not in any sort of order. To make matters worse, they don't even stick to the same naming convention. Some episodes are listed as Show - Title while others are listed as Show Ep.###: Title. What is this, user-gen?

7) Want More Of The Same? Good Luck

Now let's say that against all odds, you've actually managed to locate and play the video wanted to see. Isn't it reasonable that you might want to see more of the same? This should be available from the horizontal tabs in the right sidebar. The one tab in particular ("Channel") should show more videos from that source are listed. However, in the example we're using, that Channel contained nothing other than the one episode which was being streamed at the time. That's strange because other shows (like "The Daily Show," for example) list several more episodes in that list when you're watching them. Why the inconsistency?

Going back to Hulu, the experience is much different. Beneath the video itself, (using "The Daily Show" as the example this time because "The Hills" isn't hosted on-site), there are different sections to explore beginning with Episodes, followed by Clips, then an Episode List, Clip List, Discussions, User Reviews, and Recommended Videos.

8) Share And Shout?

When the video is playing on Joost, you might take notice of the buttons underneath the main window. The first one is "Share" - that's pretty obvious. You can share via email. There's also a button to share on social media via the "Add This" widget. Not quite as elegant as Hulu's better-integrated "Share" functionality, but it will do in a pinch. Right next to the "Share" button is a "Shout" button. Thanks to Digg, "Shout" makes us think of "sharing with friends," too, so this was a curious inclusion. Could this be some sort of IM option? No. Click "Shout" and you'll see - argh! - a return of the cartoon characters from the opening sequence. "Shout It Out! What does this video make you want to say out loud?", the site asks. It's like a FriendFeed "like" gone terribly wrong.

What's the difference between wink #1 and wink #4, anyway? And is #2 laughing or crying? And, oh dear lord, is #3 actually throwing up? Nice.

9) Why Two Search Boxes?

Just curious - if there's a search box at the top-right of every page, why bother adding a second in the sidebar? Just curious.

10) RSS Feeds Aren't Apparent

In another great design decision, the Joost RSS feed icons are greyed out unless you hover your mouse over them - then they're orange. Last we checked, light grey doesn't show up well and is often associated with a feature being disabled. As RSS fans, we don't like seeing RSS hidden like this. Hulu's RSS icon might not be much larger, but it's placement and color make sure it gets noticed.

Conclusion

If it's not obvious from this list, navigating Joost was much more trouble than it's worth. Of course, we would probably be willing to do so if Joost had exclusive content that we could only see on-site and not anywhere else on the web. However, that's not the case. Instead, Joost's new lineup includes full-length shows from CBS, Viacom and the Warner Brothers Television Group and other offerings which, according to NYT, include the "Friends" archives, "CNN: America Votes," 18,000 music videos, shows from MTV and VH1 like "The Hills," classic sitcoms like "Diff'rent Strokes" and a selection of movies, including "Jerry Maguire" and "Men in Black." Some of that content, like CBS and "The Hills," isn't available on Hulu, but Hulu will still return results as if they were. Clicking to play the video on Hulu takes you to the video's web site (CBS, MTV.com, etc.). So while some content may be hosted in Joost but not on Hulu, it doesn't really feel that way.

We'll give Joost some credit for making the transition from software to web, but it's hard to cheer them on when even their chief executive doesn't seem to have the enthusiasm to do so. Mike Volpi, a former Cisco executive, who took over the company over a year ago was quoted as saying this about the new site: "We'll just keep hanging around the rim to see if we get a break." Right. In the meantime, we'll be using Hulu.

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

New Sony Ericsson Xperia X1

Sony launched their Iphone copy. Check it out: http://www.sonyericsson.com/x1/index.aspx?en-us#/product/2/1/

Good interface but uses windows mobile. bad bad bad!

Gustavo

 

 

 

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

thePlatform Manages 329 Million Premium Video Views in July

Third-largest volume of online video compared to leading U.S. Online Video Properties; CEO Ian Blaine discusses concept of the 'Long Leash' and the intersection of social networking and online video during industry keynote at Contentonomics

Today, during a morning keynote at Contentonomics in Los Angeles, Ian Blaine, CEO of thePlatform, disclosed that thePlatform's clients, as tracked by comScore's Video Metrix, had a combined total of 329 million video views in July of 2008.

Compared to the leading U.S. online video properties, thePlatform's volume of video ranks it third in terms of the amount of video the company manages. However, unlike Google (including YouTube) and Fox Interactive Media (including MySpace), which rank first and second respectively, the video managed by thePlatform is all premium video from leading media companies, nearly all of which is monetized through advertising.
"The question today isn't how to monetize user generated video. That's a tired subject, and it's not a great business," said Ian Blaine, CEO of thePlatform. "The real question is how to make professional, high-quality video exhibit the same viral traits and success we've seen with user generated content, which will better serve the consumer and the content owners' bottom line."

The Long Leash

Blaine continued, "The biggest inhibitor to the viral growth of video on the Web is that media companies are reluctant to distribute their content broadly to destinations they can't control. What content owners need is a 'long leash' to let their video run far and wide. With this long leash, media companies can still maintain control and monetize video wherever it lands."

During his keynote today, Blaine discussed a broad range of ideas about the intersection of video and social networking. In addition, thePlatform showcased collaborative efforts with two other subsidiaries of Comcast Interactive Media, StreamSage and Plaxo. With StreamSage, the companies demonstrated how advanced metadata techniques can yield better search results and better viewing experiences for consumers. With Plaxo, Blaine was joined on stage by Joseph Smarr, Chief Platform Architect of Plaxo, and the two demonstrated ways they are providing a "longer leash" that will enable media companies to share video across social networks, and across platforms like the PC, mobile phone, and television.


Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Brain food: Šinternet use?

As humans begin to age, their brains start to shrink and experience reductions in cell activity. For a long time, activities such as cross-word puzzles, and (in Chinese culture) mah jong, were considered practices that can help keep the brain active and counter-act the age related slow downs of the brain. Now, according to a study in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, surfing the Web can also be added to such activities.

The UCLA  research team found that while activities like reading books produced significant activity in regions of the brain controlling language, reading, memory and visual abilities… web search task produced significant additional activity in separate areas of the brain controlling decision-making and complex reasoning (only in experienced web users).

Lead researcher and study author Dr. Gary Small, director of the UCLA Center of Aging notes, “Just a simple, everyday computer task seems to be activating neural circuits… It’s possible that this is something that strengthens our brains as we do it.”

Now this research is focused around surfing the Web, but I wonder if activities using Web 2.0 tools such as social networking or even tagging and signing up for RSS feeds would have similar benefits while, at the same time, offering a more interactive medium.

I know sitting in front of a computer all day surfing the web or playing video games isn’t ‘good for you’,  but at least for middle aged and older individuals, sitting in front of a computer has its benefits.

For further information on this study please see these related BBC and Yahoo! articles.
 

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Akamai & Limelight Say Testing Methods Not Accurate In Microsoft Research Paper

Last week, I posted about a new technical research paper entitled "Measuring and Evaluating Large-Scale CDNs" that was put out by the Microsoft Research division and the Polytechnic Institute of NYU. The purpose of the study was to conduct extensive and thorough measurements to compare the network performance of Akamai and Limelight Networks.

Some noticed that I did not take any stance either way on the findings of the paper, which was mainly due to the fact that I am not a network engineer and don't pretend to know everything that is involved in properly testing a network. That being said, both Akamai and Limelight Networks responded to my requests to review the paper and provided me with their comments. Both agreed that there is a lot more to properly testing a network than just the two aspects of CDN performance the paper looked at. Limelight has posted their response to the paper on their blog and Akamai response is as follows.

Based on our internal review of the whitepaper, we believe that there are a number of stated conclusions that are incorrect. These include:

1. Akamai is less available
This conclusion is false. The researchers tested the responsiveness of a single server and group of servers independent of our mapping system - note that this is not the same as measuring the general availability of Akamai's content delivery services. Because Akamai's software algorithms will not direct traffic to unresponsive machines or locations, all their conclusion really points out is that a portion of our network is not in use at any time. (This may be due to hardware failure, network problems, or software updates.) We believe that any measurement of availability must take into account Akamai's load balancing, and that if specific IPs are being tested, then the researchers are not doing so.

2. Akamai is harder to maintain
This conclusion is also false. While Akamai has more locations, and more machines, the power of the distributed model with automatic fault detection means that Akamai does not have to keep every machine or location up and running at all times.  It is incorrect to infer from the fact that some servers are down that Akamai's maintenance costs are higher.

3. With marginal additional deployments, Limelight could approximate Akamai's performance
We believe that this conclusion is also false. In our opinion, the research team's performance testing methodology likely overstates Akamai's latency numbers. This is because any of our server deployments in smaller ISPs that do not have an open-resolver nameserver would have been missed in their discovery process. It is important to note that these are also the locations where we get closest to the end users.  If those locations were discovered by their research, we would expect the average latency numbers derived from the measurements to be lower. If they are missing some of our lowest latency deployments, then naturally the average, median, 90th and 95th percentiles will change for the better. Because these deployments are the best examples of our "deploy close to the end user" strategy, missing them affects our results more than it would Limelight's. The networks most likely missed are either smaller local ISPs in the U.S. and EU, or providers in specific countries. These are exactly the places where we'd expect Akamai to have very low latency, but Limelight to have higher latency (especially in Asia, etc.) As such, we believe that the research team's measurement method ultimately under-represents our country, "cluster", and server counts because they missed counting these more local deployments that do not have open-resolver nameservers.

4. After testing akamaiedge.net, they concluded that Akamai uses virtualization technology to provide customers with isolated environments (for dynamic content distribution)
This conclusion is false. The akamaiedge.net domain is used for Akamai's secure content delivery (SSL) service, used by WAA and DSA. While these services do accelerate dynamic content, Akamai is not using virtualization technology to provide customers with isolated environments - ultimately, the research team reached an incorrect conclusion after observing how we handle hostname to IP mapping for secure content. The measurements done also concluded that akamaiedge.net servers were in a subset of locations as compared to the larger Akamai network - this is correct, as our SSL servers are hosted
in extremely secure locations.

Furthermore, while the akamaiedge.net network is in fewer locations than the akamai.net network, it is still in more locations that Limelight's entire network. In addition, the measurements done for this network also under-counted the number of servers and locations. Finally, the whitepaper did not provide figures on CDN delay for this network, only DNS delay.

It is important to reinforce that the "per server" and "per cluster" uptime and availability measurements in the whitepaper that show Limelight as more "available" bypassed Akamai's mapping system. As such, even if our mapping system never would have sent traffic to a location, they are counting us as unavailable.

Having a more distributed model (as Akamai does) de-emphasizes the importance of any one location, so much so that we can have entire locations down without impacting performance. Similarly, the researchers don't sufficiently consider the penalty associated with an unavailable Limelight cluster. One down location in Japan, when it is the only region in Japan, would ultimately have a much greater performance impact than having one of 20 locations in Japan become unavailable.

Additionally, it is also important to reinforce that the research performed did not measure general performance of Akamai's services (as we would do for a customer trial), but rather DNS lookup delays, and the delay to reach the server selected by Akamai's mapping system - these are only two components of a full performance measurement. By unintentionally filtering out many of the best examples of our "deploy close to end user" strategy, the research team has grossly misrepresented our availability numbers and also over-estimated our latency.

Font: Streaming Media
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/the_business_of_online_vi/2008/10/akamai-responds.html

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Microsoft

Na  Microsoft, Ballmer parte para o ataque
João Luiz  Rosa, de São Paulo
15/10/2008
   
Nesses tempos de crise, é um  alívio falar com Steve Ballmer. O executivo-chefe da  Microsoft - a maior fabricante de software do  planeta - fala alto, faz piadas, dá murros na mesa, espicaça os  concorrentes sem dó. É um "show man" de irrefreável bom humor.    
  Marisa  Cauduro/Valor

 Ballmer, da Microsoft: "As  pessoas perguntam como vamos concorrer com o Google e não como  o Google vai concorrer  conosco"
 

   
 O desempenho recente da Microsoft  explica, em parte, porque esse bilionário de 52 anos - ele é dono de  uma fortuna pessoal estimada em US$ 15 bilhões, o que o coloca em  43º na lista dos homens mais ricos do mundo - parece sempre tão  efusivo.  

   
 Em junho, a Microsoft encerrou seu ano  fiscal 2008 com uma receita de US$ 60,4 bilhões, o equivalente a um  aumento de 18,20% sobre a receita de 2007, enquanto o lucro líquido  saltou 25,7%, para quase US$ 17,7 bilhões. E isso considerando que  seu carro-chefe, o sistema operacional Windows, teve problemas na  estréia. "É, tivemos algumas dificuldades no início", reconhece  Ballmer.  

   
 Mesmo derrotas recentes que abalaram a  confiança na companhia parecem, agora, mostrar um lado positivo. No  início do ano, a Microsoft iniciou uma campanha para comprar o  Yahoo, em um negócio avaliado em US$ 50 bilhões.  Ballmer insistiu na compra, mas não conseguiu fechar o negócio. Se  tivesse obtido sucesso, a Microsoft teria se comprometido a pagar  US$ 33 por ação do Yahoo, um papel que ontem chegou ao fim do pregão  negociado a US$ 12,65.  

   
 "Se estou aliviado?", diz Ballmer, com  um sorriso irônico. "Eu não diria disso. Parte do acordo seria pago  com nossas próprias ações, que também tiveram queda. Então, o valor  não seria o mesmo", observa. "Mas vamos dizer que, hoje, eu não  ofereceria os US$ 33 por ação."  

   
 Até em relação à bolsa, o termômetro  mais sensível da crise financeira, a Microsoft não tem muito do que  reclamar. Os papéis da empresa acumulam queda de 18,93% nos últimos  12 meses, mas o desempenho ainda está bem acima da média do mercado.  No mesmo período, o índice Nasdaq caiu 36,59% e o Dow Jones, 33,93%.   

   
 Mas independentemente do desempenho de  suas ações e de quanto teria de pagar pelo Yahoo, o fracasso da  Microsoft em fechar a aquisição remete a uma das questões mais  importantes para a companhia: qual será a estratégia de Ballmer para  enfrentar o Google, que domina o negócio de busca  e a publicidade on-line?  

   
 Para começar, não há nenhuma chance  imediata de retomar as negociações com o Yahoo, diz Ballmer.  "Colocamos um preço sério na mesa e, depois, buscamos uma parceria  específica na área de busca. O Yahoo considerou que isso não fazia  sentido para eles e respeitamos a decisão", afirma.   

   
 Agora, é preciso esperar. O Yahoo e o  Google aguardam uma decisão das autoridades regulatórias americanas  em relação à sua própria tentativa de acordo na área de busca - "o  que provavelmente não tem muitas chances (de acontecer)", provoca  Ballmer. Só depois de uma decisão, e supondo que o negócio seja  recusado, é "que talvez faça sentido reiniciar as conversas", diz o  executivo.  

   
 Como, então, lidar com o Google? "As  pessoas perguntam como nós vamos concorrer com o Google, mas não  perguntam como o Google pretende concorrer conosco", argumenta  Ballmer.  

   
 O Google tem um "excelente" serviço de  busca, um segmento no qual tanto o Yahoo como a Microsoft caminham  atrás, reconhece o executivo. Mas a internet vai além da busca e em  muitos dos demais segmentos, como correio eletrônico e mensagens  instantâneas, é a Microsoft que está na frente, diz Ballmer. "Eles  têm produtos muito inferiores de processador de texto e planilha  eletrônica, por exemplo", afirma o executivo. "O (recém-lançado  navegador de internet) Chrome é um produto medíocre", prossegue  Ballmer. "É muito pesado e demora para o usuário fazer o download."   

   
 As aquisições são sempre um caminho  para a Microsoft e a companhia pode estar estudando uma ou duas  compras, diz o executivo, fazendo mistério. Mas não se espere uma  grande aquisição, como a Research in Motion  (RIM), a companhia canadense que fabrica o celular BlackBerry. "A  resposta específica em relação à RIM é que não, não estudamos uma  compra", afirma Ballmer.  

   
 O executivo elogia os produtos da RIM,  mas diz que a estratégia da Microsoft na área de comunicação e  dispositivos móveis passa longe da produção de equipamentos. Como na  indústria de computadores, em que a Microsoft tornou-se dominante  sem fabricar um único PC, Ballmer quer colocar os programas da  companhia em aparelhos de diversos fabricantes. "Queremos fechar  alianças com os fabricantes, não nos tornarmos um deles."   

   
 Em relação às aquisições, o foco da  Microsoft será mantido no que Ballmer chama de companhias "menores"  - aquelas com valor de mercado de até US$ 1 bilhão.   

   
 Aos 52 anos de idade, Ballmer é o  executivo-chefe da Microsoft desde 2000, mas foi só a partir de  junho desde ano que ele passou a conduzir a companhia sem ter o  co-fundador Bill Gates ao lado. "Ele se aposentou de verdade e só  vem à empresa umas quatro ou cinco vezes por mês", diz. Parte das  tarefas de Gates é trocar idéias com a equipe responsável pelos  produtos de busca na web.  

   
  Sem Gates, Ballmer terá importantes decisões pela frente. Em  seus laboratórios, a Microsoft prepara a nova versão do Windows. A  companhia quer evitar os erros do lançamento do Vista, em que  problemas de compatibilidade provocaram reações negativas dos  usuários. O episódio, diz Ballmer, está parcialmente superado. "Em  todo o mundo, já existem 180 milhões de usuários do Vista. A  velocidade de adoção do sistema é a mais rápida desde o Windows 95.  Além disso, o principal concorrente do Vista é o XP, que também é  nosso. Isso não é nada ruim", diz, antes de outro sorriso.
  
    
      
Apesar da crise, executivo  enfatiza oportunidades
Manuela Rahal, de São  Paulo
15/10/2008
    
     
 Com a trilha sonora  do clássico do cinema "Rocky", Steve Ballmer,  executivo-chefe da Microsoft,  subiu ao palco, na manhã de ontem, para uma  palestra em que ressaltou a importância de uma  área de tecnologia da informação (TI) dinâmica  dentro de cada empresa. Ballmer falou sobre o tema  em um evento organizado pela companhia em São  Paulo, com a participação de mais de dois mil  profissionais da área.  

   
 De acordo com  Ballmer, um setor de TI dinâmico teria como  principal função investir em novas tecnologias com  eficiência e a um custo razoável. Durante sua  apresentação, o executivo enfatizou que esta  proposta faz parte da estratégia da Microsoft.  Segundo ele, o conceito deve ser racionalizado e  pode ser baseado em quatro pilares: virtualização  do servidor, interoperabilidade e segurança,  modelo de software como serviço e a experiência do  usuário a partir da interface.  

   
 Dentre os quatro  tópicos, dois foram mais abordados: a  virtualização e o formato de software como  serviço. Para Ballmer, o mundo ainda está  engatinhando quando o assunto é tecnologia da  virtualização : "menos de 5% dos servidores no  mundo estão virtualizados", disse.   

   
 O modelo de software  como serviço também ganhou destaque durante a  palestra. Steve Ballmer acredita que o conceito de  "cloud computing", ou computação em nuvem -  compartilhamento de dados e ferramentas de  tecnologia pela interligação dos sistemas - é o  futuro.  

   
 Por outro lado, o  executivo afirma que esse formato por si só não  daria certo. Para ele, o desafio para a indústria  será como construir um novo modelo computacional.  Sua proposta combina softwares tradicionais com  cloud computing. "Eu acredito em um mundo em que  os softwares flutuem na internet, mas os programas  dentro do servidor também são importantes." Mesmo  assim, Ballmer diz que "essa migração não vai  acontecer da noite para o dia, pois o  desenvolvimento de novas tecnologias e plataformas  é essencial para que isso ocorra".   

   
 Enquanto um novo  modelo computacional não é definido e o futuro não  chega, a Microsoft aproveita para investir em  outro tipo de iniciativa. Na tarde de ontem, a  companhia anunciou uma parceria com o governo do  Estado de São Paulo. O acordo, assinado pelo  governador José Serra e pelo presidente da  companhia no Brasil, Michel Levy, tem como  objetivo ampliar a política de acesso à  informática na rede pública estadual.   

   
 Ballmer participou da  oficialização do acordo que prevê a  disponibilização gratuita de 5,5 milhões de contas  de e-mails para que o governo conecte estudantes e  professores da rede estadual. Os endereços  eletrônicos terão 5 gigabytes de capacidade e  serão padronizados por medidas de segurança:  aluno@acessaescola.sp.gov.br para estudantes e  professor@professor.sp.gov.br.  

 
  
 Fonte: Valor Econômico

   

Click here to download:
Microsoft.zip (324 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

Interesting reading about PHP vs Rails

7 reasons I switched back to PHP after 2 years on Rails
by Derek Sivers in Opinion

SUMMARY: I spent two years trying to make Rails do something it wasn’t meant to do, then realized my old abandoned language (PHP, in my case) would do just fine if approached with my new Rails-gained wisdom.

INTRO / BACKGROUND:

Back in January 2005, I announced on the O’Reilly blog that I was going to completely scrap over 100,000 lines of messy PHP code in my existing CD Baby (cdbaby.com) website, and rewrite the entire thing in Rails, from scratch.

I hired one of the best Rails programmers in the world (Jeremy Kemper aka bitsweat), and we set off on this huge task with intensity. The first few months showed good progress, and Jeremy could not have been more amazing, twisting the deep inner guts of Rails to make it do things it was never intended to do.

But at every step, it seemed our needs clashed with Rails’ preferences. (Like trying to turn a train into a boat. It’s do-able with a lot of glue. But it’s damn hard. And certainly makes you ask why you’re really doing this.)

Two years (!) later, after various setbacks, we were less than halfway done.* (To be fair to Jeremy’s mad skillz: many setbacks were because of tech emergencies that pulled our attention to other internal projects that were not the rewrite itself.) The entire music distribution world had changed, and we were still working on the same goddamn rewrite. I said fuckit, and we abandoned the Rails rewrite. Jeremy took a job with 37 Signals, and that was that.

I didn’t abandon the rewrite IDEA, though. I just asked myself one important question:

“Is there anything Rails can do, that PHP CAN’T do?”

The answer is no.

I threw away 2 years of Rails code, and opened a new empty Subversion respository.

Then in a mere TWO MONTHS, by myself, not even telling anyone I was doing this, using nothing but vi, and no frameworks, I rewrote CD Baby from scratch in PHP. Done! Launched! And it works amazingly well.

It’s the most beautiful PHP I’ve ever written, all wonderfully MVC and DRY, and and I owe it all to Rails.

Inspired by Rails:

*- all logic is coming from the models, one per database table, like Martin Fowler’s Active Record pattern.

*- no requires or includes needed, thanks to __autoload.

*- real MVC separation: controllers have no HTML or business-logic, and only use REST-approved HTTP. (GET is only get. Any destructive actions require POST.)

*- all HTML coming from a cute and powerful templating system I whipped up in 80 lines, all multi-lingual and caching and everything

*- … and much more. In only 12,000 lines of code, including HTML templates. (Down from 90,000, before.)

Though I’m not saying other people should do what I’ve done, I thought I should share my reasons and lessons-learned, here:

SEVEN REASONS I SWITCHED BACK TO PHP AFTER 2 YEARS ON RAILS:

#1 - “IS THERE ANYTHING RAILS/RUBY CAN DO THAT PHP CAN’T DO? … (thinking)… NO.”
For 2 years, I thought Rails is genius, PHP is shit. Rails is powerful, PHP is crap.
I was nearly killing my company in the name of blindly insisting Rails was the answer to all questions, timeframes be damned.
But when I took a real emotionless non-prejudiced look at it, I realized the language didn’t matter that much.
Ruby is prettier. Rails has nice shortcuts. But no big shortcuts I can’t code-up myself in a day if needed.
Looked at from a real practical point of view, I could do anything in PHP, and there were many business reasons to do so.

#2 - OUR ENTIRE COMPANY’S STUFF WAS IN PHP: DON’T UNDERESTIMATE INTEGRATION
By the old plan (ditching all PHP and doing it all in Rails), there was going to be this One Big Day, where our entire Intranet, Storefront, Members’ Login Area, and dozens of cron shell scripts were ALL going to have to change. 85 employees re-trained. All customers and clients calling up furious that One Big Day, with questions about the new system.
Instead, I was able to slowly gut the ugly PHP and replace it with beautiful PHP. Launch in stages. No big re-training.

#3 - DON’T WANT WHAT I DON’T NEED
I admire the hell out of the Rails core gang that actually understand every line inside Rails itself. But I don’t. And I’m sure I will never use 90% of it.
With my little self-made system, every line is only what’s absolutely necessary. That makes me extremely happy and comfortable.

#4 - IT’S SMALL AND FAST
One little 2U LAMP server is serving up a ton of cdbaby.com traffic damn fast with hardly any load.

#5 - IT’S BUILT TO MY TASTES
I don’t need to adapt my ways to Rails. I tell PHP exactly what I want to do, the way I want to do it, and it doesn’t complain.
I was having to hack-up Rails with all kinds of plugins and mods to get it to be the multi-lingual integration to our existing 95-table database.
My new code was made just for me. The most efficient possible code to work with our exact needs.

#6 - I LOVE SQL
Speaking of tastes: tiny but important thing : I love SQL. I dream in queries. I think in tables.
I was always fighting against Rails and its migrations hiding my beloved SQL from me.

#7 - PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE GIRLFRIENDS: THE NEW ONE IS BETTER BECAUSE *YOU* ARE BETTER
Rails was an amazing teacher. I loved it’s “do exactly as I say” paint-by-numbers framework that taught me some great guidelines.
I love Ruby for making me really understand OOP. God, Ruby is so beautiful. I love you, Ruby.
But the main reason that any programmer learning any new language thinks the new language is SO much better than the old one is because he’s a better programmer now! You look back at your old ugly PHP code, compared to your new beautiful Ruby code, and think, “God that PHP is ugly!” But don’t forget you wrote that PHP years ago and are unfairly discriminating against it now.
It’s not the language (entirely). It’s you, dude. You’re better now. Give yourself some credit.

Ok. All that being said, I’m looking forward to using Rails some day when I start a brand new project from scratch, with Rails in mind from the beginning.

But I hope that this reaches someone somewhere thinking, “God our old code is ugly. If we only threw it all away and did it all over in Rails, it’d be so much easier!”
Gustavo Caetano | CEO, Latin America | Samba Tech International Office - HQ Brazil

Phone: +55 (31) 3225-8658 | Mobile:  +55 (31) 8476-5579 | MSN: gustcaetano@hotmail.com

Skype: gustavo.caetano | LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/gustavocaetano | Twitter: gustcaetano   

Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]

iPhone x Resto



 
 



 
 


 
 




Loading mentions Retweet

Comments [0]