Skip to content

The Visual Studio Launch 2010 Boston Event, Reconsidered

Now that I’m a day or so removed from the Visual Studio “Launch 2010″ event in Boston, have plenty of sleep under my belt, and the benefit of hindsight, I’d like to recap my impressions.

I still consider Launch 2010 a significant disappointment, especially compared to the “Heroes Happen Here” launch of 2008 / SQL Server 2008 / Windows Server 2008 that was held in Manchester, NH, two years ago. But I should explain why, and maybe at least put in context, if not rephrase, my criticisms of Thursday.

Attendance: I need to clarify my attendance estimates from Thursday.

I’m guessing there were about 1,000 people in attendance at Launch 2010, which had three tracks: two all-day tracks for developers and IT professionals, and a half-day track for managers / decision makers. Of the total number of attendees, well over half  — at least 500 — were in the developer track. I don’t have an exact count because I don’t know who to ask for one, and I doubt there is an accurate count in any event, because was allowing walk-ins throughout the event.

However many people were there, it was too many, at least for the developer track. They ran out of seats by 9:30 AM and it only got worse until 3:30 PM, after the session, after which a large number of people left. I did pop in on the IT pro track, after I couldn’t regain my seat following lunch; there were a few empty seats available there.

Allowing such a significant overflow is a huge kick in the balls. I took the time to register ahead of time. I took great pains to ensure I would arrive on time. If you’re letting people filter in six hours after they were supposed to show up, you’re not being fair to me — especially if I can’t fully enjoy the event.

Continue reading ‘The Visual Studio Launch 2010 Boston Event, Reconsidered’ »

Posted Saturday, May 1, 2010, 3:33 AM »  Filed under Musings, Programming »  Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments

Live From The Microsoft Launch 2010 Event In Boston

6:50 PM:

The event ended at 4:45 PM, following Chris Bowen’s very interesting overview of development. I was desperate to get out of there, and this is the first access to the Web (wifi on the Concord Coach bus) I’ve had since making a beeline for Copley Square.

On : It leverages Windows Presentation Foundation for applications and uses XNA (like XBox does) for games. The capacities of the phone seem on par with Android / , and is using a vetting process similar to Apple’s for approving applications.

, including an express version of 2010 and an emulator, are available at developer.windowsphone.com, where you can also register for their marketplace.

On the event’s end: End-of-event giveaways were paltry; a notebook charging station (not the laptop rumored earlier), three copies of VS 2010 and some trinkets, for 500+ attendees.

Not to sound greedy or childish, but that’s pretty cheap. If can’t afford to seed its new products by giving away some of its software to those who were motivated enough to spend an entire day learning about it, that’s a sad, sad commentary.

Overall, I rate Launch 2010 a major disappointment. The afternoon sessions were good, but I have a feeling the Roadshow event being held in Augusta in two weeks will be effectively the same thing.

Overbooking the event, providing little more than glorified commercials for half the day, sending me home with garbage, hosting a mixer after they  wore out my patience and making me look like a fool for talking up this event has put a seriously sour taste in my mouth, one I won’t easily forget.

Continue reading ‘Live From The Microsoft Launch 2010 Event In Boston’ »

Posted Thursday, April 29, 2010, 10:10 AM »  Filed under Musings, Programming »  Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments

Google’s Web Browser Has Its Problems, Too

Remember last month, when all the Internet was crowing about how “no one even attempts hacking Chrome” at Pwn2Own, an annual contest with a primary focus on Web browsers?

The implication was, of course, that the Chrome Web browser cannot be hacked; or, at least, that its architecture is so good, and that hackers know this so well, that Chrome somehow becomes the Sword In The Stone, if not the Holy Grail.

This, of course, is nonsense. Fast-forward to today, where Google announces patches to three major Chrome security holes.

While Google isn’t revealing the specific nature of the three holes — “the referenced bugs may be kept private until a majority of our users are up to date with the fix” — their titles alone are alarming: “cross-origin bypass” suggests it’s pretty easy to spoof / forge where a request comes from; and all “memory corruption” causes concern about at least forced crashing, if not unauthorized access to system privileges.

Is Chrome a bad browser? Hardly. Has it had problems? It sure has. Did the refusal of hackers to go after Chrome during Pwn2Own mean Chrome is invincible? Not at all.

For one, there’s money to be made at this competition, and time is limited, so it only makes sense to go after the browsers you know can be compromised easily: Internet Explorer, Firefox and Safari, which was most easily hacked in previous Pwn2Own contests and leverages the same base technologies — WebKit and Chromium — used to power Google Chrome.

For another, these other browsers have been out longer and are used more widely than Chrome. That means knowledge of how they are built, information about glitches that could prove to be exploitable, etc. is greater.

Or I may be completely wrong. It could be that Chrome is, indeed, completely feared within the black- and white-hat communities alike.

Whatever the case, my point is that Google is not infallible, Chrome can be exploited, and why no one bothered to try to do so during a specific competition is hard to say.

Take with a grain of salt the hype you hear about and , especially if it’s proclaimed loudly. Anything complex is vulnerable to compromise and collapse, be it the Mayan civilization or even the Oracle DB server. Chrome is no different.

All links in this post on delicious: http://delicious.com/dougvdotcom/googles-web-browser-has-its-problems-too

Posted Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 10:47 AM »  Filed under Musings »  Tagged , , , , , ,
Comment

On Facebook, Appendix: The Rapid Decline Of AOL

In an earlier blog post, I called Facebook “a 1998-vintage AOL that doesn’t suck,” by which I meant, is a convenient way to aggregate and streamline all the information on the Web into a smaller, easier-to-manage stream of information, just as America Online was in its heydey.

The benefit of Facebook over other portals and — including AOL — is not only that it brings together several kinds of sharing (video, pictures, text, blog, application, games, etc.), it allows the end user to effectively customize what he shares, how he shares it and with whom.

In other words, the experience is driven by the end user, not the limitations or expectations of itself. (Yes, I understand users can’t do things that is incapable of or unwilling to allow them to do. Please grant me the license to make my general point.)

At least, more so than with other platforms, such as Twitter, LinkedIn, StumbleUpon, etc.

Which made my stumbling across this recent chart from International Business Management News, detailing significant events vs. AOL membership over the last decade, all the more serendipitous (click image for full-size pic at flicker, in new window):

I think it’s safe to assume that old-media thinking is at the heart of the problem. When AOL changed its models, it did so too late; and no amount of stealing big-name talent and purchasing promising start-ups can overcome trying to sell the wrong things to the wrong people in the wrong way.

Again, congratulations to for its success, be that the result of wisdom beyond its time, sheer luck or a combination of the two.

But I fully expect that luck, wisdom and success to run out, right around the time it looks like the behemoth can’t be stopped — as it was in 2002, when it looked like AOL would surely own the world, or in 2008, when clearly Google could do no wrong.

Posted Monday, April 26, 2010, 11:47 AM »  Filed under Musings »  Tagged , , , , , ,
Comment

On Facebook’s New Features, Privacy And The Near Future Of The Web

Quite a bit has been made recently of the changes to ’s default settings, an extensive expansion of how shares data with other Web sites, and how all that works within the traditional expectation — if not the fundamental understanding — most people have about privacy.

’s recent change to, by default, share public user information with partner Web sites — namely, ’s Docs.com, Internet radio provider Pandora and city-based business review site Yelp — is “building a largely closed, alternative version of the Internet,” or, in plainer language, “a power grab.”

This argument is further (and ironically) strengthened by ’s announcement at the recent f8 developer conference that it is switching from its proprietary Facebook Connect login system to OAuth, the soon-to-be-a-standard, open Web site authentication protocol. In so doing, the fabled idea of the “single sign-on” for all Web sites becomes less pipe dream and more within reach — with the linchpin, and by inference, the one link that can’t be removed from the chain.

In other words, is a 1998-vintage AOL that doesn’t suck.

That’s not a bad thing. Actually, it’s a great thing.

Continue reading ‘On Facebook’s New Features, Privacy And The Near Future Of The Web’ »

Posted Monday, April 26, 2010, 2:46 AM »  Filed under Musings »  Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment

idroid Android OS Port For iPhone 2G Available For Download From MediaFire

While cruising through Google Reader’s recommendations, I ran across a link to the idroid Android OS port for the 2G that has set the Internet tubes to rattling in recent days.

That’s right: If you have an 2G laying about (and I am seriously kicking myself in the rear today for having turned my old 2G in to the recycler a couple months ago), you too can put the vastly superior Android OS on the vastly superior iPhone device.

This is not a project for a Linux noob, as you have to have enough skill to follow the instructions (PDF) on how to extract the touchscreen firmware from the , plus extensive skills in installing and configuring Linux (I probably couldn’t pull this off). Fortunately, the package comes with prebuilt images for Android, Linux and other necessary components, so once you have properly prepped the to receive Android, it should go smoothly.

The MediaFire link is http://www.mediafire.com/?xqjzn12igfn. Be forewarned: There are JavaScript redirectors and pop-under ads at MediaFire, and unfortunately you must enable JavaScript to get the download link.

UPDATE, April 28, 2010: File has been deleted from MediaFire. I don’t know of an alternate source.

I am not telling you to do this. If you add Android to the , you are certainly violating several agreements with both Apple and AT&T. You probably will brick the . It certainly will have performance issues and may not work at all as expected. If you install Android on an , you do so at your own risk.

All links in this post on delicious: http://delicious.com/dougvdotcom/idroid-andriod-os-port-for-iphone-2g-available-for-download-from-mediafire

Posted Friday, April 23, 2010, 1:52 PM »  Filed under Programming »  Tagged , , ,
1 Comment
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »