Archive | October 2011

Early Win Required for Partner-Friendly, Post-Acquisition Platform Computing

Further to the LinkedIn discussion on the relatively recent acquisition of Platfom by IBM, I just posted:

Platform CEO and Founder Songnian Zhou has this to say regarding the kernel of this discussion:

“IBM expects Platform to operate as a coherent business unit within its Systems and Technology Group. We got some promises from folks at IBM. We will accelerate our investments and growth. We will deliver on our product roadmaps. We will continue to provide our industry-best support and services. We will work even harder to add value to our partners, including IBM’s competitors. We want to make new friends while keeping the old, for one is silver while the other is gold. We might even get to keep our brand name. After all, distributed computing needs a platform, and there is only one Platform Computing. We are an optimistic bunch. We want to deliver to you the best of both worlds – you know what I mean. Give us a chance to show you what we can do for you tomorrow. Our customers and partners have journeyed with Platform all these years and have not regretted it. We are grateful to them eternally.”

Unsurprisingly upbeat, Zhou, Platform and IBM, really do require that customers and partners give them a chance to prove themselves under the new business arrangement. As noted in my previous comment in this discussion, this’ll require some seriously skillful stickhandling to skirt around challenging issues such as IP (Intellectual Property) – a challenge that is particularly exacerbated by the demands of the tightly coupled integrations required to deliver tangible value in the HPC context.

How might IBM-acquired Platform best demonstrate that it’s true to its collective word:

“Give us a chance to show you what we can do for you tomorrow.”

Certainly one way, is to strike an early win with a partner that demonstrates that they (Zhou, Platform and IBM) are true to their collective word. Aspects of this demonstration should likely include:

  • IP handling disclosures. Post-acquisition Platform and the partner should be as forthcoming as possible with respect to IP (Intellectual Property) handling – i.e., they should collectively communicate how business and technical IP challenges were handled in practice.
  • Customer validation. Self-explicit, such a demonstration has negligible value without validation by a customer willing to publicly state why they are willing to adopt the corresponding solution.
  • HPC depth. This demonstration has to be comprised of a whole lot more than merely porting a Platform product to a partner’s platform that would be traditionally viewed as a competitive to IBM. As stated previously, herein lies the conundrum: “To deliver a value-rich solution in the HPC context, Platform has to work (extremely) closely with the ‘system vendor’.  In many cases, this closeness requires that Intellectual Property (IP) of a technical and/or business nature be communicated …”

Thus, as the fullness of time shifts to post-acquisition Platform, trust becomes the watchword for continued success – particularly in HPC.

For without trust, there will be no opportunity for demonstrations such as the early win outlined here.

How else might Platform-acquired IBM demonstrate that it’s business-better-than-usual?

Feel free to add your $0.02.

RTM for Android: Significant Update Indeed!

I just upgraded to the latest, native-client release of RTM (Remember the Milk) for my Motorola Xoom tablet.

As expressed by the RTM team, this is a  very significant update. Although the details of the update are well covered over on the RTM blog, in 5 minutes of usage I’m left with the impression of:

  • A much improved user interface
  • A much more deeply integrated application

Although I’ve flirted with other tools/utilities for task management (including Evernote!), I’ve always returned to, or remained with, RTM. This latest update for the Android platform gives me another reason not to bother looking elsewhere.

Kudos to Bob T. Monkey and the rest of the banana-loving team down under at RTM!

From Unity to GNOME to LXDE: A Journey of (Personal) Discovery

Much is being written these days about Unity – but more specifically, Canonical’s decision to shift from GNOME to Unity as the default desktop environment.

When I make use of a recent-generation laptop/desktop, I use Unity. Soon after reviewing Jorge Castro’s video on multitasking in Unity, I became (and remain) a fan of Unity. About the only serious omission of the Unity environment is the absence of the panel applets that I’ve grown attached to from time spent in the GNOME environment. (I believe improvements are already afoot in this area, but I have not explored the same …)

Perhaps the only negative feedback I’d offer about Unity is that I needed Jorge’s video to get me up to speed – and I find that somewhat ironic (from a usability perspective) for a leading-edge UI …

The fact that Unity has won me over is interesting in another regard. My first exposure to Unity was on an Asus 1000 netbook via Ubuntu’s netbook remix. In hindsight though, anything negative I’d share from this time had more to do with the Asus netbook and its built-in mouse than Unity, per se.

Although I am a proponent of Unity on recent-generation laptops/desktops, I’ve found it unusable on older hardware – and this applies to the 2D as well as the 3D version. In fact, I came to using the no-effect version of the GNOME environment on the old Dell equipment I still make use of.

Though this was a passable experience most of the time, there were far too many instances of excessive paging which rendered the system unusable.

It is fortunate that my end-user experience on legacy hardware was so unacceptable.


As a direct consequence, I recently discovered Lubuntu – at precisely the time Lubuntu was receiving official recognition from Canonical as a bona fide Ubuntu flavor.

I’ve thus been using Lubuntu 11.10 since its release last Thursday (October 13, 2011). Even though the honeymoon remains in effect, the shift to Lubuntu is proving to be increasingly worthwhile – I have a responsive interface to my legacy hardware, with the option to selectively leverage Ubuntu.

One final thought … Lubuntu provides Sylpheed as its built-in mail user agent (MUA). I’ve found Sylpheed to be extremely viable on my legacy hardware. In fact, I’ve even found the latest version of Thunderbird performs reasonably well on this same platform under Lubuntu. Despite these options, I’ve remained a user of Google’s browser-based version of GMail. Why? I seem to have lost the value proposition for fat MUAs for the moment ….

Feel free to comment on this post and add your own $0.02.

IBM-Acquired Platform: Plan for Sustained, Partner-Friendly HPC Innovation Required

Over on LinkedIn, there’s an interesting discussion taking place in the “High Performance & Super Computing” group on the recently announced acquisition of Markham-based Platform Computing by IBM. My comment (below) was stimulated by concerns regarding the implications of this acquisition for IBM’s traditional competitors (i.e., other system vendors such as Cray, Dell, HP, etc.):

It could be argued:

“IBM groks vendor-neutral software and services (e.g., IBM Global Services), and therefore coopetition.”

At face value then, it’ll be business-as-usual for IBM-acquired Platform – and therefore its pre-acquisition partners and customers.

While business-as-usual plausibly applies to porting Platform products to offerings from IBM’s traditional competitors, I believe the sensitivity to the new business relationship (Platform as an IBM business unit) escalates rapidly for any solution that has value in HPC.


To deliver a value-rich solution in the HPC context, Platform has to work (extremely) closely with the ‘system vendor’. In many cases, this closeness requires that Intellectual Property (IP) of a technical and/or business nature be communicated – often well before solutions are introduced to the marketplace and made available for purchase. Thus Platform’s new status as an IBM entity, has the potential to seriously complicate matters regarding risk, trust, etc., relating to the exchange of IP.

Although it’s been stated elsewhere that IBM will allow Platform measures of post-acquisition independence, I doubt that this’ll provide sufficient comfort for matters relating to IP. While NDAs specific to the new (and independent) Platform business unit within IBM may offer some measure of additional comfort, I believe that technically oriented approaches offer the greatest promise for mitigating concerns relating to risk, trust, etc., in the exchange of IP.

In principle, one possibility is the adoption of open standards by all stakeholders. Such standards hold the promise of allowing for the integration between products via documented interfaces and protocols, while allowing (proprietary) implementation specifics to remain opaque. Although this may sound appealing, the availability of such standards remains elusive – despite various, well-intended efforts (by HPC, Grid, Cloud, etc., communities).

While Platform’s traditional competitors predictably and understandably gorge themselves sharing FUD, it obviously behooves both Platform and IBM to expend some effort allaying the concerns of their customers and partner ecosystem.

I’d be interested to hear of others’ suggestions as to how this new business relationship might allow for sustained innovation in the HPC context from IBM-acquired Platform.

Disclaimer: Although I do not have a vested financial interest in this acquisition, I did work for Platform from 1998-2005.

To reiterate here then:

How can this new business relationship allow for sustained, partner-friendly innovation in the HPC context from IBM-acquired Platform?

Please feel free to share your thoughts on this via comments to this post.

Triple and Quadruple Rainbows: Theory Meets Practice

Last Fall 2010/Winter 2011, I taught the science of weather and climate to non-scientists at Toronto’s York University.

During the Fall semester, a unit of NATS 1780 focused on atmospheric optics. Not surprisingly, rainbows were one of the topics that received attention.

By the end of this unit, students understood that rainbows are the consequence of a twofold optical manipulation of sunlight:

  • Raindrops bend sunlight.  Not only do raindrops bend (refract) sunlight, they do so with extreme prejudice. Blue light gets bent the most, red the least. In other words, this is a wavelength-based prejudice: The shorter the wavelength, the more the light is bent. This highly selective refraction is known as dispersion. Like a prism then, raindrops allow for the individual colours that comprise visible light to be made evident.
  • Raindrops reflect sunlight.  Inside the raindrop, reflection occurs. In fact, multiple reflections can occur. And if all of the angles are just right, these reflections can remain contained within the raindrop. This is known as the phenomenon of Total Internal Reflection (TIR).
The combined effect of bending and internally reflecting is best understood with a diagram. Note in this Wikipedia diagram that sunlight interacts with the air/raindrop boundary upon entry, gets reflected internally once, and then again interacts with the raindrop/air boundary upon exit from the raindrop. Taken together, the result is a single rainbow.

How are double rainbows produced? By increasing the number of internal reflections to two.

Single and double rainbows are relatively easily observed.

On the Fall 2010 Exam in NATS 1780, I included the question:
If it were possible, how would a tertiary (i.e., third)
rainbow be produced?
A number of students correctly answered that three reflections internal to the raindrop would be required to produce such a phenomenon.

Although I had intended this to be a question of theoretical merit only, I was delighted to learn that both triple and quadruple rainbows have been observed – in other words, they are no longer just a theoretical possibility. (Quadruple rainbows would require four internal reflections.)

Alas, I’ve only ever been able to capture single and double rainbows … My personal quest for the more elusive triple and quadruple rainbows continues …

Remembering Steve Jobs

I was doing some errands earlier this evening (Toronto time) … While I was in the car, the all-news station (680news) I had on played some of Steve Jobs’ 2005 commencement address to Stanford grads. As I listened, and later re-read my own blog post on discovering the same address, I’m struck on the event of his passing by the importance of valuing every experience in life. In Jobs’ case, he eventually leveraged his experience with calligraphy to design the typography for the Apple Mac – after a ten-year incubation period!

I think it’s time to read that Stanford commencement address again …

RIP Steve – and thanks much.

Aakash: A Disruptive Innovation in the Truest Sense

Much has been, and will be, written about the Aakash tablet.

[With apologies for the situational monsoonal imagery …] As I awash myself in Aakash, I am particularly taken by:

  • The order of magnitude reduction in price point. With a stated cost of about $50, marked-up prices are still close to an order of magnitude more affordable than the incumbent offerings (e.g., the iPad, Android-based tablets, etc.). Even Amazon’s Kindle Fire is 2-3 times more expensive.
  • The adoption of Android as the innovation platform. I take this as yet another data point (YADP) in firmly establishing Android as the leading future proofed platform for innovation in the mobile-computing space. As Aakash solidly demonstrates, it’s about the all-inclusive collaboration that can occur when organizational boundaries are made redundant through use of an open platform for innovation. These dynamics just aren’t the same as those that would be achieved by embracing proprietary platforms (e.g., Apple’s iOS, RIM QNX-based O/S, etc.).
  • The Indian origin. It took MIT Being Digital, in the meatspace personage of Nicholas Negroponte, to hatch the One Laptop Per Child initiative. In the case of Aakash, this is grass-roots innovation that has Grameen Bank like possibilities.
While some get distracted comparing/contrasting tech specs, the significant impact of Aakash is that it is a disruptive innovation in the truest sense:
“An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill.  Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include:  lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.”
I am certainly looking forward to seeing this evolve!

  • Like Aakash, I am of Indian origin. My Indian origin, however, is somewhat diluted by some English origin – making me an Anglo-Indian. Regardless, my own origin may play some role in my gushing exuberance for Aakash – and hence the need for this disclaimer.
  • I am the owner of a Motorola Xoom, but not an iPad. This may mean I am somewhat predisposed towards the Android platform.
Feel free to chime in with your thoughts on Aakash by commenting on this post.