Kingsley Uyi Idehen's Weblog

Dare Obasanjo's post about the issue of Open Data (or Open Data Access), indicates that the "Open Data" issue is gradually beginning to resonate across a broader audience.

From my perspective on things I prefer to align my articulation of the changes that are occurring across our industry (courtesy of the Internet Inflection) to the MVC pattern.

Re. the Web Versions (or Dimensions of Interaction):

Web 1.0 - (V)iewer (Interactive Web experienced via Browser)

Web 2.0 - (C)ontroller Web (via Web Services API)

Web 3.0 - (M)odel (via the RDF Data Model as the basis for an Open and Standards based Concrete Conceptual Data Model)

The same applies to evolution of Openness:

Early work by Sun and other early UNIX Vendors - (V)iewer (Interaction with the same OS across different hardware platforms)

Open Source Movement - (C)ontroller (Open Access to Application Source Code )

Open Data - (M)odel (*where we are now* Freeing the Date from the Applications and Services while moving the application development focus to a Concrete Conceptual Data Model focus. The Data Web is a classic example.)

In the (C)ontroller realm where the focal point is Application Logic, data access issues aren't obvious (*I recall my battles with Richard Stallman re. the appropriate Open Source License variant for iODBC during the embryonic years of database and data access technology on Linux*). Data is an enigma in this realm, unfortunately. This implies that "Data Lock-in" occurs deliberately, but in most cases, inadvertently when we make Application Logic the focal point of everything. Another example is Web 2.0 in which the norm (unfortunately) is to suck in your data, and then refuse to give you complete ownership over how it is used (including the fact that you may want to share it elsewhere).

Prerelational DBMS vendors — a quick overview: "

IBM. With BOMP and D-BOMP, IBM was probably the first company to commercialize precursors to DBMS. (BOMP stood for Bill Of Materials Planning, foreshadowing the hierarchical architecture of IMS.) Out of those grew DL/1 and IMS, IBM’s flagship hierarchical DBMS, and the world’s first dominant DBMS product(s). Of course, IBM also innovated relational DBMS, via the research of E. F. ‘Ted’ Codd, then some prototype products, and eventual the mainframe version of DB2. To this day DB2 on the mainframe remains one of the world’s major DBMS, as does the separate but related product of DB2 for ‘open systems.’

Cincom. In the 1970s, Cincom was probably the most successful independent software product company. Its flagship product was Total, a shallow-network DBMS that was a little more general than the strictly hierarchical IMS. What’s more, Total ran on almost any brand of computer hardware. Cincom remains independent and privately held to this day.

Cullinane/Cullinet. Charlie Bachman innovated a true network DBMS at Honeywell, but it didn’t turn into a serious product at that time. B. F. Goodrich, however, ran a version. This is what John Cullinane’s company bought and turned into IDMS, which at least on the mainframe supplanted Total as the technical, mind share, and probably revenue market leader. Cullinet (as it was then called) ran into technical difficulties, however, losing ground to the more flexible index-based DBMS. It was eventually sold to Computer Associates.

A lot of software industry leaders cut their teeth at Cullinet, notably Andrew ‘Flip’ Filipowski, later the colorful founder of Platinum. Other alumni include Renato ‘Ron’ Zambonini, Dave Litwack, Dave Ireland, and the original PowerBuilder development team. John Landry and Bob Weiler ran the firm for a while toward the end, but they don’t really count; rather, they’re the most prominent alumni of applications pioneer McCormack & Dodge.

Note: Index-based is a term I used in and probably coined for my first report in 1982, comprising both inverted-list and relational RDBMS, as opposed to the link(ed)-list hierarchical and network products such as IMS, Total, and IDBMS. The companies that beat Cullinet were long-time rival Software AG, and then especially Applied Data Research; then all three of those independents were blown out by IBM’s DB2. And then the whole mainframe DBMS business was in turn obsoleted by the rise of UNIX … but I’m getting ahead of my story.

Software AG. Like Cincom, Germany-based Software AG is a 1970s DBMS pioneer that has always remained independent and privately held. Sort of. Twice, Software AG of North America was spun off as a separate, eventually public company. Software AG’s flagship DBMS was the inverted list product ADABAS. SAP’s MaxDB was also owned by Software AG for a while (and seemingly by every other significant German computer company as well – or more precisely, by Nixdorf where it was developed, and by Siemens after it bought Nixdorf).

I actually visited Software AG in Darmstadt once. Founder Peter Schnell and key techie Peter Page were both gracious hosts. Schnell was proud of their new building, and especially of the hexagon-based wooden dual desks he’d personally designed. General analytic rule – when the CEO is focused on the décor, this is not a good sign for the company’s near-term prospects. (I call this having an ‘edifice complex.’)

Applied Data Research (ADR). ADR is often credited as being the first independent software company, having introduced products in the late 1960s and prevailed in antitrust struggles against IBM to allow the business to survive. Basically, it sold programmer productivity tools. This led it to acquire Datacom/DB, an inverted-list DBMS developed in the Dallas area. In the early 1980s, Datacom/DB began to boom, and was on a track to surpass both IDMS and ADABAS in market share until DB2 showed up and blew them all away. ADR was particularly aided by its fourth-generation language (4GL) IDEAL, which was an excellent product notwithstanding the famous State of New Jersey fiasco. (As John Landry said to me about that one, ‘4GLs are powerful tools. In particular, they allow you to write bad programs really quickly.’)

ADR was an underappreciated powerhouse, boasting all of the Fortune 100 as customers way back in the early 1980s (yes, even archrival IBM). When the DBMS business stalled, however, ADR was quickly sold — first to Ameritech (the Illinois-based Baby Bell company), and soon thereafter to Computer Associates.

Computer Corporation of America (CCA). CCA’s DBMS Model 204 may have been the best of the prerelational products, boasting an inverted-list architecture akin to that of ADABAS and Datacom/DB. The company was also interesting in that it was first and foremost a government contract research shop, and hence did all sorts of interesting prototype work that sadly never got commercialized. In about 1983 it became that the company wasn’t going anywhere, and it put itself up for sale.

I was personally instrumental in that decision. Our investment banker pretended he was considering taking CCA public. CCA President Jim Rothnie showed us revenue projections. I asked how he had gotten them. He replied that he had taken the market size projection 5 years out, assumed 10%, and drawn a ‘plausible curve.’ However, I quickly got Socratic with him. ‘How many salesmen do you have?’ ‘How much revenue does the average experienced salesman produce?’ ‘How many experienced salesmen do you expect to have next year?’ ‘How high do you think their average productivity can grow?’ ‘Let us multiply.’ (Yes, I really said that. I can be a jerk. And anyway Jim was the sort of analytic guy one can say that to without giving serious offense.)

CCA was sold to a Canadian insurance company whose name I’ve now forgotten. Eventually, it was spun back out (perhaps after some intermediate changes of ownership), and resurfaced as primarily a data integration company, called Praxis.

In the real old days (mid 1970s, perhaps), Model 204 was resold by Informatics (later Informatics General, later the hostile takeover that became the guts of Sterling Software, which like so many other companies was eventually absorbed into Computer Associates). I know this because Richard Currier used to sell the product when he worked at Informatics. That probably makes Richard and me about the only two people who still remember the fact.

Hmm. I forgot to mention Intel’s System 2000. Well, truth be told it was a dying product even back when I first became an analyst in 1981, and I recall nothing about it, except Gene Lowenthal’s observation that Intel had had trouble selling chips and DBMS through the same salesforce. I think Al Sisto, who I probably met when he was head of sales at RTI (Relational Technology, Inc. — later called Ingres), came out of that business, but I’m not 100% sure. I remember Pete Tierney from that RTI management team more clearly anyway, although that’s mainly because we stayed in touch at subsequent companies over the years.

(Via Software Memories.)

Prerelational DBMS vendors — a quick overview: "

IBM. With BOMP and D-BOMP, IBM was probably the first company to commercialize precursors to DBMS. (BOMP stood for Bill Of Materials Planning, foreshadowing the hierarchical architecture of IMS.) Out of those grew DL/1 and IMS, IBM’s flagship hierarchical DBMS, and the world’s first dominant DBMS product(s). Of course, IBM also innovated relational DBMS, via the research of E. F. ‘Ted’ Codd, then some prototype products, and eventual the mainframe version of DB2. To this day DB2 on the mainframe remains one of the world’s major DBMS, as does the separate but related product of DB2 for ‘open systems.’

Cincom. In the 1970s, Cincom was probably the most successful independent software product company. Its flagship product was Total, a shallow-network DBMS that was a little more general than the strictly hierarchical IMS. What’s more, Total ran on almost any brand of computer hardware. Cincom remains independent and privately held to this day.

Cullinane/Cullinet. Charlie Bachman innovated a true network DBMS at Honeywell, but it didn’t turn into a serious product at that time. B. F. Goodrich, however, ran a version. This is what John Cullinane’s company bought and turned into IDMS, which at least on the mainframe supplanted Total as the technical, mind share, and probably revenue market leader. Cullinet (as it was then called) ran into technical difficulties, however, losing ground to the more flexible index-based DBMS. It was eventually sold to Computer Associates.

A lot of software industry leaders cut their teeth at Cullinet, notably Andrew ‘Flip’ Filipowski, later the colorful founder of Platinum. Other alumni include Renato ‘Ron’ Zambonini, Dave Litwack, Dave Ireland, and the original PowerBuilder development team. John Landry and Bob Weiler ran the firm for a while toward the end, but they don’t really count; rather, they’re the most prominent alumni of applications pioneer McCormack & Dodge.

Note: Index-based is a term I used in and probably coined for my first report in 1982, comprising both inverted-list and relational RDBMS, as opposed to the link(ed)-list hierarchical and network products such as IMS, Total, and IDBMS. The companies that beat Cullinet were long-time rival Software AG, and then especially Applied Data Research; then all three of those independents were blown out by IBM’s DB2. And then the whole mainframe DBMS business was in turn obsoleted by the rise of UNIX … but I’m getting ahead of my story.

Software AG. Like Cincom, Germany-based Software AG is a 1970s DBMS pioneer that has always remained independent and privately held. Sort of. Twice, Software AG of North America was spun off as a separate, eventually public company. Software AG’s flagship DBMS was the inverted list product ADABAS. SAP’s MaxDB was also owned by Software AG for a while (and seemingly by every other significant German computer company as well – or more precisely, by Nixdorf where it was developed, and by Siemens after it bought Nixdorf).

I actually visited Software AG in Darmstadt once. Founder Peter Schnell and key techie Peter Page were both gracious hosts. Schnell was proud of their new building, and especially of the hexagon-based wooden dual desks he’d personally designed. General analytic rule – when the CEO is focused on the décor, this is not a good sign for the company’s near-term prospects. (I call this having an ‘edifice complex.’)

Applied Data Research (ADR). ADR is often credited as being the first independent software company, having introduced products in the late 1960s and prevailed in antitrust struggles against IBM to allow the business to survive. Basically, it sold programmer productivity tools. This led it to acquire Datacom/DB, an inverted-list DBMS developed in the Dallas area. In the early 1980s, Datacom/DB began to boom, and was on a track to surpass both IDMS and ADABAS in market share until DB2 showed up and blew them all away. ADR was particularly aided by its fourth-generation language (4GL) IDEAL, which was an excellent product notwithstanding the famous State of New Jersey fiasco. (As John Landry said to me about that one, ‘4GLs are powerful tools. In particular, they allow you to write bad programs really quickly.’)

ADR was an underappreciated powerhouse, boasting all of the Fortune 100 as customers way back in the early 1980s (yes, even archrival IBM). When the DBMS business stalled, however, ADR was quickly sold — first to Ameritech (the Illinois-based Baby Bell company), and soon thereafter to Computer Associates.

Computer Corporation of America (CCA). CCA’s DBMS Model 204 may have been the best of the prerelational products, boasting an inverted-list architecture akin to that of ADABAS and Datacom/DB. The company was also interesting in that it was first and foremost a government contract research shop, and hence did all sorts of interesting prototype work that sadly never got commercialized. In about 1983 it became that the company wasn’t going anywhere, and it put itself up for sale.

I was personally instrumental in that decision. Our investment banker pretended he was considering taking CCA public. CCA President Jim Rothnie showed us revenue projections. I asked how he had gotten them. He replied that he had taken the market size projection 5 years out, assumed 10%, and drawn a ‘plausible curve.’ However, I quickly got Socratic with him. ‘How many salesmen do you have?’ ‘How much revenue does the average experienced salesman produce?’ ‘How many experienced salesmen do you expect to have next year?’ ‘How high do you think their average productivity can grow?’ ‘Let us multiply.’ (Yes, I really said that. I can be a jerk. And anyway Jim was the sort of analytic guy one can say that to without giving serious offense.)

CCA was sold to a Canadian insurance company whose name I’ve now forgotten. Eventually, it was spun back out (perhaps after some intermediate changes of ownership), and resurfaced as primarily a data integration company, called Praxis.

In the real old days (mid 1970s, perhaps), Model 204 was resold by Informatics (later Informatics General, later the hostile takeover that became the guts of Sterling Software, which like so many other companies was eventually absorbed into Computer Associates). I know this because Richard Currier used to sell the product when he worked at Informatics. That probably makes Richard and me about the only two people who still remember the fact.

Hmm. I forgot to mention Intel’s System 2000. Well, truth be told it was a dying product even back when I first became an analyst in 1981, and I recall nothing about it, except Gene Lowenthal’s observation that Intel had had trouble selling chips and DBMS through the same salesforce. I think Al Sisto, who I probably met when he was head of sales at RTI (Relational Technology, Inc. — later called Ingres), came out of that business, but I’m not 100% sure. I remember Pete Tierney from that RTI management team more clearly anyway, although that’s mainly because we stayed in touch at subsequent companies over the years.

(Via Software Memories.)

I am pleased to unveil (officially) the fact that Virtuoso is now available in Open Source form.

What Is Virtuoso?

A powerful next generation server product that implements otherwise distinct server functionality within a single server product. Think of Virtuoso as the server software analog of a dual core processor where each core represents a traditional server functionality realm.

Where did it come from?

The Virtuoso History page tells the whole story.

What Functionality Does It Provide?

1. Object-Relational DBMS Engine (ORDBMS like PostgreSQL and DBMS engine like MySQL)

2. XML Data Management (with support for XQuery, XPath, XSLT, and XML Schema)

3. RDF Triple Store (or Database) that supports SPARQL (Query Language, Transport Protocol, and XML Results Serialization format)

4. Service Oriented Architecture (it combines a BPEL Engine with an ESB)

5. Web Application Server (supports HTTP/WebDAV)

6. NNTP compliant Discussion Server

90% of the aforementioned functionality has been available in Virtuoso since 2000 with the RDF Triple Store being the only 2006 item.

What Platforms are Supported

The Virtuoso build scripts have been successfully tested on Mac OS X (Universal Binary Target), Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris (AIX, HP-UX, and True64 UNIX will follow soon). A Windows Visual Studio project file is also in the works (ETA some time this week).

Why Open Source?

Simple, there is no value in a product of this magnitude remaining the "best kept secret". That status works well for our competitors, but absolutely works against the legions of new generation developers, systems integrators, and knowledge workers that need to be aware of what is actually achievable today with the right server architecture.

What Open Source License is it under?

GPL version 2.

What's the business model?

Dual licensing.

The Open Source version of Virtuoso includes all of the functionality listed above. While the Virtual Database (distributed heterogeneous join engine) and Replication Engine (across heterogeneous data sources) functionality will only be available in the commercial version.

Where is the Project Hosted?

On SourceForge.

Is there a product Blog?

Of course!

Up until this point, the Virtuoso Product Blog has been a covert live demonstration of some aspects of Virtuoso (Content Management). My Personal Blog and the Virtuoso Product Blog are actual Virtuoso instances, and have been so since I started blogging in 2003.

Is There a product Wiki?

Sure! The Virtuoso Product Wiki is also an instance of Virtuoso demonstrating another aspect of the Content Management prowess of Virtuoso.

What About Online Documentation?

Yep! Virtuoso Online Documentation is hosted via yet another Virtuoso instance. This particular instance also attempts to demonstrate Free Text search combined with the ability to repurpose well formed content in a myriad of forms (Atom, RSS, RDF, OPML, and OCS).

What about Tutorials and Demos?

The Virtuoso Online Tutorial Site has operated as a live demonstration and tutorial portal for a numbers of years. During the same timeframe (circa. 2001) we also assembled a few Screencast style demos (their look feel certainly show their age; updates are in the works).

BTW - We have also updated the Virtuoso FAQ and also released a number of missing Virtuoso White Papers (amongst many long overdue action items).

I am pleased to unveil (officially) the fact that Virtuoso is now available in Open Source form.

What Is Virtuoso?

A powerful next generation server product that implements otherwise distinct server functionality within a single server product. Think of Virtuoso as the server software analog of a dual core processor where each core represents a traditional server functionality realm.

Where did it come from?

The Virtuoso History page tells the whole story.

What Functionality Does It Provide?

1. Object-Relational DBMS Engine (ORDBMS like PostgreSQL and DBMS engine like MySQL)

2. XML Data Management (with support for XQuery, XPath, XSLT, and XML Schema)

3. RDF Triple Store (or Database) that supports SPARQL (Query Language, Transport Protocol, and XML Results Serialization format)

4. Service Oriented Architecture (it combines a BPEL Engine with an ESB)

5. Web Application Server (supports HTTP/WebDAV)

6. NNTP compliant Discussion Server

90% of the aforementioned functionality has been available in Virtuoso since 2000 with the RDF Triple Store being the only 2006 item.

What Platforms are Supported

The Virtuoso build scripts have been successfully tested on Mac OS X (Universal Binary Target), Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris (AIX, HP-UX, and True64 UNIX will follow soon). A Windows Visual Studio project file is also in the works (ETA some time this week).

Why Open Source?

Simple, there is no value in a product of this magnitude remaining the "best kept secret". That status works well for our competitors, but absolutely works against the legions of new generation developers, systems integrators, and knowledge workers that need to be aware of what is actually achievable today with the right server architecture.

What Open Source License is it under?

GPL version 2.

What's the business model?

Dual licensing.

The Open Source version of Virtuoso includes all of the functionality listed above. While the Virtual Database (distributed heterogeneous join engine) and Replication Engine (across heterogeneous data sources) functionality will only be available in the commercial version.

Where is the Project Hosted?

On SourceForge.

Is there a product Blog?

Of course!

Up until this point, the Virtuoso Product Blog has been a covert live demonstration of some aspects of Virtuoso (Content Management). My Personal Blog and the Virtuoso Product Blog are actual Virtuoso instances, and have been so since I started blogging in 2003.

Is There a product Wiki?

Sure! The Virtuoso Product Wiki is also an instance of Virtuoso demonstrating another aspect of the Content Management prowess of Virtuoso.

What About Online Documentation?

Yep! Virtuoso Online Documentation is hosted via yet another Virtuoso instance. This particular instance also attempts to demonstrate Free Text search combined with the ability to repurpose well formed content in a myriad of forms (Atom, RSS, RDF, OPML, and OCS).

What about Tutorials and Demos?

The Virtuoso Online Tutorial Site has operated as a live demonstration and tutorial portal for a numbers of years. During the same timeframe (circa. 2001) we also assembled a few Screencast style demos (their look feel certainly show their age; updates are in the works).

BTW - We have also updated the Virtuoso FAQ and also released a number of missing Virtuoso White Papers (amongst many long overdue action items).

"...Also today I came across the latest project of a man who wants to tear down Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web and replace it with his own vision. It used to be known as Xanadu, but has since morphed into Transliterature, A Humanist Design. I am of course referring to Ted Nelson, who invented the term 'hypertext' in 1965 and is generally regarded as a computing pioneer.

Ted Nelson recently wrote an essay about 'Indirect Documents', which got Slashdotted today. In the essay Nelson outlines why (in his opinion) the Xanadu project failed and he explains his new vision for Transliterature. He takes a number of potshots at Tim Berners-Lee's WWW on the way, e.g.:

'Why don't I like the web? I hate its flapping and screeching and emphasis on appearance; its paper-simulation rectangles of Valuable Real Estate, artifically created by the NCSA browser, now hired out to advertisers; its hierarchies exposed and imposed; its untyped one-way links only from inside the document. (The one-way links hidden under text were a regrettable simplification of hypertext which I assented to in '68 on the HES project. But that's another story.) Only trivial links are possible; there is nothing to support careful annotation and study; and, of course, there is no transclusion.'

Ted Nelson is certainly an original and I'm glad he's still around to throw spanners in the works. I've written about him before and I'm sure I will again, Web 2.0 or not.

"

(Excerpted From: Read/Write Web.)

My thoughts on the commentary above:

There is nothing fundamentally incompatible between Ted Nelson's pursuits and future incarnation's of the Web. None whatsoever -- we are simply working our way through an process. The process in question is what I call "standards driven ubiquity" (becoming de facto at Internet Speed). Remember Sun's "The Network is the Computer" vision? Well, without a "Computer" in mind-space you can't think in terms of "Operating Systems". Thats all changing, because today we are gradually beginning to accept the imminent reality that "The Internet is the Operating System" and not Windows/UNIX/Mac OS X/Others. Ahem! And after the Operating System what comes next? I think a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and I think we know what that is (in all of its controversial glory), the very thing we refer to as Web 2.0 (the APIs for the Internet Operating System).

Note: In addition to the Computer, Operating System, and Application Programming Interfaces, we also have those frequently misunderstood and under-appreciated workhorses called "Databases" in place (but we still call them Web Sites for now). And by the way, "Internet Filesystem" has been there forever, but for some reason we can't see WebDAV in all its current and future glory (that will change very soon also!).

Ted and TBL are cool with each (whether they know it or not)! I see no mutual exclusivity in their collective visions (IMHO) :-)

"...Also today I came across the latest project of a man who wants to tear down Tim Berners-Lee's World Wide Web and replace it with his own vision. It used to be known as Xanadu, but has since morphed into Transliterature, A Humanist Design. I am of course referring to Ted Nelson, who invented the term 'hypertext' in 1965 and is generally regarded as a computing pioneer.

Ted Nelson recently wrote an essay about 'Indirect Documents', which got Slashdotted today. In the essay Nelson outlines why (in his opinion) the Xanadu project failed and he explains his new vision for Transliterature. He takes a number of potshots at Tim Berners-Lee's WWW on the way, e.g.:

'Why don't I like the web? I hate its flapping and screeching and emphasis on appearance; its paper-simulation rectangles of Valuable Real Estate, artifically created by the NCSA browser, now hired out to advertisers; its hierarchies exposed and imposed; its untyped one-way links only from inside the document. (The one-way links hidden under text were a regrettable simplification of hypertext which I assented to in '68 on the HES project. But that's another story.) Only trivial links are possible; there is nothing to support careful annotation and study; and, of course, there is no transclusion.'

Ted Nelson is certainly an original and I'm glad he's still around to throw spanners in the works. I've written about him before and I'm sure I will again, Web 2.0 or not.

"

(Excerpted From: Read/Write Web.)

My thoughts on the commentary above:

There is nothing fundamentally incompatible between Ted Nelson's pursuits and future incarnation's of the Web. None whatsoever -- we are simply working our way through an process. The process in question is what I call "standards driven ubiquity" (becoming de facto at Internet Speed). Remember Sun's "The Network is the Computer" vision? Well, without a "Computer" in mind-space you can't think in terms of "Operating Systems". Thats all changing, because today we are gradually beginning to accept the imminent reality that "The Internet is the Operating System" and not Windows/UNIX/Mac OS X/Others. Ahem! And after the Operating System what comes next? I think a set of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and I think we know what that is (in all of its controversial glory), the very thing we refer to as Web 2.0 (the APIs for the Internet Operating System).

Note: In addition to the Computer, Operating System, and Application Programming Interfaces, we also have those frequently misunderstood and under-appreciated workhorses called "Databases" in place (but we still call them Web Sites for now). And by the way, "Internet Filesystem" has been there forever, but for some reason we can't see WebDAV in all its current and future glory (that will change very soon also!).

Ted and TBL are cool with each (whether they know it or not)! I see no mutual exclusivity in their collective visions (IMHO) :-)

On the surface, Graham’s piece seems like a nice pat on the back to the Mac platform. But there’s an implication in his piece that the world’s most prodigiously talented programmers are only now switching (or switching back) to the Mac, when in fact some of them have been here all along. GUI programming is hard, and for GUI programmers, the Mac has always been, in Brent Simmons’s words, “The Show”.

I.e. the idea that by the mid-’90s the Mac user base had been whittled down to “graphic designers and grandmas” is demonstrably false — someone must have been writing the software the designers and grandmas were using, no? — but I don’t think it’s worth pressing the point, because I suspect it wasn’t really what Graham meant to imply. And the main thrust of his point is true: there is a certain class of hackers — your prototypical Unix nerds — who not only weren’t using Macs a decade ago, but whose antipathy toward Macs was downright hostile. And it is remarkable that these hackers are now among Mac OS X’s strongest adherents.

It’s another sign of Mac OS X’s dual nature: from the perspective of your typical user (and particularly long-time Mac users), it is the Mac OS with a modern Unix architecture encapsulated under the hood; from the perspective of the hackers Graham writes of, it is Unix with a vastly superior GUI.

Read on....

On the surface, Graham’s piece seems like a nice pat on the back to the Mac platform. But there’s an implication in his piece that the world’s most prodigiously talented programmers are only now switching (or switching back) to the Mac, when in fact some of them have been here all along. GUI programming is hard, and for GUI programmers, the Mac has always been, in Brent Simmons’s words, “The Show”.

I.e. the idea that by the mid-’90s the Mac user base had been whittled down to “graphic designers and grandmas” is demonstrably false — someone must have been writing the software the designers and grandmas were using, no? — but I don’t think it’s worth pressing the point, because I suspect it wasn’t really what Graham meant to imply. And the main thrust of his point is true: there is a certain class of hackers — your prototypical Unix nerds — who not only weren’t using Macs a decade ago, but whose antipathy toward Macs was downright hostile. And it is remarkable that these hackers are now among Mac OS X’s strongest adherents.

It’s another sign of Mac OS X’s dual nature: from the perspective of your typical user (and particularly long-time Mac users), it is the Mac OS with a modern Unix architecture encapsulated under the hood; from the perspective of the hackers Graham writes of, it is Unix with a vastly superior GUI.

Read on....

We are at an interesting crossroads in the computer industry (IMHO) . Apple is about to unleash Tiger (ETA: one week from now), and this operating system release could end up being the crucial round of the titanic battle between Apple and Microsoft. The battle which starts at the Operating System level reminds me of the "Rumble In The Jungle" (circa. 1974, Kinshasa, Zaire); Apple in the role of Ali (aka "The Greatest" who was the overwhelming underdog at time) and Microsoft in the role of George Foreman (who at the time was logically invincible).

The shakesperian tale of Macbeth also comes to mind as depicted in the excerpt below:

".... Macbeth goes to visit the witches in their cavern. There, they show him a sequence of demons and spirits who present him with further prophecies: he must beware of Macduff, a Scottish nobleman who opposed Macbeth's accession to the throne; he is incapable of being harmed by any man born of woman; and he will be safe until Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane Castle. "

Having used all the major operating systems on a serious basis for a number of years in a variety of modes; user, developer, and administrator. I have always felt that a RISC based UNIX operating system (of BSD genealogical branch extraction), if somehow combined with a user interface that is superior to Windows, would ultimately unravel the Windows Desktop Monopoly. That operating system exists today in the form of Mac OS X (its lastest Tiger release simply kicks the differential up a notch).

Back to the Macbeth correlation:

"Birnam Woods coming to Dunsinane" is the metaphoric equivalent of desktop users and first time computer users being forced (by the scourge of virus and spyware) to revaluate Windows as the only choice for productive desktop computing. What would you recommend to "Aunt Milly" when she tells you she wants to get on the Internet? Especially if "Aunt Milly" isn't living with you?

"Man not born of a woman" is no different to saying: UNIX with a superior user interface to Windows!

I don't think you need me to tell who play the characters of Macbeth and Macduff in this drama :-)

The Windows security vulnerabilities quagmire (google juice on this phrase is currently 6,620 pages) has basically created an inflection of monumental proportions adversely affecting Windows and creating great visibility and evaluation building opportunities for Mac OS X ("once users experience a Mac they don't come back to Windows!").

Paul Murphy of cio-today.com has also written a great article sheds light on the often overlooked hardware aspect to the security problem for Windows Here is a poignant excerpt:

Software and Hardware Vulnerabilities

At present, attacks on Microsoft's Windows products are generally drawn from a different population of possible attacks than those on Unix variants such as BSD, Linux and Solaris. From a practical perspective, the key difference is that attacks on Wintel tend to have two parts: A software vulnerability is exploited to give a remote attacker access to the x86 hardware and that access is then used to gain control of the machine.

In contrast, attacks on Unix generally require some form of initial legal access to the machine and focus on finding software ways to upgrade priveleges illegally.

Consider, for example, CAN-2004-1134 in the NIST vulnerabilities database:

Summary: Buffer overflow in the Microsoft W3Who ISAPI (w3who.dll) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a long query string.

Published Before: 1/10/2005

Severity: High

The vulnerability exists in Microsoft's code, but the exploit depends on the rigid stack-order execution and limited page protection inherent in the x86 architecture. If Windows ran on Risc, that vulnerability would still exist, but it would be a non-issue because the exploit opportunity would be more theoretical than practical.

Linux and open-source applications are thought to have far fewer software vulnerabilities than Microsoft's products, but Linux on Intel (Nasdaq: INTC - news) is susceptible to the same kind of attacks as those now predominantly affecting Wintel users. For real long-term security improvements, therefore, the right answer is to look at Linux, or any other Unix, on non x86 hardware.

One such option is provided by Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL - news) BSD-based products on the PowerPC-derived G4 and G5 CPUs. Linus Torvalds, for example, apparently now runs Linux on a Mac G5 and there are several Linux distributions for this hardware -- all of which are immune to the typical x86-oriented exploit.

This may even been the nullifier of that age old argument about porting Mac OS X to the x86 in order to broaden its adoption potential?

Mac OS X is certainly a breath of fresh air for anyone who needs to simply get stuff done with their desktops and notebooks.