Came across a web page that has an interesting way to view the page. Typically, web pages are built to automatically resize to screen width or have a fixed width immaterial of screen size. But, this allows the user to toggle between narrow and widescreen view of the web page. It may not be technically complicated thing to do, but certainly an innovative feature.
Checkout the page with the feature. Look for "Switch view:" below the page header towards the right corner of the page. Alternatively, search for "Switch view:".
Jan 20, 2008
Jan 5, 2008
Facebook - sign of growth(trouble)?
Facebook removed one of its users for trying to export his Facebook friends list to his other networking site. Facebook users shot back on hearing this news. Who the heck is Facebook to kick me out of the site? After all, its content like mine and millions of others that make up the 'Facebook' what it is today. Without users' content, its a piece of s**t. Atleast, this is how many Facebook users reacted on hearing the news.
What was the crime by the Facebook user, Scoble who got kicked out? Scoble tried to retrieve his friends list in Facebook for use in his other networking sites. Was it a crime in first place? YES. Atleast, as per the terms and conditions of Facebook usage. Hmm... i thought, it was ME, who added that contact to my friends list. And, now Facebook doesn't allow me to take it wherever i like to? Sounds unfair? Alright. Let's hear the Facebook's story. You own YOUR profile contents only. But, not others'. The contact details of your friends are certainly not yours and you don't have the right to distribute, as its deemed risky/whatever by Facebook.
As a fact, Facebook allows you to import contacts from your email address books such as Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL into Facebook and eventually, send a friend request or invite those email IDs. If Facebook doesn't mind scrape your email address book, what is wrong in someone else retrieving contacts from Facebook? Just like email address book maintains contacts, Facebook does the same. On the contrary, Facebook's only formidable competitor OpenSocial encourages users to share content/contacts across OpenSocial sites.
Unlike the past closed content model, where the contents were generated by sites and users were just consumers(Yahoo, MSN, Rediff), now is the generation of pro-sumer model, where user generates AND consumes content. Slowly but steadily, the user generated content is becoming the lifeline of successful sites. Facebook is the living proof of the model. LinkedIn, MySpace, Orkut are further proof of the power of user generated content. With OpenSocial encouraging users to share details across OpenSocial sites, how long it might take for Facebook to revert its decision?
The article that prompted me to write this post is here
What was the crime by the Facebook user, Scoble who got kicked out? Scoble tried to retrieve his friends list in Facebook for use in his other networking sites. Was it a crime in first place? YES. Atleast, as per the terms and conditions of Facebook usage. Hmm... i thought, it was ME, who added that contact to my friends list. And, now Facebook doesn't allow me to take it wherever i like to? Sounds unfair? Alright. Let's hear the Facebook's story. You own YOUR profile contents only. But, not others'. The contact details of your friends are certainly not yours and you don't have the right to distribute, as its deemed risky/whatever by Facebook.
As a fact, Facebook allows you to import contacts from your email address books such as Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo, AOL into Facebook and eventually, send a friend request or invite those email IDs. If Facebook doesn't mind scrape your email address book, what is wrong in someone else retrieving contacts from Facebook? Just like email address book maintains contacts, Facebook does the same. On the contrary, Facebook's only formidable competitor OpenSocial encourages users to share content/contacts across OpenSocial sites.
Unlike the past closed content model, where the contents were generated by sites and users were just consumers(Yahoo, MSN, Rediff), now is the generation of pro-sumer model, where user generates AND consumes content. Slowly but steadily, the user generated content is becoming the lifeline of successful sites. Facebook is the living proof of the model. LinkedIn, MySpace, Orkut are further proof of the power of user generated content. With OpenSocial encouraging users to share details across OpenSocial sites, how long it might take for Facebook to revert its decision?
The article that prompted me to write this post is here
Dec 31, 2007
Microsoft - Is it that Evil?
MSDOS is the first well known successfully marketed product from Microsoft. In the following years, Microsoft was developing OS/2 in collaboration with IBM. After a short stint, Microsoft part ways with IBM and created Windows OS. Now, rest is history!
Microsoft has been and still known for its bread-n-butter product, the Windows Operating System(OS). In layman terms, an OS provides basic infrastructure or platform to run applications on top of it that adhere to the specifications put forth by the OS. By creating Windows, Microsoft created a platform and made it mature/intuitive/monopolize over the years. Lets dig into it.
In the 80s when Microcomputers called PCs were taking shape to bring computing to the common man, the computer giants such as IBM, SUN were still selling tightly coupled proprietary hardware and software as a single package to customers. Customers were forced to buy hardware and software together from a single vendor. Sun was selling Solaris with their proprietary hardware architecture. Apple was selling Macintosh (flavour of *nix) with proprietary hardware and software. IBM was selling its own monsters. Eventhough IBM was getting interested in Microcomputers or PCs, the hardware and the software would come from its own stable, still making it a closed system no different from *nix predecessors.
Arrival of Microsoft changed the business equations ripping apart the proprietary hardware cum software business model. Rather, Microsoft created the diversified computer industry by establishing itself as a pure-software company with creation of its operating system, Windows. This threw open opportunities for anyone to manufacture the hardware compatible with Windows in contrast with the computers manufactured by SUN, HP, IBM etc. This was the beginning of ‘Off-the-shelf’ PC phenomenon.
The PC was more modular now. Each of the hardware components were now manufactured by innumerous companies. All they had to do to make the hardware work with Windows was by providing drivers as per the specification published by Microsoft. The driver, a piece of software allows the Windows to recognize and interact with the hardware. So, anyone could manufacture a motherboard, a graphics card, Hard disk drive etc and make it work with Windows! This resulted in commoditization of the PCs.
The PCs were getting better day by day, more affordable and most importantly lots of choice for customers to put together a PC from off-the-shelf components. At the same time, Microsoft published the Windows API to allow anyone to write applications to run on its Windows OS. A software platform was born to rule the forthcoming decades of personal computing. Anyone with the knowledge of the Windows API could write killer apps and make millions of dollars. Big corporations were born out it.
Similar to commoditization of hardware, Windows platform resulted in creation of software industry as a whole or atleast, served as a trigger. InstallShield, Norton Anti-virus, Business Objects are few big corporations that were born out of the Windows platform. Why would I credit Microsoft and Windows for achieving this?
Eventhough, the industry behemoths SUN, IBM, HP, Unisys were still around; they were still selling completely packaged hardware and software. And, they were so expensive, only research organizations and universities could afford it. Creation of Microsoft and Windows as a software-only company resulted in segregation of hardware and software industries as well as Software becoming a mainstream business. Windows was so intuitive compared to its *nix counterparts, that it accelerated the adoption of personal computing by masses. This was the biggest achievement of Microsoft and Windows to date.
Those were few credits to Microsoft. There are more credits to write down in the next post.
More to write about:
What are the bad things that Microsoft did? How Microsoft transformed itself into a Software juggernaut? Where it won? where it lost? What is it doing now to stay relevant in the current service-oriented world?
Microsoft has been and still known for its bread-n-butter product, the Windows Operating System(OS). In layman terms, an OS provides basic infrastructure or platform to run applications on top of it that adhere to the specifications put forth by the OS. By creating Windows, Microsoft created a platform and made it mature/intuitive/monopolize over the years. Lets dig into it.
In the 80s when Microcomputers called PCs were taking shape to bring computing to the common man, the computer giants such as IBM, SUN were still selling tightly coupled proprietary hardware and software as a single package to customers. Customers were forced to buy hardware and software together from a single vendor. Sun was selling Solaris with their proprietary hardware architecture. Apple was selling Macintosh (flavour of *nix) with proprietary hardware and software. IBM was selling its own monsters. Eventhough IBM was getting interested in Microcomputers or PCs, the hardware and the software would come from its own stable, still making it a closed system no different from *nix predecessors.
Arrival of Microsoft changed the business equations ripping apart the proprietary hardware cum software business model. Rather, Microsoft created the diversified computer industry by establishing itself as a pure-software company with creation of its operating system, Windows. This threw open opportunities for anyone to manufacture the hardware compatible with Windows in contrast with the computers manufactured by SUN, HP, IBM etc. This was the beginning of ‘Off-the-shelf’ PC phenomenon.
The PC was more modular now. Each of the hardware components were now manufactured by innumerous companies. All they had to do to make the hardware work with Windows was by providing drivers as per the specification published by Microsoft. The driver, a piece of software allows the Windows to recognize and interact with the hardware. So, anyone could manufacture a motherboard, a graphics card, Hard disk drive etc and make it work with Windows! This resulted in commoditization of the PCs.
The PCs were getting better day by day, more affordable and most importantly lots of choice for customers to put together a PC from off-the-shelf components. At the same time, Microsoft published the Windows API to allow anyone to write applications to run on its Windows OS. A software platform was born to rule the forthcoming decades of personal computing. Anyone with the knowledge of the Windows API could write killer apps and make millions of dollars. Big corporations were born out it.
Similar to commoditization of hardware, Windows platform resulted in creation of software industry as a whole or atleast, served as a trigger. InstallShield, Norton Anti-virus, Business Objects are few big corporations that were born out of the Windows platform. Why would I credit Microsoft and Windows for achieving this?
Eventhough, the industry behemoths SUN, IBM, HP, Unisys were still around; they were still selling completely packaged hardware and software. And, they were so expensive, only research organizations and universities could afford it. Creation of Microsoft and Windows as a software-only company resulted in segregation of hardware and software industries as well as Software becoming a mainstream business. Windows was so intuitive compared to its *nix counterparts, that it accelerated the adoption of personal computing by masses. This was the biggest achievement of Microsoft and Windows to date.
Those were few credits to Microsoft. There are more credits to write down in the next post.
More to write about:
What are the bad things that Microsoft did? How Microsoft transformed itself into a Software juggernaut? Where it won? where it lost? What is it doing now to stay relevant in the current service-oriented world?
Nov 25, 2007
Well, someone says not to donate to wikipedia.
I have always seen wikipedia as a powerful and free tool to spread the knowledge across the globe. Personally, i admire the guy Jimmy Wales, who is behind this initiative. I wanted to put a "Donate to Wiki" banner on my blog and went googling around to find this anti-wiki donation article.
Few lines from the blog.
Wikipedia promotes Amazon.com and IMDB (owned by Amazon.com) through search engine optimized links and in return, Amazon.com gives Wikia huge amounts of venture capital, which violates Wikipedia’s non-profit status, given Wikipedia’s close ties to Wikia.
Wikipedia is not going to help children in third world countries because the bulk of its content is in the languages of first world countries and pretty much nothing is in the rest.
Read the full article here.
I am yet to do a serious digging into this. In first glance, it makes sense though.
Type rest of the post here
Few lines from the blog.
Wikipedia promotes Amazon.com and IMDB (owned by Amazon.com) through search engine optimized links and in return, Amazon.com gives Wikia huge amounts of venture capital, which violates Wikipedia’s non-profit status, given Wikipedia’s close ties to Wikia.
Wikipedia is not going to help children in third world countries because the bulk of its content is in the languages of first world countries and pretty much nothing is in the rest.
Read the full article here.
I am yet to do a serious digging into this. In first glance, it makes sense though.
Type rest of the post here
Nov 18, 2007
OpenSocial and Facebook platforms
Check out this official video on OpenSocial by Google.
The presentation looks awesome with technical, business and end user perspectives well represented.
Will OpenSocial put brakes on the strong-march by Facebook? Only time will tell. But, certainly its a high stakes battle.
To write about:
Where OpenSocial and Facebook are heading to? Is Facebook creating the next Windows of internet? Achievements and ambitions of Facebook? Did Google miss the bus and trying to regain control using OpenSocial? How is OpenSocial faring so far? Where Facebook could go wrong?
The presentation looks awesome with technical, business and end user perspectives well represented.
Will OpenSocial put brakes on the strong-march by Facebook? Only time will tell. But, certainly its a high stakes battle.
To write about:
Where OpenSocial and Facebook are heading to? Is Facebook creating the next Windows of internet? Achievements and ambitions of Facebook? Did Google miss the bus and trying to regain control using OpenSocial? How is OpenSocial faring so far? Where Facebook could go wrong?
Lot to talk about **Platform**
The word *Platform* seems to make sense across multiple paradigms. It all started during a short conversation about Facebook with a friend of mine. Facebook has been around for a couple of years now. Why sudden craze about Facebook everywhere? If you ask me, my cents on the really neat UI and ability to publish your own app on the Facebook platform. Ooops, i stepped on the word Platform. Never mind. Ya. Facebook is a platform. Not just a portal. Not another social networking website. I know, it sounds really abstract to most people talking about internet terminologies. Agreed! Let's peep into history to search for trace of something called Platform.
Can we call Microsoft Windows as a platform? How about Walmart as a platform? Mmmm.. iPhone as a platform? The big daddy Google as a platform? Stock market as a platform... i can think of an indefinite list. Let's start with something universal, well known(for good or bad) - Walmart.
Walmart is an apt example of a Platform. Walmart is a really big trading company. So, they source goods from vendors/manufacturers/OEM and sell it to customers. The concept typically applies to even the petty shops across the street. BUT, size is the x-factor, that gives more power over negotiation table with manufacturers and thereby huge profits. Customers accustomed to a platform normally find it difficult to accept a new one so easily.
Back to the context of Computers, Microsoft and Facebook are two companies of interest to me. Microsoft created the Windows platform more than a decade ago for PCs. Since then, Microsoft has successfully replicated the platform from Servers to Compact devices. Logically, an application that runs on either of them would run on others as well. And, most importantly, consistent user experience across devices allowed users to seamlessly use these devices without having to go through repeated learning cycles. What did Microsoft get as a result? The power to replicate the platform across any imaginable hardware.
There are couple of prominent companies defining or re-defining the 'platform' on web. I will be writing topics focussed on those, instead of rat-holing :)
Can we call Microsoft Windows as a platform? How about Walmart as a platform? Mmmm.. iPhone as a platform? The big daddy Google as a platform? Stock market as a platform... i can think of an indefinite list. Let's start with something universal, well known(for good or bad) - Walmart.
Walmart is an apt example of a Platform. Walmart is a really big trading company. So, they source goods from vendors/manufacturers/OEM and sell it to customers. The concept typically applies to even the petty shops across the street. BUT, size is the x-factor, that gives more power over negotiation table with manufacturers and thereby huge profits. Customers accustomed to a platform normally find it difficult to accept a new one so easily.
Back to the context of Computers, Microsoft and Facebook are two companies of interest to me. Microsoft created the Windows platform more than a decade ago for PCs. Since then, Microsoft has successfully replicated the platform from Servers to Compact devices. Logically, an application that runs on either of them would run on others as well. And, most importantly, consistent user experience across devices allowed users to seamlessly use these devices without having to go through repeated learning cycles. What did Microsoft get as a result? The power to replicate the platform across any imaginable hardware.
There are couple of prominent companies defining or re-defining the 'platform' on web. I will be writing topics focussed on those, instead of rat-holing :)
Nov 7, 2007
how to run ur web project on IIS instead of internal web server in VS.NET IDE
To specify the Web server for an already-created Web site,
open your local website with VS.NET and, in the Solution Explorer,
right-click the name of the Web site for which you want
to specify a Web server, and then click Property Pages.
In the Property Pages dialog box, click the Start Options tab.
Under Server, click Use custom server.
In the Base URL box, type the URL that Visual Web Developer
should start when running the current Web site. You can use localhost,
your machine name, or an assigned domain name for your IP.
From that point on, the VS.NET IDE will not use the internal web server,
but will use IIS to open your pages, i.e., if you are working on default.aspx,
it will be opened as : http://localhost/default.aspx
open your local website with VS.NET and, in the Solution Explorer,
right-click the name of the Web site for which you want
to specify a Web server, and then click Property Pages.
In the Property Pages dialog box, click the Start Options tab.
Under Server, click Use custom server.
In the Base URL box, type the URL that Visual Web Developer
should start when running the current Web site. You can use localhost,
your machine name, or an assigned domain name for your IP.
From that point on, the VS.NET IDE will not use the internal web server,
but will use IIS to open your pages, i.e., if you are working on default.aspx,
it will be opened as : http://localhost/default.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)