US Government’s Federation Challenge
February 1, 2009
I don’t think too much about the US government’s information technology challenges. Been there. Done that. I read Wired Magazine’s “Every Military Net Accessed at Once Thanks to OB1” here. US central command has 14 networks. Instead of running one query one the individual systems, now an authorized war fighter can look to a day when a single computer can provide results from more than a dozen separate systems. Quite progressive. OB1 stands for one box, one wire. No word when the system will be available. Oh, don’t tell anyone at central command that the Science.gov has been delivering federated search for more than five years. Also, keep it a secret that USA.gov (formerly FirstGov.gov) has been delivering federated search for even longer. Too much information could overload the warfighters. Zip those lips.
Stephen Arnold, February 1, 2009
Autonomy Scores PR Coup
February 1, 2009
London’s newspapers are darned entertaining. I immediately turn to page 3 of any paper I find on the tube when I am in the UK. I don’t buy the papers, though. The Times of London ran a beefy article about Autonomy. You can read the story here. The idea is that Autonomy is “at the heart of a new data revolution.” I had a difficult time following the write up. One comment stuck in my mind:
“Information is going to change from fitting to what a computer needs to a computer fitting to how we do stuff,” Lynch said. “If you believe that the world is going to move over to unstructured data you would expect to see that electricity inside almost every piece of software.”
I think I understand. Electricity will be “inside almost every piece of software.” I don’t know if I can forget this phrase.
Stephen Arnold, February 1, 2009
Social Brands
February 1, 2009
The discovery that bits can be used for communication continues to fascinate pundits. Online interaction is now “social software”. Okay with me. A more interesting angle appears in “Top Social Brands 2008.” The article by Andrew Lyle is here. The story lists the top 20 social brands. I was surprised. I hear social and I think of azure chipped consultants shouting about Enterprise 2.0 or whimpering about their technology conference attendance. I hear the reverberation of wiki and the tintinnabulation of the tweets. Two companies on the list illustrate my lack of sophistication in things social. (I think my 7th grade teacher complained about my lack of sociality in 1956.)
- Starbucks
- Hewlett Packard
Fooled me. I thought social meant software. Nope, social means nice. Now I don’t think of Starbucks as nice. I avoid the places because of the noise. HP? You’ve got to be kidding. Ever try to get coherent driver information from this outfit? No search vendors to be found. Google did not make the top 20. Microsoft grabs #5 and #11, which is pretty darned amazing as well.
Stephen Arnold, February 1, 2009
Some Possible Insight into Microsoft SharePoint Pricing
February 1, 2009
You have to respect a Web log writer who uses this disclaimer on her splash page:
Emma Explains Microsoft Licensing in Depth! Microsoft Licensing&SAM Blog, share information, DO NOT COPY CONTENT WITHOUT MY EXPRESS PERMISSION, Feedback & Qs welcome, Do not put up offensive, inciting or legally challenging info,Posting provided “AS IS” with no warranties ,confers no rights. You will want to check this out for yourself here.
The addled goose won’t quote because I don’t have the juice to send an email to ask permission to quote something on what sure looks like a public Web page. Here’s a link to a write up by “Emma” who allegedly sets forth the real dope on Microsoft SharePoint licensing. Here write up about MOSS FIS and CALS is here. Her write up about SharePoint server is here. There are some figures that seem interesting, but without the assumptions underlying these, it is difficult for the addled goose to determine if the data will match your Microsoft invoice. In my experience, Microsoft’s prices are fluid.
A recent example concerns a Fortune 100 company that was looking at SharePoint and a third party search system. The Redmond team pitched a 100 percent Microsoft solution and kicked in the Fast Search & Transfer lego blocks for a song. In this type of bundled deal, I think any “hard” prices become squishy.
Emma, on the other hand, presents concrete. Let’s hope that her concrete endures like the Roman architects’ mixture. My hunch is that modern day concrete won’t last. A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to Emma’s pricing information.
Stephen Arnold, February 1, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
