Frictionless or seamless sharing, how about mindless sharing

November 25th, 2011

The first thing you noticed when Google Buzz was activated was that it turned everyone you’ve ever had email exchange with into a friend. If you think about that for one second, you immediately see that that was a mindless thing to do.  A public outcry ensued forcing Google to make changes, but apparently other people don’t learn from such missteps.

I  regularly use Twitter’s Favourites button to bookmark items that I intend to read later. Once I’m done reading an item I remove it from my Favourites. I do exactly the same thing with Google Reader, just bookmark stuff for reading later. Does that mean that I’m in love with whatever was bookmarked, or that I even like it? Absolutely not. And I think I’m not alone.

A while back, when I discovered that sites apparently unrelated to Facebook were able to use my active Facebook session to automatically display a list of my friends, I was quite annoyed. From that moment on I always log out from Facebook after each visit, and that seemed to have temporarily stopped the stalking. Now, with their so-called frictionless sharing, Facebook is returning with a mirror of that stalking feature: stalk your Internet activity and report it back to Facebook. This is not only dumb, but it also makes the notion of sharing pointless.

I once read an article where Facebook was arguing that Google didn’t get social media because Google didn’t cater for what people actually cared about. Well, I don’t think people necessarily care about everything they may see or touch every day. And I don’t think people care about sharing everything and anything they may see or touch on the Internet either. In this path, I see Facebook losing their way: they are increasingly pushing what Facebook actually care about, if necessary to the detriment of what the user actually cares about, akin to the time when people started calling Google on their mantra of don’t be evil. Facebook and Google seem to be orbiting on opposite directions around the same object, it’s early to tell who is (or isn’t) converging towards that object of desire, but the shape or their trajectories appear similar to me. That would mean that one is getting it more and more, while the other may be missing it more and more.

The way things are going, notions like sharing, caring, friends, all of these things are losing their meaning on the Internet. These notions are naturally about being selective, automatic sharing isn’t selective because it lacks feelings. In our teenage years we want all the attention we can get, and that tend to be just a phase that we grow out of eventually. As we mature we tend to become more focused, hence increasingly selective about the things we do or say or share. The situations where we lose control of what we share can often become taxing experiences for us.

There now exist many sites that offer read later functionality. I’ve not been eagerly using any, but at least those services have a better alignment between user intention and the features that they are offering. But do we ever, in our large masses, want to grab attention all the time on all the things we do? I certainly don’t. I don’t think sharing should be automatic, unless we opt it to be for ourselves. This is why I think Facebook’s frictionless sharing is dumb.

Java is the new Cobol, of course. How else can it be? Enter Eclipse Xtend.

November 5th, 2011

I just saw an announcement of a new programming language from none other than the Eclipse group, you know of the Java IDE fame. A very quick scan of this new language, called Xtend, it looks like they’ve borrowed a bit from Groovy, something from Scala and maybe something from CoffeeScript. The fact that this language is directly supported by Eclipse IDE is a huge advantage, and that may be to the detriment of Scala which still hasn’t got a great IDE support yet. I think this move by Eclipse may also be a preemptive strike against JetBrain’s Kotlin. If the community picks up on this then I expect initiatives like Redhat’s upcoming Ceylon programming to struggle in gaining any foothold.

I’ve been wanting to write a post on how I thought Java just wasn’t good for programmer productivity, seeing this announcement encouraged me to finally post it. I did something with JBoss Seam a few months back, took a step back to look at the code and thought to myself what a waste!. I can’t believe anyone in 2011 would want to create new code using JSF for example, it simply feels wrong.

From the moment that I renewed my focus on functional languages, I find pure Java code to be an eyesore, the web tooling around Java are simply atrocious compared to what you can do with functional languages like Ruby, Clojure or Scala. Clojure way well be the most elegant of the lot, I like it so much that I’m increasingly considering doing more hacking than I’ve done in years.

Competition is a good thing. But I’m wondering if Xtend is a more of a Groovy clone and if that could be such a good thing for the wider programmer community. I haven’t written a single line of code with Xtend yet, this is just a spontaneous reaction, in fact a post I had drafted about Java as the new Cobol, but refreshed in the light of this announcement by Eclipse.

Comfort zones and prejudices motivate people, not just with VCs in Silicon Valley

October 30th, 2011

I read a well articulated blog posting by Hank Williams, in which he was arguing that comfort rather than racism may be motivating some of the industry movers in Silicon Valley. I think such observation is more general than he may have put it. I would argue that the sense of comfort (or discomfort) motivates most of the decisions people routinely make, and this all around the world.

As I could make out, Hank’s posting was a part of the debate on diversity raging on Twitter and the blogosphere. While I don’t pretend to understand the sensitivities around this topic in the US, I think such phenomena can be observed everywhere and this may have always been the case with human beings. This topic would fill volumes, I won’t even try.

I liked how Hank made clear that people should avoid victimisation and focus on what they can do to help themselves, and that is a really nice one that may be worth elaborating on. I have learned that if you feel and act like a victim, whatever the circumstances, then you are defeated before the battle even begin. Such attitude would seldom be exhibited by very good hackers, or geeks.

Indeed one of the traits of good hackers is that they don’t give up easily, they would look for solutions until they can find something that works. If that attitude is smartly applied to entrepreneurial endeavours, then the person has a chance to succeed. The myth of overnight success has long been debunked, just look up the history of any successful person. Some people may be looking for cheap/easy money, or just not trying hard enough to leverage their own strengths and merits, that would also be a way of victimising oneself.

Diversity is a big subject in many parts of the world, and rightly so because otherwise the human society doesn’t move forward. When the subject is cheaply tossed into every debate then that dilutes its importance and turns it into a gossip making object. Those who feel like they are on the wrong side of the diversity should stay focused. And these may be other take aways from Hank’s posting, though I don’t know if he intended it that way.

If you are into this sort of topic, Hank’s post is well worth reading.

Google is now seriously focusing on design. What took them so long?

October 21st, 2011

I’ve used this expression a few post ago: what took them so long?

It’s quite obvious that Google is now focused on delivering good design too. I think their design isn’t so bad, I like the simple and clean look it has. Apparently Reader will gain that fresh look next week or so, I use that app everyday so I’m curious to see how that comes along.

A few years back now, as I first heard that Google’s Eric Schmidt sat on Apple board, I imagined this: a perfect match between nice design and a strong platform. At the time I actually had sky high expectations about what could come out of such partnership. But then that myth, which was my own fantasy anyway, came down shattering when Android happened to the scene. Not long after that and expectedly so, Schmidt left Apple board. The recent widely commented post by a Google engineer shattered my second myth, that Google had a strong API platform from which they could stream functionality anywhere they liked.

So, Google didn’t have a stellar design, not a secret. They might not have a stellar platform API too, that one took me by surprise. On the design front, their web and mobile products are increasingly look cool. Though I’ve never owned an Android phone, they don’t look too bad either.

Can Google can nail design the way they made GMail and Search functionally great services? Would that be enough to claw back on Facebook’s grip on social media?

Dropbox called a feature, not a product. I tend to agree

October 18th, 2011

I’ve always perceived Dropbox as a transit place, a location where one drops a file waiting for somebody else to pick it up. I’m also using the free account, my motivation being that I have too many other online storage places already. I did see another article on Techcrunch, saying that Dropbox have raised $ 250M in funding, very impressive.

But I do think that this article makes an interesting read: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidcoursey/2011/10/18/how-dropbox-will-die.

Cheap tips for software developers

October 11th, 2011

I have a few tips for developers out there:

  • Be lazy. Please. Reluctance to write code will make you a better developer, because you will end up writing only code that matters.
  • Try to make your code easy for the next developer or the poor sod who will be using or maintaining your code. This poor sod may just be yourself, the next day, some weeks later, some months later, or some years later.
  • If you are a beginner then by all means write “hello worlds” to your hearts content, in your learning environment. If you are really eager to learn, read code from more experienced developers and spend time debugging them.
That’s it for now.

Thank you Steve Jobs

October 6th, 2011

This man was a true genius, one of a kind. Merci Steve.

Semantic dissonance, how Facebook is confusing me more and more

September 25th, 2011

I was using Facebook app on the iPhone today, trying to leave a message on a friend’s wall but I just had to stop and think for a while. I couldn’t complete this simple routine task because I couldn’t be sure I would be writing on my friend’s wall: the App was prompting me to post what was on my mind. Nothing  new there. But I had ended on that form while reading postings on my friend’s wall, and I just wanted to contribute to that one. But I was not sure anymore if the App was broken, or if whatever I would be writing would appear as a “news item”, instead of a posting on this particular friend’s wall. How did it come to this?

I think Facebook has hit a rock here: I don’t see a semantic match between what is commonly referred to as news, and catching up with news about friends. I do realise that words have elastic meanings on many social media sites these days, the word friend clearly has all sorts of meanings and actually means nothing anymore. But when news about friends get mixed up with general news, then I find it harder to make out what is going on.

I did hear about F8, and all the changes being introduced, and what not. I am used to such big changes on Facebook, actually they seldom move me except when it appears that privacy is being cut further more. This time, I think there’s something wrong with what they are calling things on Facebook. It’s semantically wrong to treat any friend update as a news item. Here are the reasons that I see a semantic dissonance here:

  • Facebook is hosting everything and anything: people, companies, charities, causes, shops, events, games, etc, the list is long. Any snippet of information about any one of these couldn’t be more different than the other.
  • Facebook is streaming all posting to whomever care to listen, read or watch. That’s ok, so long as you know the context the information is broadcast on.
  • Information about one’s friends tend to have more emotional appeal, you relate more strongly to those, you really do care – even if we’re talking about “elastic friendship” sometimes. It is more personal, that’s why you call them friends.
  • However, information about what is going on in the economy, world politics, some technology or scientific matter, have wildly different impact on us. Sometimes it’s infuriating yet you feel powerless about it. Sometimes it’s exhilarating, funny or witty, sometimes exciting, sometimes educational. Whatever feeling this category of news item may cause, it is often with a fair bit of distance and quite impersonal.
  • Here is the issue then: when you are about to post something personal, you don’t want it to be treated as if it were impersonal. That’s a blindspot that Facebook appears to have, it’d be worse if they intentionally did that. Imagine somebody saying: yeah, I am someone who really care, I care about anything and everything, everything is personal. I wonder how you would think about such a person.

I am not the biggest Facebook user out there, my visits to Facebook last on average 2 to 3 min. But when I come to the site I want to get something done quickly and move on – if you’re linked to me on Facebook then you probably know my son features on most of my postings there. For the first time I was hesitating because I couldn’t be sure what the site was trying to tell me.

News about friends is technically called news, but they are special and personal. News about other matters are also news, but they are impersonal, often distant, especially on the emotional side.

So I wonder if Facebook is trying to become more and more like Google, while at the same time actually, Google is trying to become more and more like Facebook. You read all sorts of articles matching those two up in a giant fight, but I think Facebook’s latest move is more confusing than Google’s.

Windows 8 will ship when it’s ready, not forced by a schedule!

September 13th, 2011

I briefly caught up with the keynotes live stream of Microsoft’s Build Windows event today. I saw about 15min of it and these are my favourite take aways:

  • Microsoft’s Steve Sinofsky said that, I quote him, roughly “Windows 8 will ship when it’s ready, Microsoft is focusing on quality and they will not be driven by a schedule”. That’s exactly the kind of language you hear from popular Open Source project leaders, last time I read it was from a Ruby on Rails framework developer (talking at the time, about when  Rails 3.1 would be released)
  • Windows 8 preview releases will not require any activation key
  • And of course, the 8 second boot time (I may not have properly heard that one, but there was an 8 sec boot time demo’ed earlier)
Microsoft  announced that Windows 8 developer preview would be available for download at 3 AM GMT on 14 September. I’m already prepared for a title like “the most downloaded OS preview ever!” or something like that, being announced within a week perhaps. Let me risk a gamble, 2 Mio downloads within 5 days? ;-)

Zachman framework presented as an Ontology, finally a more fitting name!

September 10th, 2011

It’ nice to see that John Zachman is now presenting his framework as an Ontology, this shows that the author didn’t want his work to be “sabotaged” by the misleading misreadings that folks through out daily about this and other Enterprise Architecture body of works.

There are lots of confusion around  Enterprise Architecture, and that is an understatement. I’ve briefly participated in a discussion thread on LinkedIn about a quote of Zachman, I realised that I had to stop before I too would start getting confused.

I hope that this release finally settles the debates going on about what Zachman framework is, ought to be, and may be useful for or not. From the horses mouth, it’s an Ontology. And that’s exactly how I’ve always seen it to be, it’s not a cookbook like “How to make chicken tikka masala at home in 10 steps”. I’m not going to delve into defining what an ontology is or may be useful for, I don’t want to give a cheap recipe that someone would run with and may cause “brain damage” to others.