-
A great collection of practical advice and links on database design from Jeff Atwood. A lots of links follow on to discussion on scaling up your database, but Jeff also offer decent advice for when you are first designing the database.
-
Another piece of the puzzle in building a Google sized architecture.
Archive for July, 2008
16
07
2008
 
‘Proprietary’ is a bad word, especially when it should be ‘commodity’Posted by: admin in business, computing, opensource
Why is it, that in this day and age, there are still ISVs (some rather small) that think a home-brewed , closed (either in terms of standards or source code), component is better then using or implementing something open and community developed. Commodity components If I may be so bold, I would argue that components that have already been developed in the open should be considered as commodity and these ISVs are better off innovating higher up in the application stack. This can take place by either using open source libraries that already implement open protocols or building components based on open standards. Not adopting this approach is akin to the automobile industry not using OEMs but rather manufacturing every part of their car on their own. If BMW and Daimler can move towards co-operating , wouldn’t it be silly for ISVs not to be doing the same. Resistance The common arguments I have heard again such moves tend to be: 1. “Our closed components are a competitive advantage. We do not want to adopt something that will make it easy for other players to speak to us.” Guys, welcome to the 21st century. Interoperability and data portability is becoming important, and more so in the enterprise space. The tides are changing from closed to open systems and customers are being reeducated to see this as a feature. Using standard or open components will give you this feature for free, without extra effort. 2. “But this is our secret sauce, our differentiator” This is a bit more tricky as there might be situations where this is valid. It seems counter intuitive at first, but the more niche and specific your product is, th more sensible it is to roll your own and keep it inside. However the more general and mass interest it is, the more sensible it is to open and collaborate. A simple rule to determining if this is a valid argument is to determine if there are existing open components or standards implementing what your secret sauce does. If there is, its time to search for a new recipe as your secret is being commoditised. Instead of fighting, collaborate on this component, benefit from the extra eyes and feedback and move up your value chain. 3. “We have custom/specific needs” I find it hard to believe that if your component is general enough to have open standards or implementations,your use case is so specific that it is not catered for. A tangential use case might be indicative of a deeper architectural issue. This would be a be a great time to ask the question , “Why isn’t anybody else doing it this way?” and “How do other folks tackle this problem” Lastly, maybe the need has not been catered to yet, instead of turning away and rolling your own, use this as an opportunity to engage and discuss these needs with the community. This is your opportunity to contribute ideas and embrace the community instead if running off and cooking your own. 4. We don’t accept open licensing (AKA – Open source, isn’t that like communism ?) In this interconnected world , no ISV is an island. If Microsoft can open up to the need of dipping its toe in the open source lake, then its high time you do too. Although code contamination is a concern among some quarters, that matter should be handled by more stringent code audits and license criterias when using open source code. Some licences such at the BSD and Apache have been argued to be more business friendly then the GPL. These licences allow for collaboration and closed environments to co-exist. Issues regarding software patents are sometimes raised, however, with software patents, you are effected as long as you write software, closed or open. Upsides There are many upsides to sticking with open standards or components as well, such as reducing the need for training of new hires as well as ensuring that the development of the component does not get stale due to lack of upkeep the code. There is also the benefit of continuos review and injections of ideas from the community, things that your homebrewed code or specifications will never benefit from. Caveot emptor At the end of the day though, the decision is surely going to need to happen on a case by case basis. There might always be a good enough reason to go it your own. I hope, however, that we raise the bar on these type of decisions and realise that sometimes the decision to go your own is less sound that it initially seems. At the very least I will be able to spend more time writing and reading blog posts then wrting code to push proprietary binary bits around.
06
07
2008
Bursa’s Non-Stop hardware stops, for a whole dayPosted by: admin in business, computing, malaysiaSo the ‘HP Tandem Non-Stop hardware’ actually stopped working, for a whole day! I wonder if a name like “Non-Stop Hardware” is a jinx for your product from the get go Conspiracy theory Conspiracy theorist postulate that this incident was more of a covert shutdown than an unexpected downtime. How can a system that is so advanced, an organisation that runs disaster recovery drills every couple of months and that invests 30% of its RM200mil operating cost on technology succumb to what seems to be a RAID array not recovering fast enough? Surely there is a conspiracy! I however disagree. Why?
Heads are supposedly going to roll. I am sure other CIO’s in KL are going over their disaster recovery plans. And if they aren’t they should be.
03
07
2008
Linked images on your website? Pay up!Posted by: admin in opensource, patents, tags: patents opensource rights singaporeIts sad that most of the time, Malaysia or Singapore gets on Slashdot, its for something silly, embarrassing or downright disturbing. Sigh. Slashdot | Singapore Firm Claims Patent Breach By Virtually All Websites
S’pore firm claims patent to image search : News : Internet – ZDNet Asia
In other words if you have images on your websites which double up as links these guys will send you an invoice of around S$5000. Currently the company claims that the patent is enforceable in Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. This type of patent trolling can only be fixed with some form or real patent reform (Not this.). Too bad most countries are more interested in signing bilateral FTAs with the US that include cross nation patent enforcement and harmonization. What tends to happen during this harmonization is laws are modified to suit a lowest common denominator (With the US most often then not being the lowest denominator). This tends to err on the side of big companies and existing copyright/patent holders and screwing Joe public. With the debate on patent reform in the US still going on, is this a smart thing for countries to be doing ? Take for example, the Singaporean experience :
So they increased copyright protection by 20 years. Was this in the best interest of the Singaporean public ? Was this something the Singaporeans wanted? What about the Singaporean DMCA ? Was that a reasonable trade off, considering that there is still much opposition to the DMCA in the US? Will the Singapore version of the DMCA benefit from any reform that might happen due to this opposition? In the end, its the people who get screwed over. No Love for VueStar | ThinkingNectar
Sigh. |
.