Craig Burton

Here is a new set of graphics done in Poser. There is no post work done in Photoshop yet.

1007 blog posts ago, Kim Cameron rocked the Identity planet when he rolled out the Laws of Identity. He recently release the “short version” of these laws. Here they are:

People using computers should be in control of giving out information about themselves, just as they are in the physical world.

The minimum information needed for the purpose at hand should be released, and only to those who need it. Details should be retained no longer than necessary.

It should NOT be possible to automatically link up everything we do in all aspects of how we use the Internet. A single identifier that stitches everything up would have many unintended consequences.

We need choice in terms of who provides our identity information in different contexts.

The system must be built so we can understand how it works, make rational decisions and protect ourselves.

Devices through which we employ identity should offer people the same kinds of identity controls - just as car makers offer similar controls so we can all drive safely.

I think the last one still hasn’t quite nailed the issue. We are not after similar identity controls just for safety, we seek consistency for comfort and assurance. People will use the same mechanism over and over if consistency is present. It doesn’t have to be identical, just consistent.

I am so honored when somebody like Phil Windley gives me a plug. I am anxious to see how things turned out with Evan from Identi.ca on the discussion about name federation. I will comment as soon as I hear it.

Recently my good friend and fellow Utahn (pronounced Utah-uhn) Phil Windley declared the arrival of laconi.ca as a major breakthrough in microblogging technology. He is even toying with installing it himself at home. (Admittedly fears repercussions.)

The two main features of laconi.ca are, it is open source, and it has federated naming as an option. Federated naming a the fancy way of saying a distributed name space. Here is the thing, the laconi.ca name space is the laconi.ca namespace only. Who cares if a no-name (laconi.ca) name space is distributed or not?  Bottom line is that it is not the Twitter name space. It can only “in its dreams” conspire to become that.

What’s worse is, adding names to the laconi.ca name space is really hard. Installation of Laconi.ca is really hard. This is ridiculous.

Identi.ca has a system implemented on laconi.ca. But here is the even more bizarre thing, identi.ca is yet it’s own name space. It doesn’t federate with other Laconi.ca name spaces. You can’t integrate your name space with the identi.ca name space. How crazy is that?

I Love Twitter

With all of the downsides of Twitter, I still love it. Why? Because it has the big names already in it! Don’t you get that?

I chortle at my cohorts— @stevegillmor and @jessestay (twitter names) that are bad mouthing twitter and claiming that somehow other systems are better from some tech reason or another. The big names are already in Twitter. Ample reason to stay and stick out the growing pains.

Essay on the Nature of Software Infrastructure—the Run to Ubiquity

Look into the mirror of history to see the history of tomorrow.
— .D. LuCxeed

Introduction

This essay briefly covers how Novell went about creating a new software category—software infrastructure. Software infrastructure was different than hardware, software or firmware. It was priced differently and was viewed differently and behaved differently in the market than its other three siblings.

This historical view is meant to create a discussion on how we might treat the emerging software infrastructure.

One of the core theses of this essay is that Novell did something that no one had done before. Novell sold software infrastructure as a separate product without hardware. Up until 1983, software infrastructure was never sold separately, it came with hardware. It was almost considered hardware. As I will explain, shifting away from providing software infrastructure coupled with hardware to providing software infrastructure independently changed things forever and is about to change things again as we gear up like never before for the run to ubiquity.

The role of software and hardware

Circa 1984, software and hardware divisions were simple—especially when it came to PCs. The only two applications driving personal computer business use were Lotus 1-2-3 and WordStar. The biggest game software was Microsoft Flight Simulator. In these days, there was no abstraction layer between the application and the hardware. MS Flight Simulator and Lotus 1-2-3 did not use the operating system to display anything; these applications wrote directly to the graphics cards to gain maximum performance and minimum intrusion.

There were three classes of wares that made up personal computer systems; hardware, software, and firmware (I am not going to go into the mini-computer discussion here at all.). This of course was the impetus for Novell naming its product “NetWare.” Before NetWare, the software category was divided into two big categories—below the API and above the API. Below the API was operating system stuff. Above the API was application stuff. As I explained above, the applications of the day did not stick to working above the API all of the time, it was common to break the rules and go directly to the hardware.

As I write this, I imagine that most of my readers know all of this and have heard it so many times that they are wondering what screw has come loose that would cause me to hash through this all again. Just hang on a bit longer and it will become apparent.

A new “Ware” in the house

As most people know, before NetWare, Novell was a hardware company. It built a very expensive workstation and a centralized server that connected all of these workstations together. The advent of the PC and the incredible revolution of mass storage caused Novell to quickly abandon the hardware business.

But I have to tell you, trying to figure out what NetWare really was, and how to price it and think about it created some significant dilemmas. I won’t take you through the whole thing other than to say that NetWare was priced and sold as a hybrid between hardware and software. We have since come to call it “software infrastructure.”

Software infrastructure has the unique characteristic that sometimes it acts like hardware, and sometimes it acts like software. Software—both below the API and above the API—had then and has now some different characteristics than software infrastructure.

While there are other issues, I will focus on how software infrastructure relates to the laws of supply and demand.

Software Infrastructure and the Laws of Supply and Demand

When you look at software infrastructure, the traditional laws of supply and demand are reversed. Traditional economics says that if something is scarce, there is greater demand for the item and the price increases. As the item becomes ubiquitous, demand decreases as does the price.

With software infrastructure, ubiquity is what creates demand. Price and elasticity are not subject to scarcity. In other words, you want to have software infrastructure as ubiquitous as possible as fast as possible. Price is sustainable by delivering the next—never ending—component of infrastructure, not by traditional protectionism tactics.

A lot of people I discuss this with still argue with me about how important protectionism is. Again, the case of Novell comes up. From one point of view, Microsoft forced the price of NetWare down by “embracing and extending” NetWare with its own networking products. This is just not the case.

Novell, in a fit of protectionism decided that it was going to drag its feet in providing networking support for Windows 95—seriously. The thinking was that Novell was so powerful that somehow it could slow down the adoption of Windows. This protectionism brain fart just gave Microsoft the opportunity to get the credibility it needed and to become the main supplier of NetWare-like connectivity.

The point of this essay isn’t to give Novell grief; this inverted economic model on software infrastructure is not readily evident and is a hard concept to get.

So here is my point about the inverted supply and demand model; today’s core software infrastructure is made up of a core set of services. Roughly, file, print, web, database, directory, security, and the Internet protocol suite. Anything that artificially restricts the growth of this infrastructure compounds growth limitation on almost all technology across the board.

Anything that increases ubiquity of these core services helps the market mature and get better.

This is why net neutralization is so dangerous. Not just because is limits freedom, but because it threatens to artificially impact the run to ubiquity. The run to ubiquity—I can’t emphasize how important this is.

Let’s put it other terms. Technology is on an evolutionary track similar to all of the other animal kingdoms. According to some, like Kevin Kelly, it is exactly like an animal kingdom. In these terms, think of the Internet as a terra forming process—the creation of a technology planet, as it were. For this planet to really be a place that lets technology evolve and be used like some of us predict, there need to be ubiquitous core infrastructure components. Think of software infrastructure as air. Software infrastructure needs to be as ubiquitous as air. This will not diminish its value, but make its value elemental. Can you place a value on the presence of air? Probably not. It is so ubiquitous in fact, that you only consider its value when you can’t get any. Or, when you see the air quality in Beijing, whichever comes first.

Summary

Software infrastructure is not like a dial tone. It is not a highway that data “travels” on and thus to be thought of as a goods delivery system that should be taxed and regulated. Software infrastructure is technology that gives life to the planet of discovery, invention, and progress. If you artificially limit infrastructure, you artificially limit discovery, invention, and progress. Can you imagine if the government tried to tax and regulate air.

I stumbled on this note from Eric Schmidt. I haven’t called the number yet. But I am going to. I will let you know how my experience goes. I think I will record it.

Google Help Center

A Note to Google Users on Net Neutrality:

The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There’s a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it’s a debate that’s so important Google is asking you to get involved. We’re asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Eric Schmidt

Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success…A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny."
- Vint Cerf [PDF]
Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol

The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net."
- Tim Berners-Lee
Inventor of the World Wide Web

Few people understand what really happened with the advent of NetWare. Novell was the first company to figure out how to make money selling software infrastructure. Before Novell, soft infrastructure was included with some hardware, or sold with a service contract.

The dynamics this created that still exist and some of the lessons learned at in my next mini essay.

Look for it Monday August, 11.

I was doing my daily stumbling found this handy tool and generated a nifty entry.

Abject apologies I just realized I have not updated this since last month… You would not believe I spend all my time in front of a computer. I prostrate myself in sorrow and beg thy forgiveness..

I am recuperating with only your readership as life preserver, learning to speak Japanese, just generally being asleep, dreaming and chancing to the local soccer team, my day lasts forever from 4:55am to dawn. I am so over it. I need a holiday.

I make a solemn vow I will make more of an effort to blog more often. What? What do you mean you don’t believe me?

From the Aussie Bloggers. Requires Java.

This is a quick video done with Poser and Particle Elements and finished in Adobe Premiere.

Some more late night poser rendering. Video to follow.