SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) has been a web standard for almost two years. Adobe has had a plugin (at least, for Windows) for quite some time now. But there are no production browsers that provide native support for SVG.
But that’s about to change. Both Firefox and Opera are preparing new releases that will incorporate native SVG support. MoFo (Mozilla Foundation) is on record stating that native support will be part of Firefox 1.1. But on Tuesday (April 26th), Chase Phillips noted that native SVG support is now part of the nightly builds for Firefox.
So I grabbed the nightlies and voila! My browser now supports native SVG. Now I can see the OpenNMS maps w/o the need for a plugin. And there is so much more to be found in the SVG universe. So run over to your favorite mirror and get an SVG-enabled build. You’ll need to activate SVG (by setting svg.enabled to true in about:config). Then go and check out this link. But even better than the fixed samples is this SVG-enabled Tetris game.
Great stuff!
-CyclingRoo-

This post is long overdue. But that’s my fault for not wanting to post an announcement before I had a chance to test and deploy the new release. When last I posted about OpenNMS, I had just upgraded our infrastructure to v1.1.5 (the release candidate for v1.2). The upgrade to v1.1.5 was difficult – but worthwhile. I had to struggle through data validation errors and other migration challenges. But after about ten hours, I was able to start the production server with the v1.1.5 code.
Well, I didn’t want to take that kind of an outage again. After all, we have ~350 nodes and ~750 interfaces. That’s not a lot. And since v1.1.5 was the release candidate for the “soon-to-be” stable branch, I thought I’d wait until the code stabilized – and the unexpected bugs were swatted. And, true enough, there were two quick release after v1.2.0 was originally released. So I waited until yesterday – and dove in.
I preped the box by downloading/moving the RPM’s and backing up all the customized configuration files and html pages. So at lunch, I brought the system down and started the upgrade. [BTW, I love daytime outages. It sure beats the Saturday night + Sunday morning outage windows in most businesses.]
Unlike the v1.1.5 upgrade, this one went flawlessly. The software installed w/o any problems. And the installation script validated all the necessary table dependenices – most of which had already been ironed out with the v1.1.5 release. After the software install and data prep, all I needed to do was apply the customized html edits and all replacement pages. After a quick daemon restart, the system came up flawlessly. Props to Tarus, DJ and the crew. The new stable branch rocks! It is fast and full of cool new features.
Total install time: 15 minutes
-CyclingRoo-

Given Intel’s recent announcement of WiMax chipsets, Robert Cringely has decided to opine on WiMax and its market potential. I don’t want to outline all the advantages and disadvantages of WiMax. You can read Cringely’s article and/or Google the subject. Nevertheless, the recent announcements make it a subject worth a few lines of commentary. So here are my idle thoughts on the subject.

WiMax has two roles: broadband extension and alternative broadband access.

In its first role, WiMax can be used as a broadband extension technology. Using unlicened spectrum at 5.8GHz, you could extend your broadband access to your neighborhood, but not much further. Indeed, this might be an interesting way of raising money within a homeowners’ association – assuming you have sufficient bandwidth on the back-end. But unlicensed spectrum holds little promise beyond extension of existing access. The reason is simple: to boost a signal to go any substantive distance, you need to be much “louder” than other things in the area. And the FCC really tries to ensure that people are not abusing the EM spectrum.

Nevertheless, unlicensed WiMax will provide some interesting extension possibilities – however localized they may be. I expect to see some entrepeneurial neighborhood networks. But I also expect to see city market deployments and/or town center kinds of deployments – at least, in areas where WiFi mesh networks have not already penetrated.

In its second role, WiMax can be used as an alternative to DSL and cable. Using licensed spectrum, WiMax can connect end points at up to 20 miles distance (and maybe even further). So it would be feasible to extend broadband out into more rural areas by dropping a DS3 in a central location and then connecting it to hubs that are wirelessly extended beyond traditional CO distances (or cable head ends for that matter). In short, WiMax holds the promise of extending wireless broadband to areas where wired broadband might not be able to economically reach.

But this will require licensed spectrum. And spectrum costs real money. And who has the money: telcos and cable providers. And they might have disincentives to such investments. Namely, they would be investing in a competitive technology that might threaten their existing installed (and depreciated capital) base. So telcos and cable service providers won’t have immediate incentives in markets where they already have products. Fortunately, there is enough uncovered territory for the behemoths to fight over.

At the same time, you might see new competition in the lesser-established markets – assuming the economics make sense. A new competitior would only need to hook into existing metro area networks or loops. And what geopolitical features do most fiber runs follow? Usually, they follow highways and or railways. And since most people live around transportation channels (like highways or railways), these seem like the right places to connect into the fiber infrastructure. And who controls rights to highways and railways? Usually, it’s the government (either municipal, state or federal).

So where is this long train of thought leading? OK. I’ll get to the chase. I believe that the muni-wireless discussion will spur many communities to adopt a WiMax distribution model centered around access “hubs” positioned along existing transportation channels. On federal and state highways, I would look to the rest stops as the most likely place to house such infrastructure. And in more isolated communities, I would look to train stations or switch yards as likely targets for the WiMax distribution infrastructure.

In any case, the prize will go to the groups that get connected to the distribution channel first. So the early bets will be on telcos and cable suppliers. After all, they do have the capital advantage. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of nimble providers pop up in each market. The trick will be to coordinate the eventual consolidation of all of these smaller providers.

-CyclingRoo-

Given Intel’s recent announcement of WiMax chipsets, Robert Cringely has decided to opine on WiMax and its market potential. I don’t want to outline all the advantages and disadvantages of WiMax. You can read Cringely’s article and/or Google the subject. Nevertheless, the recent announcements make it a subject worth a few lines of commentary. So here are my idle thoughts on the subject.
WiMax has two roles: broadband extension and alternative broadband access.
In its first role, WiMax can be used as a broadband extension technology. Using unlicened spectrum at 5.8GHz, you could extend your broadband access to your neighborhood, but not much further. Indeed, this might be an interesting way of raising money within a homeowners’ association – assuming you have sufficient bandwidth on the back-end. But unlicensed spectrum holds little promise beyond extension of existing access. The reason is simple: to boost a signal to go any substantive distance, you need to be much “louder” than other things in the area. And the FCC really tries to ensure that people are not abusing the EM spectrum.
Nevertheless, unlicensed WiMax will provide some interesting extension possibilities – however localized they may be. I expect to see some entrepeneurial neighborhood networks. But I also expect to see city market deployments and/or town center kinds of deployments – at least, in areas where WiFi mesh networks have not already penetrated.
In its second role, WiMax can be used as an alternative to DSL and cable. Using licensed spectrum, WiMax can connect end points at up to 20 miles distance (and maybe even further). So it would be feasible to extend broadband out into more rural areas by dropping a DS3 in a central location and then connecting it to hubs that are wirelessly extended beyond traditional CO distances (or cable head ends for that matter). In short, WiMax holds the promise of extending wireless broadband to areas where wired broadband might not be able to economically reach.
But this will require licensed spectrum. And spectrum costs real money. And who has the money: telcos and cable providers. And they might have disincentives to such investments. Namely, they would be investing in a competitive technology that might threaten their existing installed (and depreciated capital) base. So telcos and cable service providers won’t have immediate incentives in markets where they already have products. Fortunately, there is enough uncovered territory for the behemoths to fight over.
At the same time, you might see new competition in the lesser-established markets – assuming the economics make sense. A new competitior would only need to hook into existing metro area networks or loops. And what geopolitical features do most fiber runs follow? Usually, they follow highways and or railways. And since most people live around transportation channels (like highways or railways), these seem like the right places to connect into the fiber infrastructure. And who controls rights to highways and railways? Usually, it’s the government (either municipal, state or federal).
So where is this long train of thought leading? OK. I’ll get to the chase. I believe that the muni-wireless discussion will spur many communities to adopt a WiMax distribution model centered around access “hubs” positioned along existing transportation channels. On federal and state highways, I would look to the rest stops as the most likely place to house such infrastructure. And in more isolated communities, I would look to train stations or switch yards as likely targets for the WiMax distribution infrastructure.
In any case, the prize will go to the groups that get connected to the distribution channel first. So the early bets will be on telcos and cable suppliers. After all, they do have the capital advantage. But I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of nimble providers pop up in each market. The trick will be to coordinate the eventual consolidation of all of these smaller providers.
-CyclingRoo-

Janco has published its assessment of browser market share. Their report (found here) states that Firefox marketshare is over 10%. And the overall marketshare for Mozilla-based browsers is now over 14%. This is phenomenal.
But who is Janco Associates? Well, Janco is best known for its IT career compensation surveys. But over the past few years, they have started to diversify into a number of “survey” related reports. Consequently, I am cautious about endorsing their numbers because their methodology may not be pristine. Nevertheless, if we assume stability of their methods over time, we can use their data as a means of documenting relative changes over time.
For this reason, I offer the following table of stats derived from their recent report:

	Apr-05		Jan-05		Net Change
Browser	Rank	Percent	Rank	Percent	Rank	Percent
Internet Explorer	1	83.07%	1	84.85%		-1.78%
Firefox	2	10.28%	3	4.23%	1	6.05%
Mozilla	3	3.81%	2	4.48%	-1	-0.66%
Netscape	4	0.92%	4	3.03%		-2.11%
AOL	5	0.85%	5	2.20%		-1.35%
MSN	6	0.67%	6	0.58%		0.09%
Opera	7	0.41%	7	0.34%		0.07%

And the gist of their research is this: Firefox usage has grown by over 6% (of total market share). Stated differently, Janco reports that Firefox use has more than doubled since January. This is important because the first GA release of the product was in November 2004. Consequently, this growth does not include the initial growth spurt fueled by the first series of press releases. Instead, this represents sustained growth of the production release.
Combine this with Asa Dotzler’s counter indicating over 49 million downloads and you can spot a trend. Keep up the good work, team!
*Note* Amidst all the joy of breaking 10% marketshare, it is important to note where the growth is truly coming from. The largest element of growth has come from the consolidation of the Mozilla product line. More Mozilla and Netscape users turned to Firefox than did IE users. Microsoft suffered a less than 2% marketshare slide. So now that the Mozilla market has consolidated upon Firefox, let’s see how many entrenched IE users will switch over in the next six months.
-CyclingRoo-

This quote comes from Scott Horn of Microsoft. He was speaking about whether or not wireless phones will become the primary platform for carrying around music. But this is not the only vision for portable music. Which vision of mobile music will prevail?

Apple and Motorola are banking on the computer-centric vision. While the iPod is a great device, it is hardly a “platform” (let alone a mobile platform). It does not include classic bi-directional communication capabilities. It does not transmit. It is a “receiver” and a player. But it will need to become far more. The iPod first needs to have the capability to receive songs “on the fly.” Currently, new songs are only accessible by attaching to your computer – or by using esoteric specialty devices Similarly, there is no means to “share” (i.e., send) your songs/playlists with friends without using a computer. Again, specialty vendors are stepping in (e.g., Griffin’s iTrip). But the base platform has no wireless/mobility sense to it.

Over the past year, there have been rumors about something called the iPhone (iPod + wireless phone). Pictures exist for the iPhone (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=816). Unfortunately, the current news for the iPhone is not good. According to Apple Insider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1010) both Verizon and Sprint have apparently declined to launch products with the Apple/Motorola product. In my view, the iPod will remain a niche (albeit hellishly profitable) unitl it embraces communications capabilities as part of its core capabilities. Indeed, something as simple as inclusion of 802.11 capabilities would be fantastic. But for now, iPod enthusiasts must roll their own or wait upon the uncertainty of products from technology vendors.

On the other hand, wireless phone carriers (and Microsoft?) are focusing upon a “telephone-centric” vision. While many carriers have toyed with the idea of iPod-based phones, Business Week believes that the phone companies will release their own products (http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_17/b3930001.htm). These new products will fuse compute platforms into telephone form factors. BTW, this is exactly what the carriers and phone manufacturers have done with digital photography. The “mobile” view is simple. We have a platform that is (by its very nature) “connected.” We can both send and receive data. And MP3 encoders (like CCD camera chips) can easily be fitted onto the “airframe” of the phone. Indeed, Sanyo already has a really cool product in the MM5600 phone.

While the phone carriers have capable platforms, they don’t have the same measure of “buzz” (or marketing savvy) that Apple has demonstrated with the iPod. But I think that’s where Microsoft comes in.

But what is Microsoft’s play in this game? First, Microsoft is deeply invested in SmartPhone technology. Why? Because it’s another platform whereby Windows can be licensed. Second, Microsoft has always been in competition with Apple. It’s a Cain v. Abel kind of thing. Now that Apple is successful in music, Microsoft wants to get in on the market. And since they have a mobile platform with connectivity (i.e., the SmartPhone), they have a field upon which they can aggessively compete with Apple/Motorola.

What they don’t have is a retail store/presence to exploit. Therefore, I am wondering if Microsoft might crack open the war chest just a bit. If I were building a strategy, I would be looking to buy Real or MusicMatch. Real has appeal – especially because its acquisition would finally eliminate the threatened lawsuits. But the Real brand has lost so much traction, it may not meet the need for a functioning store. Couple this with the Crossfader emphasis and I’m starting to see some real movement – and it’s not in the “MSN Music” brand.

In any event, this will be fun! I can’t wait to see what comes next. In the end, it will mean more capability in the hands of the consumer. And this is what it’s all about.

Note – I work for a wireless phone provider. However, I do not work on platform development. Hence, I am not providing any “inside” information. Just casual insights from someone on the inside.

-CyclingRoo-

This quote comes from Scott Horn of Microsoft. He was speaking about whether or not wireless phones will become the primary platform for carrying around music. But this is not the only vision for portable music. Which vision of mobile music will prevail?
Apple and Motorola are banking on the computer-centric vision. While the iPod is a great device, it is hardly a “platform” (let alone a mobile platform). It does not include classic bi-directional communication capabilities. It does not transmit. It is a “receiver” and a player. But it will need to become far more. The iPod first needs to have the capability to receive songs “on the fly.” Currently, new songs are only accessible by attaching to your computer – or by using esoteric specialty devices Similarly, there is no means to “share” (i.e., send) your songs/playlists with friends without using a computer. Again, specialty vendors are stepping in (e.g., Griffin’s iTrip). But the base platform has no wireless/mobility sense to it.
Over the past year, there have been rumors about something called the iPhone (iPod + wireless phone). Pictures exist for the iPhone (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=816). Unfortunately, the current news for the iPhone is not good. According to Apple Insider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1010) both Verizon and Sprint have apparently declined to launch products with the Apple/Motorola product. In my view, the iPod will remain a niche (albeit hellishly profitable) unitl it embraces communications capabilities as part of its core capabilities. Indeed, something as simple as inclusion of 802.11 capabilities would be fantastic. But for now, iPod enthusiasts must roll their own or wait upon the uncertainty of products from technology vendors.
On the other hand, wireless phone carriers (and Microsoft?) are focusing upon a “telephone-centric” vision. While many carriers have toyed with the idea of iPod-based phones, Business Week believes that the phone companies will release their own products (http://yahoo.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_17/b3930001.htm). These new products will fuse compute platforms into telephone form factors. BTW, this is exactly what the carriers and phone manufacturers have done with digital photography. The “mobile” view is simple. We have a platform that is (by its very nature) “connected.” We can both send and receive data. And MP3 encoders (like CCD camera chips) can easily be fitted onto the “airframe” of the phone. Indeed, Sanyo already has a really cool product in the MM5600 phone.
While the phone carriers have capable platforms, they don’t have the same measure of “buzz” (or marketing savvy) that Apple has demonstrated with the iPod. But I think that’s where Microsoft comes in.
But what is Microsoft’s play in this game? First, Microsoft is deeply invested in SmartPhone technology. Why? Because it’s another platform whereby Windows can be licensed. Second, Microsoft has always been in competition with Apple. It’s a Cain v. Abel kind of thing. Now that Apple is successful in music, Microsoft wants to get in on the market. And since they have a mobile platform with connectivity (i.e., the SmartPhone), they have a field upon which they can aggessively compete with Apple/Motorola.
What they don’t have is a retail store/presence to exploit. Therefore, I am wondering if Microsoft might crack open the war chest just a bit. If I were building a strategy, I would be looking to buy Real or MusicMatch. Real has appeal – especially because its acquisition would finally eliminate the threatened lawsuits. But the Real brand has lost so much traction, it may not meet the need for a functioning store. Couple this with the Crossfader emphasis and I’m starting to see some real movement – and it’s not in the “MSN Music” brand.
In any event, this will be fun! I can’t wait to see what comes next. In the end, it will mean more capability in the hands of the consumer. And this is what it’s all about.
Note – I work for a wireless phone provider. However, I do not work on platform development. Hence, I am not providing any “inside” information. Just casual insights from someone on the inside.
-CyclingRoo-