Computing » On Slashdot's Lost Taco and Apple's Big Turnover

"One valid criticism [of FOSS] is that too many projects are 'me-too,'" suggested Slashdot blogger Barbara Hudson. "'Me-too' means you're playing in their home field, and conceding that they are the reference by which you will be measured. FOSS should not be competing by being 'just as good.' 'Think different' worked for Jobs and Apple; maybe it can work for FOSS."

There may not be enough tequila in this world to see the tech community all the way through to the end of August 2011.

We've had Googlerola; we've had the ever-escalating software patent storm. We've had HP's (NYSE: HPQ) lily-livered maneuvers regarding webOS and PCs.

Did we need more than that? No, we did not. Yet more is just what we got last week in the form of a one-two punch: First Steve Jobs's resignation as Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) CEO, then similar news from Slashdot's Rob Malda, or CmdrTaco.

'Please Help Me'

Now, longtime readers of the Linux Blog Safari column may remember that Malda contributed more than a few insightful comments over the years.

Linux Girl, in fact, still considers him a good personal friend, and understands completely that he's been too busy to comment for the past (*cough*) three years.

She'll never forget, though, a few of his wittier gems. When asked if Linux geeks tend to need help with the romantic side of life, for instance, Malda replied, "I hate to make broad generalizations about hundreds of thousands of people, but yes. Yes we do. Please help me."

Of the compatibility between Linux and women? "I'd ask my wife if she'd let me out of my box," Malda said.

Malda's farewell letter drew well more than 1,400 comments in about 24 hours on Slashdot, with plenty more dispersed across the rest of the Web.

We'll miss you, CmdrTaco!

The Ripple Effect

The departure of Apple's icon, of course, made a similarly big splash in the rest of the computing world, where the retrospectives and analyses are still coming fast and furious.

Linux Girl has never been a big iGadget fan, but the news will clearly have a profound effect on the industry in general.

The big question down at the blogosphere's Punchy Penguin was, will it affect Linux? Bloggers, as per their wont, had no shortage of reactions.

'A Terrible Business Plan'

"Good riddance!" was the opinion of blogger Robert Pogson. "Maybe Apple will quit suing the world and making enemies with a new guy in charge."

Apple has already "ticked off Samsung, one of its suppliers, all the users of Android/Linux products who number in the millions, all the developers of software for Android/Linux, all the suppliers of parts for Android/Linux systems, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), and me for unleashing software patents on the world," Pogson explained.

"That is a terrible business plan and suppresses initiative," he added. "Carried to its logical conclusion, all smartphones and tablets will be excluded from USA/Europe because everyone will violate everyone else's patents. Is that what Apple wants? They are insane."

'It Will All Be on Cook'

For Slashdot blogger hairyfeet, the real question is, "Can Cook come up with new products like Jobs could?

"Like his style or hate it, the man had a vision and a way of finding new markets," hairyfeet opined. "There are probably three to four more iDevices left in the pipe. After that? It will all be on Cook."

Indeed, "no matter how you cut it this is a blow for Apple," consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack agreed, "but they should be able to coast on their current lineup for at least a decade."

No Friend to FOSS

Chris Travers, a Slashdot blogger who works on the LedgerSMB project, didn't see any big implications for Linux.

"While Apple is involved in the FOSS community, I really don't see a major impact there," Travers told Linux Girl. "I have never really seen Steve Jobs as a friend to Free/Open Source Software. I don't see Apple becoming more or less of a friend after his departure."

Barbara Hudson, however, drew out some lessons for FOSS.

'We're Just as Good'

"Think of it -- if Steve Jobs hadn't asked John Sculley, 'Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life or come with me and change the world?' Apple's board of directors wouldn't have replaced Jobs with Sculley less than 2 years later," began Hudson, a blogger on Slashdot who goes by "Tom" on the site.

In competing with commodity PCs, Sculley "basically undermined Apple's premium value, saying, 'We're just as good,'" she pointed out.

"It's true that during Sculley's tenure, sales rose by a factor of 10 before the crunch and Apple's near-death experience, but those were boom years for anyone who could assemble anything resembling a computer," Hudson asserted. "His handling of Apple brands, by creating too many different products with too much overlap, created confusion."

That, in turn, "made it much easier for Jobs, when he came back, to say, 'No, we're going to have only a few products, and they're going to be GREAT!'" Hudson explained.

'Think Different'

So, "in a way, Jobs' biggest mistake set the stage for his biggest success," she opined. "What sets Jobs above other leaders is that he was able to embrace it and reshape the company, which will forever be identified with him."

What lessons are there here for FOSS projects?

"One valid criticism is that too many projects are 'me-too,'" Hudson suggested. "'Me-too' means you're playing in their home field, and conceding that they are the reference by which you will be measured.

"FOSS should not be competing by being 'just as good,'" she concluded. "'Think different' worked for Jobs and Apple; maybe it can work for FOSS."

Computing » Steve Jobs' Exit: The Day the Magic Died

Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years, and he is still required reading in military and business courses. People, products, companies and countries pass, but knowledge is often sustained. Steve Jobs' unique approach to product strategy -- and it really is product strategy -- could outlast the country, let alone Apple. And I think it should, because it is that brilliant.

It is amazing to me the number of people I know who are basically saying Steve Jobs (some wonderful quotes from him here) leaving Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) will not change Apple. Most saw what Apple was like with Jobs, have seen that no similar company has been able to repeat what Apple has done over the last decade, and have seen both Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) after Gates and Disney (NYSE: DIS) after Walt. They even saw what happened to Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) during the short time Michael stepped down. But Jobs, who is even more hands on than the most-micro manager any of us know, will pass without a ripple. Wow -- now that is a reality distortion field.

The song that is going through my head goes, "Bye, bye, Miss American Pie, took my Chevy ...," and it is titled, "The Day the Music Died." I'll share what I think Steve's truly lasting legacy is for life in general. I'll close with my product of the week, an offering from Sony (NYSE: SNE) that shows the unique difference that Jobs brought to his products.

Apple Is Changed

You take out of the mix a guy who is a known micromanager and who rules a company largely using fear, and the firm is changed. Arguing it isn't is like, well, taking a leg off a chair that is wobbling and arguing the three legged chair is as good as new. Except with Steve Jobs, given how much he touched, it would be more like two legs.

For instance, take a look at the patents that Jobs personally touched. There are 313 of them on critical Apple products, most having to do with the look and feel of the offering. Whether or not they would have existed could be argued; whether they would have been the same can't, because he touched and changed every one, and his was the vote that counted at the table.

He isn't a guy that offers up a suggestion as an option -- he is the guy who says "this is the way it will be." If he truly touched each of these products, he had a significant impact on what the outcome was.

The Nature of the Change

Looking back at Microsoft, Disney and even IBM (NYSE: IBM), the first-year changes were typically rather subtle. Disney and IBM were a bit more sudden, because Walt died and Thomas Watson Jr. stepped sharply away from the company. Bill still showed up a few times to speak on behalf of the firm. However, inside the companies, the changes were far more noticeable far earlier, as the new management took control.

At Disney, it was a massive influx of MBAs and outflow of undegreed founding employees. At IBM, it was a hard shift to financial controls and a sharp move away from hands-on employee management. At Microsoft, it was the evaporation of a driving vision.

What typically happens when a micromanager leaves is an increasing degree of rebellion against that now-absent micromanager. Micromanagers rarely explain the why behind their decisions, and Jobs isn't exactly famous for explanations. They just demand they be followed, and that means skills don't transfer. In fact, micromanagers, by their nature, don't really want skills to transfer because they equate control with status -- and if you can do it yourself, they see that as a lack of control.

While this only ensures that Apple will be different, think for a moment -- how many firms are doing as well as Apple is? If you are into sports -- I'm not, really -- and recall the 49ers football team used to be unbeatable and now is anything but, do you recall what changed? Ownership of the team passed between brother and sister in 1999, and the team was pretty much done from then on. That's the same as changing the CEO but leaving the employees in place -- and we are talking siblings.

Clearly, this idea of Apple suddenly going into printers as the new growth market is farfetched, and intended to be, but the firm is unlikely to be able to maintain its status at the top of tech -- let alone where it is today, which is almost over every other company in any market.

Certainly anything is possible, but looking at other firms that have had a transition like this, only IBM held on for a long time and only because it was designed by two generations of founders to outlast both.

Wrapping Up: Steve Jobs' Legacy

A lot of us have different views about what Jobs legacy will be. It won't be the ads, though some are clearly iconic. I don't think it is the products. Did you know that IBM used to make cheese cutters, for instance? How many people even remember the first product that put Apple on the map, the Apple II? It isn't really the company either, given it was created by a number of people; while redesigned around Jobs, it will undoubtedly change a lot over the next decade and might either do major acquisitions or become acquired at some future point. The point is that Jobs' fingerprint on something that is largely based on a lot of changing employees is likely already disappearing with every post-Jobs hire, in any case.

I think it is the content in the Apple University (note the info-graphic clearly shows a change in Apple stock performance when Jobs isn't there), which is overseen by Jobs, led by people who understand him, and attempts to pass on Steve's process to future generations.

If successful -- and note that Jobs is in the loop for consistency/compliance and doesn't really have a replacement -- this could limit, much like the IBM University does, how much of what Steve Jobs provides in terms of process is lost. It could cause a core part of Jobs' unique capabilities to continue after he is gone -- perhaps for generations.

Sun Tzu has been dead for thousands of years, and he is still required reading in military and business courses. People, products, companies and countries pass, but knowledge is often sustained. Steve Jobs' unique approach to product strategy -- and it really is product strategy -- could outlast the country, let alone Apple. And I think it should, because it is that brilliant.

Product of the Week: Sony Vaio Z

Product of the Week Steve Jobs historically has talked about two companies he modeled Apple after: Porsche in terms of product design, and Sony in terms of consumer focus and product strategy. To me, that means if any company could beat Apple in its core market, Sony should be able to, because it was a big part of Apple's successful redesign.

Currently, the closest thing Sony has to a current generation MacBook is the Vaio Z. It is light, it is sexy, in many ways (on spec) it is truly better than a MacBook -- particularly if you are, like me, a Windows user.



Sony Vaio Z Series

This Vaio compares to the 13" aluminum MacBook Pro, and it stands out with many more choices. That asset is where its problem lies, though, because that likely drove up cost and limited its market.

But let me give you the high points. Instead of aluminum alone, it is built up of graphite and aluminum. Instead of just a built-in battery you can't replace, it has an optional external battery (up to 16 hours of battery life vs. a good 7) that can be hot swapped and charged alone (this last is really unusual, even in Windows boxes). Instead of 1280x800 native resolution it has 1600x900 or an upgrade to 1920x1080 resolution. Instead of one hard drive, it can have twin SSDs. It has an optional dock and a built-in fingerprint based security system the MacBooks lack, and instead of 4.5 pounds, it comes in (without the slice) at an amazing 2.5 pounds (even with the slice it is about a full pound lighter).

However, all of this doesn't come without a cost. This little puppy will set you back between US$1,799 and $2,200 (retail), while the MacBook is between $1,200 and $1,500. Both products would be considered premium offerings, and clearly the Sony would be more exclusive. For the extra $700, you get what is likely a far more useful result, but you are in nosebleed pricing territory, and you can't get to high volumes there.

The Sony would appeal to folks who like to mess with things and represent about 5 percent of the market. The Mac would appeal to folks who just want to get things done -- or more like the other 95 percent -- and both are priced out of the mainstream. Apple forces people to buy higher in the market; Sony would suggest a different lower-priced product for most (like the $625 VPC-S135X/B). The end result is Apple has fewer SKUs and higher margins, while Sony has more products.

As a customer who favors this product, I like Sony's approach; as an investor, I'd prefer Apple's. These two products showcase, more than any other thing I can think of, what makes Apple different. It builds a product that is aspirational for most people and focuses on maximizing margin. Others, like Sony, try to maximize total volume by trying to meet existing and very diverse product needs.

In the end, I can't think of any other product in the market that is likely to give a new Mac owner a little product envy, I certainly have a bit of lust in my heart for this puppy. Because of that -- and mostly because it drives home the point of just why Apple is different -- the Sony Vaio Z is my product of the week.

One final thought: Ultrabooks, the platform Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) will be bringing to market later this year, are very similar to the System Z and will likely highlight Windows 8 next year. They will also price on top of the MacBooks. That will make things more interesting shortly. You know, the biggest change may be that without Jobs, Apple just doesn't seem unbeatable anymore.

Computing » IBM to Build Super-Storage Phenom

In order to keep working when disks fail, the system reportedly not only stores multiple copies of data on different disks, but also pulls data from other drives when one goes down, and writes that data to a replacement drive slowly so the computer the array serves has enough capacity to continue working. If more disks nearby fail, the rebuilding process speeds up.

IBM (NYSE: IBM) is working on a 120-petabyte storage array that will consist of 200,000 disk drives, according to the MIT Technology Review.

The array is expected to store about 1 trillion files.

It's being developed for a client that needs a new supercomputer for detailed simulations of real-world phenomena.

Storing the metadata about the information in the array -- the names, types and other attributes of the files in the system -- will require about 2 PB.

The largest arrays available today are reported to be about 15 PB.

IBM spokesperson Ari Entin confirmed the existence of the superstorage project, but researchers were not available to provide comment in time for the publication of this article.

Issues With Big Storage

Building an array of this size requires solving several technical issues, and it could pose unique problems to users.

"Much of what has been learned in the data center over the past 30 years is only partially relevant to answering the question of whether it makes sense to put 100 petabytes into a single basket," Jay Heiser, a research vice president at the Gartner (NYSE: IT) Group, told TechNewsWorld.

"The bigger the drive, the harder your data falls," Heiser said.

For example, a problem with an EMC (NYSE: EMC) DMX-3 storage array in a data center outsourced to Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) brought down the systems of 27 agencies in the State of Virginia earlier this month.

"While there are advantages to putting a lot of eggs into bigger baskets, eventually a point is reached at which further increases in basket size are counterproductive," Heiser warned.

Making It Work

IBM's engineers reportedly developed a series of new hardware and software techniques for the hypermassive storage array, including wider storage racks and a water-cooling system.

Using water instead of air to cool the storage array is a reasonable approach because IBM "has a lot of experience" with water-cooling systems for mainframes, David Hill, principal at the Mesabi Group, told TechNewsWorld.

In order to keep working when disks fail, the system reportedly not only stores multiple copies of data on different disks, but also pulls data from other drives when one goes down, and writes that data to a replacement drive slowly so the computer the array serves has enough capacity to continue working.

If more disks nearby fail, the rebuilding process speeds up.

The super-array uses IBM's General Parallel File System (GPFS), a highly scalable clustered parallel file system that spreads individual files across multiple disks so the computer can read or write multiple parts of a file simultaneously.

In July, IBM researchers used the GPFS system running on a cluster of 10 eight-core systems and using solid state storage to scan 10 billion files on one system in 43 minutes. The previous record, set by IBM researchers in 2007, saw 1 billion files scanned in three hours.

Million-Year Guarantee

"IBM's built some of the highest-end supercomputers in the industry, so it knows how to do this stuff," Joe Clabby, president of Clabby Analytics, told TechNewsWorld.

What about disk failure, the perennial bugbear of storage arrays?

"I don't see how there can be any sort of storage system that doesn't sometimes become corrupted, and require not just restoration, but sometimes reconstruction," Gartner's Heiser remarked.

"IBM has developed techniques, which it has employed on at least one existing storage system, to compensate for the fact that individual drives will be failing on a more or less continuous basis," Hill said.

"That is why it can claim that a million years can go by without loss of data and no compromise in performance," Hill added.

It's likely that users won't be allowed to replace totally dead drives, and rebuilds of failed drives will be done on spare drives, Hill said. Also, IBM will probably use disk grooming techniques -- deleting old and unnecessary files on disks.

"As long as not too large a percentage of disks fail, there is really no need to physically replace them," Hill pointed out. "Few disk systems are fully utilized anyway, so a percentage or two of failed disks should not be a problem."

Computing » VMware Floats a Global Cloud

As VMware kicks off its 2011 VMworld confab, the company has announced several new offerings. Among them is a global cloud offering that links clouds from multiple service providers in varios countries around the world. The idea behind Global Connect is to provide multinational enterprises highly available cloud computing services locally in the various countries where they operate.

VMware (NYSE: VMW) made a number of announcements at VMworld 2011 in Las Vegas on Monday. Among its new projects is a global cloud offering.

This is, so to speak, a network of clouds from multiple services in various countries. Customers will work with their local vCloud Datacenter service provider to get into the global cloud.

Other interesting product announcements from VMware were vCloud Connector 1.5, which provides data transfer between public and private clouds; and vCenter Site Recovery Manager, which will let enterprises failover their applications to a service provider's site.

Whether or not global cloud access a good thing remains to be seen. Security in the cloud is not necessarily ironclad, and there's the possibility of data leaks, among other risks.

VMware did not respond to requests for comment by press time.

Cosmic Consciousness?

The idea behind Global Connect is to provide multinational enterprises highly available cloud computing services locally in the various countries where they operate.

The enterprises will go through their local vCloud Datacenter service provider, who will orchestrate service delivery internationally with Global Connect.

VMware's vCloud Datacenter services are built on VMware secure cloud infrastructure, including VMware vSphere, vCloud Director and VMware vShield. They provide globally consistent cloud infrastructure, management and security, and are offered by VMware certified providers.

Global Connect customers will only have to sign a single contract and will get a unified management console across the clouds they use with vCloud Connector.

Enterprises can find a local vCloud services provider by going here.

The Cloud Connection

VMware announced vCloud Connector in February. This is a free plugin that lets VMware vSphere administrators immediately begin deploying and managing virtual machines across VMware vCloud services from within the VMware vSphere client,

Version 1.5 of vCloud Connector was announced at VMworld 2011.

VMware vCloud Connector 1.5 will automatically retry and resume transfers interrupted by network problems. It will be accessible from any compatible Web browser and will also be available as a plugin for the vCenter Console.

Picking Up the Pieces

Disaster recovery has always been an issue for IT, and four VMware service provider partners Monday announced plans to introduce cloud-based disaster recovery services built on vCenter Site Recovery Manager 5.

They are FusionStorm, Hosting.com, Iland and VeriStor. The four will offer their services on a pay-per-use model.

Site Recovery Manager 5 includes built-in hypervisor-based replication for VMware vSphere environments and lets customers use heterogeneous storage across sites, cutting their storage costs.

Further, vCenter Site Recovery Manager 5 automates the entire site recovery and migration process. It also includes an automatic fallback capability that can automatically reverse replication and execute recovery plans so data is sent back automatically to the production site.

The Cloud and Safety

The security and reliability of the cloud has been called into question repeatedly, what with the hacking of Google's (Nasdaq: GOOG) infrastructure last year, a recent failure involving Amazon.com's (Nasdaq: AMZN) servers, and the Anonymous hacks into Sony's (NYSE: SNE) PlayStation cloud network.

Can enterprises feel safe putting their data in the cloud? And what about government mandates that certain data can't be stored in servers outside the borders of the data's country of origin?

Security "is more an issue around how the VMware infrastructure is implemented in a company's IT infrastructure than a weakness in the technology itself," Charles King, principal at Pund-IT, told the E-Commerce Times.

"You can have the most expensive and high-security locks in the world in your house, but if you forget to lock the door, somebody can walk right in," King added.

As corporations move toward the internal/external hybrid cloud, they are "going to have to start thinking about these issues in a way they never thought of before," King pointed out.

However, some businesses, such as companies in the defense industry, may not be able to use VMware's global cloud because the risk of a mistake would be too high, Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, warned.

It's likely to be safe to use the cloud for disaster recovery and failover, Enderle said.

"It's unlikely that both a local and an international cloud service would fail as a result of the same disaster," Enderle told the E-Commerce Times. "If they did, you might argue the disaster would be of global proportions and that would be the bigger issue anyway."