Microsoft Fast on Linux and Unix Innovation
February 15, 2010
It’s Valentine’s Day. I feel quite a bit of affection for the system professionals who have licensed Fast Search ESP, and I hope each finds search love. I think there will be a “tough” element to this love. And like other types of love, there will be ups and downs. Microsoft practiced some “tough love” for licensees of the Linux and Unix versions of Fast Search & Transfer’s Enterprise Search Platform recently. I am in a discursive frame of mind, and I will share my opinion about the “tough love” for the Linux and Unix licensees of the 1997 technology that comprises some of Fast Search & Transfer’s system.
The not-too-surprising announcement that Microsoft would stop supporting Fast Search & Transfer’s Linux and Unix customers surprised some folks. I think a handful of resellers were delighted because customers with non-Windows versions of Fast Search cannot change horses in the middle of the Tigris River, as Alexander the Great discovered in 331 BCE. Some poobahs pointed out that open source search would become a hot ticket for Fast Search Linux and Unix licensees. Others took a more balanced view of figuring out whether to rip and replace or supplement the aging Fast Search system with one of the more specialized solutions now available; for example, Exalead’s system could be snapped in without much hassle, based on my research for Successful Enterprise Search Management, published by Galatea in the UK last year. (Martin White was my co-author.)
Source: http://www.zastavki.com/pictures/1024×768/2008/Saint_Valentines_Day_St.Valentine_004959_.jpg
What I found interesting is that the Microsoft Enterprise Search blog contained some information from Bjørn Olstad, CTO, FAST and Distinguished Engineer, Microsoft. The write up’s title is “Innovation on Linux and Unix,” and it appeared on February 4, 2010.
Mr. Olstad wrote:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
The deal was consummated in April 2008. In October 2008, the Norwegian authorities seized some company information, but there has not been much news about the investigation into the pre-acquisition Fast Search & Transfer’s activities. At any event, it is now February 2010, so Microsoft has been operating Fast Search for the period between April 2008 and February 2010. That’s not quite two years, which is a nit, but software works when details are correct. What’s clear is that Fast Search and its Enterprise Search Platform or ESP is pared down and focused on the Windows platform.
I also noted this passage:
When we announced the acquisition two years ago, we said that we were committed to cross-platform innovation—that we’d “continue to offer stand-alone versions of ESP that run on Linux and UNIX,” and that we would provide updates to these versions to address customer concerns and add new features. Over the last two years, we’ve done just that.
Deep Web Technology Nails Deal with SWETS
February 14, 2010
Abe Lederman (one of the founders of Verity) alerted me this morning that his company, Deep Web Technology, signed a deal and partnership agreement with SWETS. This Netherlands-based company is one of the world’s leading subscription services. SWETS helps government agencies and companies with subscriptions and related services. The firm has clients in over 160 countries and describes itself as “a long-talk powerhouse.”
Deep Web Technology provides the software and systems that fuel Science.gov, a US government search and retrieval project. Science.gov taps into a wide range of data and information related to science and technology. The invention of the Deep Web method was an outgrowth of Dr. Lederman’s experience in providing a user with access to a broad range of structured and unstructured data. In my various reports on enterprise and special purpose search, I have given Dr. Lederman’s method high marks, and I even let him buy me a taco in a restaurant in Santa Fe, after I finished a lecture at Los Alamos. Dr. Lederman contributed at Los Alamos prior to founding Deep Web as I recall.
The deal brings Dr. Lederman’s federation technology to the SwetsWise Searcher. This service will be powered by Deep Web Technology. SwetsWise is designed to help librarians and their users meet the challenge of searching and finding relevant results from the ever-increasing catalog of content available online. The search system simplifies access to an organization’s diverse and valuable resources, along with the open Web content users are accustomed to searching. SWETS will deliver search results through the Deep Web ranking engine, providing incremental results for fast response times, scalability and flexibility. SwetsWise Searcher performs a rapid parallel search of all available sources or selected sources in real-time, ensuring fresh information and that documents are retrieved the minute they are published into a collection’s database. A simple search box to cover all sources can be integrated into any web page, blog or Intranet homepage.
A happy quack to Deep Web Technology. No more tacos in Santa Fe. I want a nuked burrito, a nod to our friends up the road.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I do have a promise of a taco in Santa Fe, which I have just rejected. I will report this to the Food & Drug Administration.
Yahoo Slide Ahead?
February 14, 2010
I have not paid much attention to Yahoo. I check every couple of months to see if the search system is getting better or Binged. So far. Status quo as far as I can tell. I have a sense that Yahoo is following the path worn in the digital forest by AOL. With an influx of Googlers, AOL may have a chance. Yahoo in my opinion thinks that it is a Google-level outfit. Maybe? Maybe not. When I read “Icahn Unloads Most of Yahoo Stake”, I realized that a savvy investor may feel that Yahoo is not going anywhere quickly. The MarketWatch story contained one comment I found interesting:
Icahn reported holding nearly 12 million shares of Yahoo as of the end of December [2009], according to the filing. The high-profile activist investor had owned more than 75 million shares of Yahoo at one point, and reported holding 62.9 million shares as recently as September.
Looks like Mr. Ichan is rethinking his investment in Yahoo. What does his smart money tell us? I don’t get happiness vibes, but I could be misreading a sale of shares when the market is conflicted.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report this state of financial non input to the Bureau of Public Debt.
China Love: Baidu Profits, Google Waffles
February 14, 2010
A happy Valentine quack to the person who spoke with me yesterday about Baidu’s record profits. I don’t have an easy way to follow the Chinese search and ad company. I did a bit of poking around and located “Baidu Q4 Profit Up 48.2%, Guides Q1 Revenue above Estimates” and was surprised at the numbers. The Baidu managers generated about US$60 million in profit, up from US$42 million in its third quarter, 2009. In a lousy economy, Baidu suggested that the money train would keep on rolling.
Who cares?
I don’t but I think that the performance of Baidu and the size of the Chinese market mean something to Google. As everyone knows, Google has been waffling on China in a “yes, we love you” and “no, we don’t love you” approach to search, mobile telephony, and Chinese laws.
My newsreader contained this gem, “Google’s Sergey Brin Says He’s Optimistic about Staying in China.” According to the write up, Mr. Brin allegedly said:
“We want to find a way to work within the Chinese system. A lot of people might think I am naive and that might be true.
I don’t know about naive but I know about the need to satisfy shareholder expectations. Leaving one of the world’s largest markets to Baidu may create a competitor that could take a big bite out of the Google’s financial hide. China? Buzz? Australia? The Department of Justice? Exciting times for the math club as it seeks China love.
Stephen E Arnold, February 14, 2010
Raise Prices, Lose Sales. Obvious?
February 13, 2010
I found the information in “Online Gaming Store Lowers Prices 75%, Sees Sales Shoot Up 5500%” ideal for my lecture anecdote file. I suggest you check out this write up. For me, the key point was:
Rasmus Larsson points us to a report from an online gaming store that also reduced prices by 75% and saw sales increase by an astounding 5500% (Google translation from the original). A similar test, with a price decrease of 50% saw sales increase 533%. Interestingly, after each price decrease, the company put the price back up again and saw a (slight) sales increase at the higher price too. As the article notes “the price is marketing.”
With book publishers pushing up prices for electronic books, will publishers hit a home run? Bottom of the 9th, two outs. Play ball.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report the non compensated activity to the director of the US Postal Museum. Help stamp out inefficiency.
Factoid: Google Search Volume
February 13, 2010
Short honk: comScore released some Web search data. I scanned the various analyses and breezed through the numbers. Not much of a change. The Google, according to comScore, is in the 65 percent market share red zone. Microsoft Bing is growing as Yahoo flounders. Ask.com? I don’t really know, but I noticed that the Jeeves character is back in UK Ask.com adverting. I did spot one fact that struck me as interesting. The source was the write up “Bing Boings but Google Grows.” I am not sure what a “boing” is, but it is onomatopoeic I suppose. Perhaps the writer at Network World has a yen for tintinabulating terms. Anyway, here is the factoid:
Google Sites’ search query volume grew 21 percent, driven both by gains in searches per searcher (up 10 percent) and unique searchers (9 percent).
Why is this compelling? Well, the query volume means more users running more queries. And there is the steady search growth of the YouTube video combine. The unique searchers numbers means that the GOOG is snagging fresh tuna.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because I mentioned tuna as a type of user, I shall report my failure to land money to the Coast Guard.
Apple and Online Pricing Tactics
February 13, 2010
I found the Techwatch story “Apple Wants Cheaper TV in Time for iPad Launch” useful because it showed the tactical mismatch between Amazon and Apple. Amazon is a digital discount store, moving closer and closer to eBay. Apple blindsided Amazon with its pitch to publishers for eBook pricing that left Amazon twisting in the wind, to use a Nixon era phrase. Amazon countered with a misstep and then capitulation. To make Amazon’s management disarray more evident to me, Amazon announced the Kindle software development kit. Good luck with that. I own a Kindle first generation and a Kindle second generation. Neither has enough power to get me to use the clunky on board search system. Most system functions such as moving media from the Kindle One memory to the SD card I installed is so painful I don’t fool with the function. Amazon is going to have to add some serious horsepower to the Kindle to get the basics to work in way to find acceptable before I think of letting one of the goslings code up an Amazon app.
The Techwatch story underscored how Apple’s book play was the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn in chess. Books are just not going to be where the money is in the future. Check out your own kids. How many of them are going to buy books when there are other ways to obtain information. The Apple push for cheaper TV shows, reported in the Techwatch story, makes clear that Apple knows exactly what sells and what price points are needed to generate big bucks. I think the publishers may be in for a surprise when the iPad finally comes to market. Save the magazine and newspaper industry? Great idea. The gizmo is for TV. Book readers will pay whatever the going rate is. The problem is that there are more non book, newspaper, and magazine readers. Price accordingly.
Apple knows pricing.
Amazon wants to be Google, eBay, Apple, and Wal*Mart. I think Amazon is skating on thin ice. Some hints can be found in studies about commoditization. The difference is that plumbing and marketing are going to be needed to cope with Apple and Google.
To round out my comments, what about eBay, Microsoft, and Yahoo? Are these the first team? Here’s how I view the players. Remember, this is my opinion. eBay seems to have an identity crisis. Microsoft is more like IBM or a baby Ling Temco Vought. Yahoo is—well, I think—a 1998 portal.
In this list of four, which are the players whom you would choose first for your digital softball team:
[a] Yahoo
[b] Google
[c] eBay
[d] Apple
[e] Amazon
[f] Microsoft.
Post your answers and the one compelling reason to the comments section of this Web log. I know which I would choose. I will go with the companies that make things happen, not companies that are reactive and tactically weak.
Stephen E Arnold, February 13, 2010
No one paid me to write this. I will report non compensation for tactical metaphors to the commandant of the Army War College. Those folks are into tactical superiority.
Google Stands Up to Australia
February 12, 2010
I am no legal eagle, but I found it interesting that Google, according to The Age’s “Google Baulks at Controy’s Call to Censor YouTube”, has another Google versus a country situation brewing. According the write up,
Google says it will not “voluntarily” comply with the government’s request that it censor YouTube videos in accordance with broad “refused classification” (RC) content rules. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy referred to Google’s censorship on behalf of the Chinese and Thai governments in making his case for the company to impose censorship locally.
Google has a big presence in Australia. Based on my experience in that part of the world, Australia does not fool around in some policy areas. My hunch is that Google will be faced with some clear instructions, backed by Australian authorities, and the Google will do what it is doing to keep its shareholders happy. The Google rich media opportunity is significant and making a misstep early in the tactical deployment of this business push is probably not a good idea in my opinion.
The gentle push back from Google makes headlines, but the actions of the company are what I find interesting after the PR dust has settled.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. Next time I am in Australia I will report this to the authorities in Canberra, and I will take my pith helmet with the fly netting.
Metasearch Systems: Some Thoughts
February 12, 2010
I fielded a phone call yesterday from a person who wanted to know the status of metasearch systems. I ran through some basic information and mentioned the three metasearch systems that I looked at recently for an investment bank. These services are:
Dogpile.com, owned by InfoSeek. (Note: I have in my notes a comment that suggested the search plumbing was some home brew and some Fast Search & Transfer.)
Ixquick.com, owned (according to my musty files) by Surfboard Holding BV. (Note: the application was developed by a former whiz in the investment banking sector)
Search.com, owned by CBS. (Note: you can download the WebFerret desktop application from http://www.webferret.com/)
Metasearch functions are available from “enterprise search vendors”, a phrase that I really dislike, but folks use it. These vendors include:
BrightPlanet.com. See http://www.arnoldit.com/search-wizards-speak/brightplanet.html for an interview with William Bushee, lead technologist for BrightPlanet, for more information.
Deep Web Technologies. See http://www.arnoldit.com/search-wizards-speak/deep-web.html for an interview with Abe Lederman, the founder of Deep Web.
Vivisimo. See http://www.arnoldit.com/search-wizards-speak/vivisimo.html for an interview with Raul Valdes Perez and Jerome Pesenti, founders of Vivisimo.
There are other outfits with “federating” and metasearch functionality, but these two lists provide a foundation for my observations.
First, I think that as Google’s share of the search market rises, traffic to these public metasearch sites will be under pressure. You can see what’s happening with Dogpile.com, Ixquick.com, and Search.com.
Each of these services is “flat”, assuming, of course, that the Compete.com data are reasonably accurate. For purposes of comparison, Compete.com reports that Google has about 145 million unique visitors, which seems low, but the relative traffic difference is the point. Metasearch is commanding a modest share of the search traffic.
I like the Ixquick.com service, and I hope that the owners can pump up the traffic. I will have to look into this situation later this year.
For the enterprise search vendors, I think the picture may be different. BrightPlanet, Deep Web, and Vivisimo can deliver injections of third party content to their enterprise customers. Will these firms be able to generate traction as Fetch and Kapow ramp up? Will these firms compete or complement the expanding offerings of i2.co.uk, particularly in the law enforcement and intelligence sector. Will these firms have a counter to slow the push of Mark Logic Corp. into these potentially lucrative enterprise customers?
I don’t have answers to these questions, but I think the metasearch sector is going to become more interesting in 2010.
Stephen E Arnold, February 11, 2010
No one paid me to write this article. I will report this poverty assurance plan to to the General Accountability Office when the snow melts in DC.
CloudXL: Cloud Services Search
February 12, 2010
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to CloudXL.com, a cloud service locator service.
I have been one of the voices of caution about vertical search services. The reason is that a broad indexing methods like Google’s generally provides a method for slicing and dicing results. The vertical search engine targets a specific topic area and indexes it well. But over time the types of indexing that a company like Google does makes the broader index more useful. There are exceptions like specialty indexes for antidotes, chemical structures, and ternary phase diagrams. But for general topics, a big data index like Google has an advantage if you know how to work around the training wheels that Google bolts to some users browsers.
I did CloudXL.com useful. The service uses some Google plumbing but the CloudXL.com service provides some useful one-click filters; that is, a Boolean NOT converted to colorful buttons. If you want to see the most recent additions to the service, you don’t need to search. Just scan the home page. If you want to locate a cloud database, you just click on “Categories” and scan the list. When you spot “database as a service, check the box and click submit.
The system displayed three hits and two of them were useful. If you are looking for cloud services, you might want to bookmark CloudXL. There’s no search system. Perhaps a Google custom search engine will be added in the near future.
Stephen E Arnold, February 12, 2010
No one paid me to write this. Because I mentioned clouds, I will report non payment to NOAA.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
