· Technology
 · · Microsoft

Spaced Paragraphs in Word · The In­ter­net is fierce with polemics about one-space-or-two-after-the-period. Bah, lightweight stuff. What about all those poor peo­ple you see mak­ing MS Word docs look a lit­tle more spa­cious by in­sert­ing an ex­tra emp­ty line be­tween para­graph­s? There is a bet­ter way! But the Of­fice UI (on Mac at least) is heinous, so here’s a step-by-step ...
Good Writing, Twice · I al­most nev­er use this space any more just for links but damn it this is my blog and I can if I want to. Here are two ex­cep­tion­al pieces of writ­ing and you should go read them both: First, John Gruber’s Mi­crosoft, Past and Fu­ture is by a huge mar­gin the best thing I’ve read on that tran­si­tion, and Mi­crosoft still mat­ter­s, re­al­ly a lot. Se­cond, Wil­liam Burroughs’ Do­ing Easy is un­like any­thing I’ve read this year or last year ei­ther, will make you smile and is full of big im­por­tant life lesson­s.
Web3S · Wel­l, well, we now have two freshly-baked HTTP-based Web Re­source CRUD pro­to­cols which ad­ver­tise them­selves as be­ing REST­ful. Microsoft’s new We­b3S is de­signed to sup­port re­mote up­date of Live Con­tact­s, which is, and I quote: “the cen­tral da­ta store in Win­dows Live for ad­dress book in­for­ma­tion. All Hot­mail con­tact­s, Mes­sen­ger bud­dies and Spaces’ friends are record­ed in Live Con­tact­s. There are cur­rent­ly ap­prox­i­mate­ly 500,000,000 ac­tive ad­dress books in Live Contacts.” See Yaron Goland’s in­tro APP and Dare, the sit­ting duck (read the com­ments too), then the draft spec Web Struc­tured, Schema’d & Search­able (We­b3S) and its FAQ. There’s a re­ac­tion from David Ing, Not Your Father’s MDa­ta; the com­ments be­low might be a good place to ag­gre­gate more links. [Up­date: Yaron Goland has ad­dressed the is­sues I raised here, FAQ-style, in a com­ment be­low.] ...
WCF-REST · It’s like this: The WS-* project’s at­tempt to re-invent RPC and pre­tend that you can suc­cess­ful­ly take an object-model view of net­worked ap­pli­ca­tions looks in­creas­ing­ly fan­ci­ful, in the gen­er­al case. On the oth­er hand, Microsoft’s Mer­ry Men slaved away on Indigo, worked around the hor­rors of XSD and WSDL, built some pret­ty good Visu­al Stu­dio tool­ing, and shipped DCOM, the Next Gen­er­a­tion WCF; now it’s the way Win­dows wants to be talked to over the net. Which is why the Ja­va ecosys­tem has things like WSIT, built in­to JAX-WS; you may not like Win­dows but ev­ery­one has to talk to it ...
Microsoft · Last week I spent time talk­ing to a lot of dif­fer­ent tech­nol­o­gy peo­ple, from all over the world ge­o­graph­i­cal­ly and or­ga­ni­za­tion­al­ly and cul­tur­al­ly. The con­ver­sa­tion kept loop­ing back to Mi­crosoft, and to the same sen­ti­men­t: They’ve lost their mo­jo. Lots of peo­ple will end up us­ing Vis­ta, but does any­one care? The Mi­crosoft ex­ecs look hag­gard and joy­less, and half the in­ter­views feel phoned-in. There’s re­al in­no­va­tion in the Of­fice UI, and ev­ery­one says “But it’s OK, the old key­board short­cuts still work”. The ad­ver­tis­ing cam­paign is va­pid and lame, but then that’s noth­ing new; they haven’t run an ef­fec­tive one in years. I’m sure that Mi­crosoft can come back, the way IBM did af­ter their bad patch last cen­tu­ry; maybe the en­er­gy is build­ing in a build­ing in Red­mond where nobody’s look­ing. I’ve nev­er liked Mi­crosoft, but now I re­al­ize how much en­er­gy they used to in­ject in­to the ecosys­tem, be­cause it’s not there any more and I miss it.
Microsoft XML, the Mac Angle · There’s been a lot of noise these last few days about the Mi­crosoft Of­fice XML file for­mat­s; the world doesn’t need my opin­ion again. I’d vague­ly not­ed that Mac Of­fice would be a lit­tle be­hind on the new XML, then Si­mon Phipps shot me links to a cou­ple of clos­er look­s, which shed an in­struc­tive light ...
Kill Switch Nightmare ·  Mary Jo Fo­ley (who has been ex­cel­lent re­cent­ly, a must-read) re­ports that both Win­dows Vista and Of­fice 2007 have a “Kill Switch”; if you can’t prove you’re prop­er­ly li­censed, the soft­ware turns it­self of­f. Maybe I’m miss­ing some­thing, but this seems like com­plete batshit-looney ter­ri­to­ry. Let’s see, sup­pose I’m a black-hat prof­i­teer sit­ting be­yond the reach of Western law but with con­trol over a few bot­nets. If I can get my hands on your Kill Switch, I’ll have a nice lit­tle ex­tor­tion busi­ness, as in “Pay up or all your desk­tops will de­cide they’re un­li­censed and turn off.” It’d work best in a sales-centric busi­ness near end-of-quarter. Another po­ten­tial vic­tim would be any gov­ern­ment (or com­pa­ny even) that has a lot of en­e­mies; they don’t want your mon­ey, they just want to take you down. So, with­out think­ing too hard, here are some at­tack vec­tors I’d con­sid­er: If I can sub­vert your net­work rout­ing, gotcha! If I can sub­vert the reg­istry on your desk­top ma­chi­nes, gotcha! If I can sub­vert the NTP pro­to­col (how most com­put­ers learn what time it is), gotcha! I’m sure that an ac­tu­al sea­soned net­work en­gi­neer could think up a half-dozen more at­tack sce­nar­ios over a cup of cof­fee. Fi­nal­ly, nev­er as­cribe to mal­ice that which can be ex­plained by in­com­pe­tence; WGA is soft­ware and soft­ware has bugs and if one of those bugs flipped the Kill Switch on your sales in­fras­truc­ture of­fline dur­ing the Christ­mas rush, well, there wouldn’t be any mal­ice in­volved, but it’d sure be a pity. What pru­dent busi­nessper­son, I won­der, is go­ing to in­stall crit­i­cal in­fras­truc­ture that can be turned off re­mote­ly, trust­ing the claims that on­ly the good guys will be able to find the key to the “off” switch?
OOXML Hoo-Hah · Bob Su­tor and Rob Weir (both of IBM) have been been whack­ing away at the stan­dards lip­stick be­ing paint­ed on the Mi­crosoft Of­fice In­ter­nal Da­ta Struc­ture XML Dump pig. Oop­s, of­fi­cial­ly, that’s “ECMA Of­fice Open XML”. In A Leap Back Rob de­scribes Excel’s well-known date-representation bug be­ing en­cod­ed in an al­leged In­ter­na­tion­al Stan­dard. Then again in A bit about the bit with the bits, he talks about bit­masks and of­fal (re­al­ly). But it’s Bob’s point, in Is Open XML a one way spec­i­fi­ca­tion for most peo­ple?, that’s cen­tral: this is just a six-thousand-page da­ta dump de­scrib­ing a par­tic­u­lar XML se­ri­al­iza­tion of a par­tic­u­lar com­mer­cial application’s ob­ject mod­el, com­plete­ly obliv­i­ous to the uni­verse of publishing-related stan­dards that have been ham­mered out and put to work while MSOf­fice was be­ing tend­ed in Red­mond. You can write “STANDARD” on it in let­ters as big as you wan­t, but there will on­ly ev­er be one full im­ple­men­ta­tion, and if you stan­dard­ize on this stan­dard you’ve locked your­self in. Shame, shame on the oth­er com­pa­nies on the com­mit­tee, help­ing Mi­crosoft per­pet­u­ate this trav­es­ty. There’s just no ex­cuse.
Microsoft & ODF · I’ve been won­der­ing how to re­act to this Mi­crosoft ODF An­nounce­ment. Andy Upde­grove points out that the news isn’t that new, but still I see this as sig­nif­i­can­t. From a glass-half-empty point of view, I could ob­jec­t, as Bob Su­tor does, to the mis­di­rec­tion and out­right lies in the Mi­crosoft spin. Or I could echo Mark Pil­grim in point­ing out that this is cur­rent­ly large­ly va­por­ware (more de­tails here). But I think that on bal­ance the big sto­ry is that Red­mond has moved from a “There’s no de­mand for ODF” stance to ad­mit­ting that, in fac­t, there is. Cur­rent­ly, it’s large­ly a public-sector thing; and read­ing be­tween the mel­liflu­ous lines of Chris Capossela’s A Foun­da­tion for the New World of Doc­u­ments, I sense a tone of barely-suppressed fear: “We en­cour­age pub­lic sec­tor or­ga­ni­za­tions to move to XML file for­mats but not to man­date a par­tic­u­lar for­mat or implementation.” We can all agree on implementation—that’s the point, af­ter all—but to refuse to bless a for­mat seems to me to ig­nore the les­son of the We­b, writ­ten in let­ters of fire 500 feet high: agree on the smallest-possible num­ber of da­ta for­mat­s, and com­pete on what you do with them.
WinFS · Wow, it’s dead. You have to be sad when any­thing goes south that so many peo­ple have worked on so hard for so long. Stil­l, I re­mem­ber be­ing told in the ear­ly Nineties, when I was talk­ing up Unix server­s, that I was sil­ly and wrong be­cause the Cairo ob­ject filesys­tem would make ev­ery­thing else ir­rel­e­van­t. And then years lat­er, when I was sell­ing search and con­tent man­age­ment for a liv­ing, be­ing told once again that we’d all be ca­su­al­ties of the WinFS band­wag­on. I won­der if, in oth­er pro­fes­sions as in ours, the con­ven­tion­al wis­dom is so of­ten so wrong? [Up­date: Lots of thought­ful cov­er­age: The OS Re­view, Devel­op­ing on the Edge, The Fish­bowl, Dare Obasan­jo, Si­mon Phipps.]
Goddess · That would be my wife Lau­ren. After I b0rked our Win2K game­box, I tried re-installing the OS and even­tu­al­ly re­duced it to com­plete brick-ness, it rec­og­nized nei­ther the video adapter nor the net­work card. So Lau­ren brushed me aside and start­ed wrestling with the prob­lem, and to make a long sto­ry short, it al­most com­plete­ly works again. At one point she seemed near­ly in­fi­nite in her ca­pa­bil­i­ties, sit­ting in front of the com­put­er wran­gling soft­ware up­dates while knit­ting ba­by stuff and look­ing up words in a Ger­man dic­tio­nary for the kid’s home­work. Some of the Ger­man nouns and mut­tered curs­es at the Win­dows in­stall sound­ed re­mark­ably like each oth­er. Why would any­one not mar­ry a geek? The on­ly prob­lem is that Win2K won’t auto-switch res­o­lu­tions to play games any more, it gets the fre­quen­cy wrong and the LCD goes pear-shaped, you have to hand-select the fre­quen­cy and switch in­to the right res­o­lu­tion first. LazyWe­b?
Mad at Microsoft · We have a 2002-vintage Athlon 1800 white­box run­ning Win2K in the liv­ing area that’s used for slide scan­ning and games; the kid plays Ton­ka con­struc­tion games, and he and I both oc­ca­sion­al­ly dip in­to the Need For Speed se­ries. Nel­son Mi­nar wrote a piece on Eve On­line that made it sound in­ter­est­ing and dif­fer­en­t, so I thought I’d take a look. Eve would load but not run, looked like a video driv­er prob­lem, so I went and got what looked like the lat­est for the old GeForce 2 Ti from the NVidia site, and by fol­low­ing the in­struc­tions pre­cise­ly, re­duced it to 640x480 pure-VGA mod­e. Lau­ren (des­ig­nat­ed Win­dows hack around here) was able to get it more or less work­ing again but now it runs nei­ther Eve nor Need for Speed. (Yes, we have the lat­est Direc­tX and all the Win­dows up­dates and all the ob­vi­ous things). Wel­l... could get a nice new Mac and dual-boot it as a games box. Or could up­date it to WinXP which would prob­a­bly come with the right driver-ware by de­fault. Of course, both of these mean buy­ing XP. Off the shelf, the Home up­grade is C$150, but we can’t use that be­cause it on­ly up­grades from 9x and ME. The XP Pro up­grade is C$250. Which is to­tal­ly, com­plete­ly, in­sane­ly, ex­or­bi­tan­t. And I ain’t gonna pay. Good­bye, Need for Speed.
ETech — Good Pitches · This is just a pot­pour­ri of pitch­es, specif­i­cal­ly the ones that were good and mem­o­rable. In­cludes rare com­pli­men­ta­ry re­marks about Mi­crosoft tech­nol­o­gy ...
Swiss Bank Account · I’ve been cast­ing around try­ing to find some­thing to write about the ECMA rubber-stamp Mi­crosoft is buy­ing for their Of­fice file for­mats but have been un­able to rise much above “blecch”. Si­mon Phipp­s, in salut­ing IBM’s wise re­fusal to play the game, man­ages to bring some grace and even a lit­tle hu­mor to bear.
Microsoft XML News · The newswires are buzzing to­day with Mi­crosoft XML ac­tion. So, what do you want from an XML-based stan­dard, whether it’s about syn­chro­niza­tion or spread­sheet­s? First, you want it to be sta­ble. Se­cond, you want it to be legal­ly un­en­cum­bered, so any­one can use it in their soft­ware. Th­ese things are re­al­ly es­sen­tial. Less es­sen­tial, but im­por­tan­t: you’d like it to have com­mu­ni­ty in­volve­men­t, some sort of open pro­cess; and fi­nal­ly, you’d like it to be, you know, tech­ni­cal­ly good. So let’s look at today’s head­lin­er­s, SSE and MSFT Of­fice XML. Stable? SSE at the mo­ment is just some­thing Ozzie and Win­er are kick­ing around, but who knows? As for Of­ficeXML, yup, this move to ECMA/ISO will make it sta­ble. Unen­cum­bered? SSE’s Creative-Commons li­cense looks pret­ty good to me. To­day, Jean Paoli told Scoble that they’d be do­ing some sort of “covenant not to sue” over Of­ficeXML. This would be great news, and we hope that, un­like the cur­rent li­cense, it’s GPL-friendly. This is re­al im­por­tan­t, be­cause nei­ther ECMA nor ISO have prob­lems with stan­dard­iz­ing heavily-encumbered tech­nol­o­gy. Open, trans­par­ent pro­cess­es? Wel­l, er, not ex­act­ly a Mi­crosoft strength. I hon­est­ly don’t know whether ECMA will pro­vide for mean­ing­ful in­put, or whether the process’ out­come, as for ex­am­ple OASIS al­lows, is com­plete­ly pre­de­ter­mined. You have to ad­mire the chutz­pah in pre-announcing that the ECMA and ISO pro­cess­es will fin­ish be­fore Of­fice 12 ship­s, if on­ly by min­utes, es­pe­cial­ly since one as­sumes that the idea is that Of­fice 12 is go­ing to com­ply with those stan­dard­s. Re­mark­able process-management and soft­ware de­vel­op­ment skills are ev­i­dent­ly in­volved. Fi­nal­ly, are these tech­nolo­gies ac­tu­al­ly any good? As for SSE, I don’t know a thing about syn­chro­niza­tion and Ray Ozzie knows lot­s, so I’ll hold my peace. On the Of­ficeXML side I have lots of opin­ion­s, but the opin­ion that’ll mat­ter is that of ISO JTC1 (I’d guess more specif­i­cal­ly SC34), which will soon be deal­ing with two at­tempts to stan­dard­ize a so­lu­tion to the same prob­lem. Should be fun to watch. Oh yes, and since we’re talk­ing about stan­dard­s, would MSDN please get a clue!?!?.
Check out Lauren · Dr. Lau­ren Wood [Dis­clo­sure: my wife] has a few re­cent things worth check­ing out. Item: An Okana­gan wine-tour nar­ra­tive (think Na­pa or Sono­ma, on­ly cheap­er and pret­tier). Item: A guest-blog by Sal­ly Faulkn­er on the The Per­fect G&T, a sub­ject that mat­ter­s. And fi­nal­ly, a LazyWeb cri-de-coeur, Why Does Win­dows/XP hate us?.
Check out Jon  · Jon Udell is an ex­is­tence proof of the need for tech­nol­o­gy writ­ers who are tech­ni­cal­ly com­pe­tent but don’t have a non-writing day job; in an ide­al world this is how all tech jour­nal­ists would be. First this great big honkin’ sur­vey piece on Web Ser­vices; I’ve been feel­ing guilty about not cov­er­ing that ter­ri­to­ry more, but now I don’t have to be­cause Jon is. Sum­ma­ry: There is hope. Then, his ex­cel­lent in­ter­view with Bill Gates, in which Gates is in­for­mal, in­for­ma­tive and in­tel­li­gen­t, as op­posed to Ballmer’s party-line blovi­a­tion.
Out of Memory · There’s this old say­ing “You shouldn’t kick a man when he’s down”, but I’ve al­ways thought it un­sound. Ob­vi­ous­ly, nor­mal­ly you oughtn’t kick a man, but let us con­sid­er a hy­po­thet­i­cal sit­u­a­tion in which kick­ing is called for. There’s no bet­ter time than when he’s al­ready down: less work to achieve foot con­tac­t, easy ac­cess to whichev­er part needs kick­ing, and the man will have re­al dif­fi­cul­ty in kick­ing you back. What has this to do with “out of memory”? Wel­l, in this case I felt like kick­ing some soft­ware, and the same prin­ci­ple ap­plies ...
Longhorn + RSS & Atom · Hey, I see Mi­crosoft an­nounced RSS Sup­port in Longhorn; good stuff! The ser­vices they plan to pro­vide (sub­scrip­tion list, da­ta store, sync en­gine) sound pret­ty plau­si­ble. As for their list-control ex­ten­sion­s, it’s up to the im­ple­men­tors and the mar­ket to de­cide if they’re use­ful; they look like they won’t break any­thing, so the ex­per­i­ment is free. I’m some­what amused by the last paragraph’s “We will sup­port Atom 1.0 when it’s released.” That will be in the next few week­s, which is to say at least a year be­fore Longhorn is.
New Office XML · The pop­u­lar wis­dom is that it takes Mi­crosoft un­til Re­lease 3 of any­thing to get it right; but the ear­ly word on the new Of­fice XML for­mat makes Re­lease 2 look pret­ty good. Read­ing be­tween the lines, the big news is, first, that the de­fault file-save for­mat is XML and, sec­ond, that the XML cov­er­age is com­plete (In the cur­rent Of­fice XML, Pow­erPoint is en­tire­ly ab­sent and Ex­cel has big holes). As­sum­ing Mi­crosoft pulls this of­f, it’s a ma­jor achieve­men­t. Along with patch­ing those holes, work­ing around the ba­sic OLE-container-ness of ev­ery­thing has to be trick­y; one of the nice things about MS Of­fice is that you can jam pret­ty well any­thing that talks OLE in­to the mid­dle of pret­ty well any Of­fice doc and it just work­s. I have ques­tions around the li­cens­ing: Bri­an Jones, linked above, says “royalty-free” but the cur­rent li­cens­ing lan­guage has some claus­es that make lawyers ner­vous, so let’s wait and see on that one. At one lev­el, it’s sad that while the rest of the world (in­clud­ing, late­ly, Adobe and IBM) has been hard at work on one wide-open, share­able, portable, stan­dard­ized XML of­fice doc­u­ment for­mat, Mi­crosoft put their en­er­gy in­to in­vent­ing an­oth­er one. Stil­l, this ought to be a step for­ward for Microsoft’s cus­tomer­s. The news cov­er­age says “late 2006”; good luck to the team in the tough job of get­ting it shipped.
Best o’ the Season · A Prairie Christ­mas, with il­lus­trat­ed re­marks on snow, cows, and why the In­ter­net is such a dan­ger­ous place ...
Neo/J Patch3 Cowabunga! · Please come on in­side and check out the screen shot. It shows OpenOf­fice, on the Mac­in­tosh, run­ning with na­tive Aqua menus. This is big news. [Up­date: Oop­s, I point­ed to the wrong patch.] ...
Spolsky Drops the Big One · Joel Spol­sky post­ed an as­tound­ing es­say a few days ago that I some­how missed. I don’t agree with ev­ery para­graph, but ev­ery para­graph is worth read­ing. If I may pick one mi­nor point out for a bit of spe­cial high­light­ing: We’ve had good full-text search tech­nol­o­gy since the Seven­ties, and in the last ten years more or less ev­ery­body has be­come a reg­u­lar us­er of full-text search. Why isn’t there good built-in full-text desk­top search avail­able right now to­day on both OS X and Win­dows, out of the box? (Most of the ar­ti­cle isn’t about search, most of it’s about why the Win­dows API is dy­ing on the vine; don’t miss it.)
Co-operating With Microsoft · In the flur­ry of news last week about our big deal with Mi­crosoft, there was quite a bit of talk about the pos­si­bil­i­ties for tech­ni­cal co-operation. I’ve been pok­ing around a bit to try to fig­ure out what that ac­tu­al­ly mean­s ...
The New World of PR · Last Fri­day, Scoble re­layed a de­nial by Mi­crosoft ex­ec Martin Tay­lor that they were be­hind the big ven­ture in­vest­ment in SCO. I’m sur­prised that nobody’s point­ed at the meta-message here; this is the first time I know of that a big com­pa­ny has gone to one of their blog­gers to get a crit­i­cal piece of PR out. But I bet it won’t be the last. [Up­dat­ed: Scoble clar­i­fies. I had read his orig­i­nal post to say that Tay­lor had emailed Scoble say­ing “Blog this.” In fac­t, Scoble saw Taylor’s mes­sage on an an in­ter­nal mail­ing list and did it on his own ini­tia­tive; not quite as news­wor­thy as I’d thought. But read Scoble’s clar­i­fi­ca­tion for more on this.] [Up­dat­ed again: Busi­ness Week says that Mi­crosoft did lead the Ven­ture Cap horse to the SCO trough. I tend to trust Busi­ness Week. Uh, would Martin Tay­lor like to clar­i­fy his state­ment that the al­le­ga­tions “are not accurate”?]
Fourteen Years of Pain · I’m busi­ly edit­ing a fair­ly com­plex tech spec writ­ten in Mi­crosoft Word. (Word gen­er­al­ly sucks for tech specs ex­cept for this one is be­ing team-edited with lit­tle in­fras­truc­ture, so we need­ed the revision-marking fea­ture.) When I first ev­er used Word it was in 1989 on a Mac­in­tosh; this first brush with com­pe­tent WYSIWYG changed my think­ing about in­ter­faces and doc­u­ments. There was a prob­lem: back then the han­dling of num­bered lists in Word was bug­gy and frag­ile. To­day, four­teen years lat­er in a re­cent rev of Of­fice, num­bered lists are still bug­gy and frag­ile. In­nocu­ous changes—simple cut/­paste, join­ing para­graph­s, ap­ply­ing the for­mat­ting palette—intermittently send Word in­to psy­chot­ic spasm­s, in one case renum­ber­ing the list start­ing at 65, in an­oth­er mys­te­ri­ous­ly re­mov­ing the colour-coding from all the text in the doc, in an­oth­er re-indenting dozens of ap­par­ent­ly randomly-selected para­graph­s. I sup­pose if it hasn’t got­ten fixed in a decade and a half my grand­chil­dren will prob­a­bly be stuck with it. But I have hopes that the world will learn the valu­able lessons Word taught us all about the in­ter­faces be­tween hu­mans and texts, and for God’s sake move on to some­thing bet­ter.
Office Schemas · Jean Paoli called last week to tip me off about the re­lease of the MS Of­fice XML schema-ware. It turns out that the ac­tu­al da­ta won’t be on view till De­cem­ber 5, so I don’t have a lot to say about the tech­ni­cal de­tail­s. I al­so haven’t gone very deep on the patent and li­cens­ing is­sues, but Jean’s de­scrip­tion made it sound like they’re try­ing not to get in the way. How­ev­er, there are a cou­ple of points he em­pha­sized on the phone that don’t seem to have made it in­to the press cov­er­age. [Up­date: Jean sends some point­er­s.] ...
Picture Windows · Check out this re­mark­able pic­ture of more or less all the pieces of the Win­dows puz­zle. It’s nice that it’s a PNG, but a pity they can’t anti-alias the tex­t. [Up­date: Peter Eschen­bren­ner writes in to say he’s tem­porar­i­ly mir­ror­ing a much higher-quality ver­sion.]
Great Rant from Ole Eichhorn · Check it out. There’s way too much here to sum­ma­rize, and there are bits you could quib­ble with, but Ole is ob­vi­ous­ly a smart guy and ev­ery word is worth read­ing. For a re­al sur­prise, read the lit­tle se­quence near the bot­tom about Don Box’s ques­tions for the au­di­ence. Like Ole says “There is no mag­ic bullet.”
author · Dad · software · colophon · rights
Random image, linked to its containing fragment

By .

I am an employee
of Amazon.com, but
the opinions expressed here
are my own, and no other party
necessarily agrees with them.

A full disclosure of my
professional interests is
on the author page.