Backing up Your Wonderful Mac: Think Twice
September 6, 2020
If you have a Mac anything, check out “Under Construction.” The write up does a good and mostly politically correct explanation of why one’s Mac back ups often disappoint. People love Apple and adore their Mac whatevers. We were testing a software which bonds two or more Internet connections. The software was okay, but the zippy super duper antenna we had to purchase was a bit more problematic. To make the painful two days short, the drivers to make the wonderful Mac connect to the external super duper antenna did not work. The installation nuked the existing installation of our former friend Catalina. We figured no big deal. We had TimeMachine. We had a manual back up on a separate external device.
Problem? You bet.
Nothing restored. If the information in Under Construction is on the beam, the problem is a result of Apple’s lack of engineering attention.
What was our fix? We reinstalled Mojave and got everything working. The TimeMachine thing? We are not using it any more. We manually copy data files and will rely on complete reinstalls when the wonderfully mis-engineered Macs create such excitement. Back ups? Hey, no big deal. Buy an iPhone.
Stephen E Arnold, September 6, 2020
Intel: Why the Horse Collar Outfit Stumble Is Wobbling
September 4, 2020
A story in Techradar helps illuminate the magnitude of the Intel wobble. Right, Intel. The outfit which has watched a smaller firm zip along in the desktop CPU market and repeatedly miss chip deadlines. Even Apple has reduced its dependence on the iconic company which uses buzzwords instead of silicon and more with it materials to make its point. “Here’s How Huawei and Other Chinese Firms Could Access Crucial CPU Technology without Restrictions” contains an interesting paragraph which may be made up but may not be:
The number of Chinese chip designers skyrocketed from 736 in 2015 to 1,780 in 2017. Many of these companies need CPU IP and some may not be inclined to use Arm. For them, MIPS and RISC-V architectures are two natural choices and MIPS has an edge over RISC-V right now. MIPS does have off-the-shelf high-performance CPU cores comparable to Arm’s Cortex-A70-series or Neoverse, but it is possible to use the MIPS architecture to build something powerful enough for servers. For example, China’s Loongson Technology develops MIPS64 CPUs for client devices and servers and there are also Green500 supercomputers based on MIPS CPUs.
Intel seems to be managing in a way that inadvertently makes its competitive posture scleotic.
Stephen E Arnold, September 4, 2020
Intel Code Names: Horse Feathers, Horse Collars, and Fancy Dancing
September 3, 2020
Intel loves code names. And what a knack for coinages? Pentium. What’s not to like. I noted this item last year (2019) I believe:
Intel, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, and Cray, is building the nations first Exascale supercomputer. By accelerating the convergence of high performance computing and artificial intelligence, Exascale supercomputing will advance scientific research and enable breakthroughs in neuroscience and cancer research, aerospace modeling and simulation, and theoretical research of our universe. The Aurora system will be based on the future generation of the Intel® Scalable Processor, the future Intel® Xeon® compute architecture, the next generation Intel® Optane™ DC persistent memory, and supported by Intel’s One API software.
Note the word choice: Convergence, high performance, artificial intelligence, Exascale, super computing, modeling, simulation, theoretical research, scalable, Optane, and One API.
Do I have a problem with this English major with a minor in marketing writing? Nah. Makes zero difference to me. We switched to Ryzen 3950X silicon. Workin’ just fine.
However, the venerable New York Times published “Intel Slips, and a High Performance Supercomputer Is Delayed.” That write up stated:
Intel, the last big US company that both designs and makes microprocessors, signaled in July that it might for the first time use foundries owned by other companies to make some cutting edge chips.
Now it’s September, and how is Intel doing?
Not too well. The Argonne Aurora supercomputer is delayed. Chinese computer scientists rejoice.
Is this Intel stumble important?
Yes, buzzwords and MBA speak cannot disguise the fact that Intel cannot deliver on time and on target. But, wow, Intel can spin fancy phrases; for example, Optane as in “Argonne can Optane its supercomputer.”
Another Covid moment?
Stephen E Arnold, September 3, 2020
Technical Debt: Nope, It Exists and That Debt Means Operational Poverty, Then Death
August 28, 2020
“Technical Debt Doesn’t Exist” is an interesting view of software. The problem is that “technology” is not just software. The weird behavior of an Adobe application like Framemaker can be traced to the program’s Unix roots. But why, one asks, is it so darned difficult to manage colors in a program intended to print documents with some parts in color? What about the mysterious behavior of Windows 10 when a legal installation collects $0.99 cents for an HEVC codec only to report that the codec cannot be installed? What about the enterprise application from OpenText cannot display a document recently displayed to the user of the content management system? Are these problems due to careless programming?
According to the article:
There is no such thing as technical debt. There is work to do, that we can agree on, but it’s not debt payment.
The punch line for the write up is that technical debt is just maintenance.
Let’s think about this.
The constraints of Framemaker result from its Unix roots. Now decades later, those roots still exist. Like the original i2 Analyst’s Notebook (a policeware system), some functions were constrained by the lovely interaction of the hardware, the operating system, and the code. The Unix touches remain today: Enter Escape O P C and the list of styles pop up. Yep, commands from 40 years ago are still working and remain inscrutable to anyone trying to learn the program. Why aren’t there changes? Adobe tried and ended up with InDesign. I would suggest that the cost of “fixing up” Framemaker were too high if Adobe could corral engineers who could do the job. Framemaker, therefore, is still around, but it is an orphan and a problematic one at that.
What about Microsoft and a codec? The fact that Microsoft makes a free version available for a person willing to put in the time to locate the HEVC download is one thing. Charging $0.99 for a codec which cannot be installed is another. Figuring out the unknown and unanticipated interactions among video hardware, software in the Windows 10 fun house, and third-party software is too expensive. What’s the fix? Ignore the problem. Put out some marketing baloney and tell the human doing customer support to advise the person with the failed codec to reinstall Windows. Yeah, right. A problem exists that will be around for exactly as long as there is Windows 10.
What about the OpenText content management system? We encountered this problem when trying to figure out why users of the system could not locate a file which had been saved the previous day. We poked around the hardware; we poked around the content management system; we poked around the search system which turned out to be an Autonomy stub. Yep, Autonomy search was “in” the OpenText system. The issue was the interaction of the Autonomy search system first crafted in the late 1990s, the content management system which OpenText bought from a vendor, and the hardware used to run the system. Did OpenText care? Nope, not at all. Open a file and wait 15 minutes. And what about the missing file? Updates sat in a queue and usually took place a couple of days after the Save command was issued. The fix? Ho ho ho.
Let me be clear: When a system is coded and it sort of works, that system is deployed. If a problem surfaces quickly, the vendor will have someone fix it. If it is a big problem, maybe two or three people will work on the issue. Whatever must be done to get the phone to stop ringing, the email to stop arriving, and angry customers to stop having their lawyers write nasty grams will be done. Then it is over. No one will go back and figure out what went wrong, make fixes, and dutifully put the ship in proper shape. The mistake is embedded in digital amber and the “fix” is part of the woodwork. How often do you look at the plumbing connections from the outside water line to your hot water heater. What happens when there’s a leak? A fix is made and then forget it.
What about technical debt? The behaviors I have described mean that systems persist through time. The systems are not refactored or “fixed”. The systems are just patched. Amazon enshrines this process in its two pizza teams. And how about the documentation for the fixes made on Saturday morning at 3 am? Ho ho ho.
Let me offer some observations:
- Significant changes to software today are mostly cosmetic, what I call wrappers. The problems remain but their pointy parts are blunted.
- The cost of making fundamental changes are beyond the reach of even the largest and most resource rich organizations.
- The humans required to figure out where the problem is and make structural changes are almost impossible for most technologies.
The article calls this maintenance. I think that’s an okay word, but the reality is that today’s software, particular software based on recycled libraries, existing systems accessed via application programming interfaces, and hardware with components with checkered or unknown pasts are not going to be “fixed.”
We live in an era of “good enough.”
The technical debt is going to catch up to those who sell and develop products. Users are already paying the price.
What happens if one pushes technical debt into tomorrow or next week?
That’s an easy question to answer. The vaunted “user experience” becomes more like a carnival act while the behind the scenes activity is less and less savory. How about those mandatory updates which delete photos, kill a Mac desktop, or allow a mobile phone to go dead because of a bug? The new normal.
It’s just maintenance. We know how much bean counters like to allocate cash for maintenance. Operational poverty, then the death of innovation.
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2020
About Process IBM and Intel Chips: Lame and Lamer?
August 28, 2020
AnandTech published “TSMC Details 3nm Process Technology: Full Node Scaling for 2H22 Volume Production.” Most people don’t know a nanometer from a Gen X tweeter. No crazy physics required for this post. What’s important are these two “big” announcements from US technology companies who are in the CPU business.
The first announcement is from Intel. That’s the outfit with the Horse Collar quantum computing thing. No, you can’t get one yet, maybe ever. Who really knows? Intel is now going to ship CPUs using 10 nm process technology with modern with it process technology scheduled for 2021. Let’s go with 7nm. I like assuming that Intel will catch up with AMD Ryzen 3000s. For “color”, you may enjoy this NYT write up about the Intel Inside crowd. Prepare to pay for “all the news,” of course.
The second announcement is from Big Blue. That’s the outfit with IBM Watson which also sells mainframes. (Thank goodness for the RedHat acquisition.) You can now purchase the really popular Power9 CPUs fabbed at 14nm.
So what?
If TSMC does move to 3nm in 2022, will IBM and Intel have a horse in the race? Moving the wonderful Intel architecture to parity with AMD has been — how shall I phrase it — a long, painful journey in a Yugo.
IBM has to move from 14nm to 3nm. Hey, just ask Watson how to pull this off.
With ARM, Amazon, and Chinese CPU outfits pushing in new directions, perhaps one should consult the oracle at Delphi about the future business opportunities for IBM and Intel. Pigeons work. Moving to more modern, energy efficient, and sometimes speedier CPUs may be a challenge. Where did that pigeon go? Taiwan and South Korea where the fabs are?
Stephen E Arnold, August 28, 2020
OnionFruit Revamps With New Browser Version
August 26, 2020
Remaining anonymous is impossible online, especially with all the cookies we “eat.” Instead of an all cookie diet, try using a browser made from onions and fruit! Major Geeks revealed their latest harvest with an update to their popular TOR browser: OnionFruit Connect 2020.730.0.
TOR browsers work, because they encrypt a user’s browsing data in many security layers like an onion. In order to identify the user, one has to peel back layers of encrypted data. It makes hacking someone with a Tor browser tedious and extremely difficult. TOR browsers also allow people to connect to the Dark Web that uses encrypted and random web addresses.
OnionFruit guarantees its users are protected:
“Having the ability to use a browser that you are already comfortable with makes using TOR more of a seamless process. OnionFruit Connect will initiate the TOR service and then configures your proxy settings allowing your apps to be routed through TOR’s tunnel. You will be notified that you’re protected, confirming that all your internet traffic is being passed through the TOR tunnel safely encrypted. This process ensures that every single site you visit gets routed through multiple servers to help mask your actions, making them difficult to track.”
OnionFruit is simple to set up on a computer and then access the TOR network. The best thing is that it works with favored browsers: Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Opera, and others without an extra configuration. OnionFruit updates itself, has custom landing pages, and a download speed monitor.
It is an easy way to encrypt Web browsing and also learn more about the TOR network.
Whitney Grace, August 26, 2020
IBM: A New PR Direction without Recipes and TV Game Shows?
August 18, 2020
IBM appears to be shifting its marketing in an interesting way. IBM announced its Power10 chips. Representative of the coverage is Forbes’ Magazine’s “IBM POWER10 Mega Chip For Hybrid Cloud Is Revealed.” The write up is not written by Forbes’ staff. The article is from an outfit called Tirias Research, a member of a contributor group. I am not sure what a contributor group is. The article seems like marketing speak to me, but you judge for yourself. Here’s a snippet:
To handle the ever more complex cloud workloads, the POWER10 improves capacity (socket throughput) and efficiency by about 3x over the POWER9. The energy efficiency gains were critical because IBM increased CPU core count over the POWER9 but kept the socket power roughly the same. All in all, the POWER10 big step forward for the architecture.
Next, I noticed write ups about IBM’s mainframe business. Navigate to “COBOL Still Handles 70% of Global Business Transactions.” The content strikes me as a recycling of IBM-prepared visuals. Here’s an example of the “analysis” and “news” in the article about the next big future:
Several observations:
- It was not that long ago that IBM was touting IBM Watson as capable of matching pets with potential owners. Now IBM is focusing on semiconductors and “workhorse” mainframes
- There are chips using technology more advanced than IBM’s 7 and 14 nanometer chips. Like Intel, IBM makes no reference to manufacturing techniques which may offer more advantages. That’s understandable. But three nanometer fabs are approaching, and IBM appears to be following, not leading.
- The cheerleading for hybrid clouds is different from cheerleading for “the cloud.” Has IBM decided that its future pivots on getting companies to build data centers and hire IBM to maintain them.
The craziness of the state unemployment agencies with COBOL based systems is fresh in my mind. For me, emphasizing the dependence of organizations upon COBOL is interesting. This statement caught my attention:
COBOL still handle [sic] more than 70% of the business transactions that take place in the world today.
Is this a good thing? Are Amazon, Microsoft, and Google embracing mainframes? My hunch is that companies are unable to shift from legacy systems. Inertia, not innovation, may be creating what some people seeking unemployment benefits from COBOL-centric systems perceive as a dysfunctional approach.
Net net: At least IBM is not talking about recipes created by Watson.
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2020
Listening to Mobile Calls: Maybe? Maybe Not
August 18, 2020
An online publication called Hitb.org has published “Hackers Can Eavesdrop on Mobile Calls with $7,000 Worth of Equipment.” Law enforcement and other government entities often pay more for equipment which performs similar functions. Maybe $7,000 is a bargain, assuming the technology works and does not lead to an immediate visit from government authorities.
According to the write up, you can listen to mobile calls using a method called “ReVoLTE”, a play on the LTE or long term evolution cellular technology. The article reports:
Now, researchers have demonstrated a weakness that allows attackers with modest resources to eavesdrop on calls. Their technique, dubbed ReVoLTE, uses a software-defined radio to pull the signal a carrier’s base station transmits to a phone of an attacker’s choosing, as long as the attacker is connected to the same cell tower (typically within a few hundred meters to few kilometers) and knows the phone number. Because of an error in the way many carriers implement VoLTE, the attack converts cryptographically scrambled data into unencrypted sound. The result is a threat to the privacy of a growing segment of cell phone users. The cost: about $7,000.
Ah, ha, a catch. One has to be a researcher, which implies access to low cost, highly motivated students eager to get an A. Also, the “researcher” words makes it clear that one cannot order the needed equipment with one click on Amazon’s ecommerce site.
How realistic is this $7,000 claim? DarkCyber thinks that a person interested in gaining access to mobile calls may want to stay in school. CalTech or Georgia Tech may be institutions to consider. Then after getting an appropriate degree, work for one of the specialized services firms developing software and hardware for law enforcement.
On the other hand, if you can build these devices in your bedroom, why not skip school and contact one of the enforcement agencies in the US or elsewhere. DarkCyber has a suggestion. Unlawful intercept can lead to some interesting learning experiences with government authorities. Too bad similar enforcement does not kick in for misleading headlines for articles which contain fluff. That sounds like I am pointing out flaws in Silicon Valley-style reporting. Okay, okay, I am.
Stephen E Arnold, August 18, 2020
Modern Technology Reporting: The New York Times Is Now a Pundit Platform
August 14, 2020
I was not sure if I would document my reaction to the August 13, 2020, page B5, as “Instagram Reels? No. Just No” and online under the title “We Tested Instagram Reels, the TikTok Clone. What a Dud.”
I reflected on an email exchange I had with another “real” journalist earlier this week. With plenty of time on my hands in rural Kentucky during the Rona Resurgence, I thought, “Yeah, share your thoughts, you Brontosaurian Boomer. “Real” journalists working for big name outfits need to have a social agenda, insights, wisdom, and expertise no other human possesses. Absolutely.
In my 50 year work career, I worked for three outfits with publishing interests. The first was CRM, the outfit which owned Psychology Today (edited by the interesting T. George Harris), Intellectual Digest, and a number of other properties. I did some project work for a marketing whiz who coined the phrase “Fotomat Where your photo matters” and John Suhler (yeah, the Suhler of Veronis Suhler). At meetings in Del Mar, Calif., a select group would talk and often drag in a so-called expert to hold forth on various topics. However, the articles which were commissioned or staff-written would not quote those at these meetings. Why? I have no idea. It was not a work practice. For me, it was how a reasonably successful magazine company operated.
Then I worked for Barry Bingham, Jr., who with his family owned most of the Courier-Journal & Louisville Times Company. There were other interests as well; for example, successful radio and TV stations, a direct mail operation, one of the first computer stores in Kentucky, a mail order business, and — believe it or not, the printing plant which cranked out the delightful New York Times Sunday Magazine. Plus, the NYT was then a family-owned operation. In my interactions with the NYT, my recollection is that the New York Times shared many of the old-fashioned work processes in use at the Courier-Journal. Was that the reason the Bingham papers won awards? One example is that the editorial writers wrote editorials. These were opinion pieces, personally vetted each day by Barry Bingham, Jr. The news people covered their beats. The reporters listened, gathered, analyzed, and wrote. No one quoted the man or woman across the desk in the alternately crazy and vacant newsroom. Also, the computer people (some of whom were decades ahead of systems people at other companies) did computery things. The printing people printed. Sure, there were polymaths and renaissance men and women, but people stayed in their lane.
My last publishing experience was in the Big Apple. I am not sure how I ended up on Bill Ziff’s radar, but I knew about him. He was variously described to me as a “publishing genius” and “Satan’s first cousin.” Dorothy Brown, the human resources vice president, eased my transition into the company from the Courier-Journal, telling me, “Just present facts. If Mr. Ziff wants your opinion, he will ask for it.” Good advice, Ms. Brown, good advice. (I heard the same thing when I did some consulting work for K. Wayne Smith, General, US Army.) The point is that management did management, which at Ziff included sponsoring a company race car. Advertising people collected money from advertisers dumped money in front of the building on Park Avenue South who wanted to appear in PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, and properties like PC Week. Once again, like the Ziff racing team, everyone stayed in their lanes. That meant that top flight reporters would report; executives dealt facts like Blackjack dealers in Las Vegas.
In these three experiences, I cannot recall an occasion on which the news people at these organizations interviewed one another.
The New York Times’ Brian X Chan interviewed the New York Times’ Taylor Lorenz. Now that’s interesting. Instead of picking up the phone and calling one of the wizards of punditry at a consulting firm, a firm developing short form video content, or an attorney monitoring Facebook’s interaction with regulators — the two ace reporters of “real” news interviewed themselves. Wow, that’s “real” work! Imagine. Scheduling a Zoom meeting.
It is one thing for a blog writer to take shortcuts. It is another thing for a newspaper which once generally tried to create objective news related to an event or issue to repeat office opinions. Was I annoyed? Nah, I think it is another indication that objectivity, grunting through the process of gathering information, sifting it, and trying to present a word picture that engages, illuminates, and explains is over.
In 2020, the New York Times runs inserts which are like propaganda posters stuck to the walls in my second grade classroom in Oxen Hill, Maryland, in 1950. The failure to present an objective assessment of the new Facebook knock off of TikTok was pure opinion. The reason? The New York Times’ “real” journalists see themselves as experts. Even the arrogant masters of the universe at an investment bank or a blue chip consulting firm try like the devil (maybe Bill Ziff) to get outsiders to provide “input.” A journalist may be a reporter, but the conversion of a reporter into an expert takes more than someone saying, “Wow, you guys know more about short form video than any other person within reach of a Zoom call” is misguided and a variant of what I call the high school science club management method. Yes, you definitely know more about Facebook’s short form video than anyone else within reach of a mobile phone or a Zoom connection.
I want to float a radical idea. Do some digging, some work. I think I can with reasonable confidence assert that John Suhler (my boss for my work at Veronis Suhler), Barry Bingham Jr. (the Courier-Journal owner), or Bill Ziff (the kin of Satan, remember?) would have the same viewpoint.
Just a suggestion, gentle reader: If a person wants me to respect their newspaper work as objective, informed, and professional, don’t replicate the filter-bubble, feedback loop of co-worker lunch room yip-yap: Research, sift, analyze, synthesize, and report.
Just my opinion, of course, but even Brontosauri can snort but that snort takes more effort than the energy expended presenting oneself as a wizard. Sorry, you pros are not in Merlin’s league.
Stephen E Arnold, August 14, 2020
Kiddie Computer Supports: Not Online But Related to Online
August 9, 2020
DarkCyber spotted “Best Affordable Desk Chair for Kids in 2020.” The write up presents mini commercials for eight desk chairs for the young WFH’er. Among the models are these remarkable solutions to lying on the floor, standing while shift one’s weight from leg to leg, and using a computing device at a kitchen table.
The wobble stool wobbles and teaches kids how to learn correct posture. I slump, and I don’t think the wobble stool would have been right for me.
A kids’ ball balance chair. This is a visual delight.
And the third chair I want to highlight is the classic desk chair. Yep, it looks like a standard desk chair with levers, wheels, and a flashy two tone color scheme, just smaller.
Observations:
- None of the chairs has a cup holder for essentials like Vitamin Water, a plastic animal filled with faux juice, or a frosty can of Mountain Dew.
- None of the chairs offers a snack shelf. Computing means eating junk food, right? Am I right?
- No Twitch or Zoom centric features like a built in mouse pad, brackets for connecting a mobile phone at eye level, or a connector for a ring light
- No semi recline mode, an essential posture for some would be professional streamers and gamers. I just call this slump mode.
We do love that green ball thing, however. That may turn a kid into a couch potato in less time than it takes a youthful computer user to level up.
Stephen E Arnold, August 9, 2020
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
