So here it comes again, the Lebaran or Idul Fitri holiday season in Indonesia. I'm thinking things might get really boring over the holidays, it's like I should've been better off working during the holidays. The idea of going on a trip during the holidays is unbearable, just for the very fact that places get so overly crammed (at least here in Indonesia), you can't possibly go anywhere without hearing children's cries, loud music, and annoying laughter. It's ridiculously difficult trying to get plane tickets and lodgings and worse if you're the last minute type. I always try to avoid those times. Even so, if the holidays were meant to be fun, I still can't see the real reasons for it. Shouldn't just people take leave and go on vacations? It makes it so much easier for people wishing to stay on working during dramatic periods. I might come up with something different for a change, like trying to work on partnerships or business deals overseas. That way, when the holidays comes, I could go take a plane and fly away, and come back in a few days without missing a single thing. That sounds great ! Just how busy is "busy", well, as promiscuous as it seems, the implication of "being busy" differs distinctly across the globe. One might say working from 9 to 5 gets them real busy, while some work over till the wee hours of first light yet they consider themselves far from being busy. Who's to say what? What's the relative point of "being busy"?
Imagine the hours wasted during the holidays with which otherwise could be used in productive ways. Eight hours a day, multiply that by a week, you have 56 wasted hours, times the population of this country, 250 million, that's 14 billion hours flying away. Such a pity, countless things could've been accomplished during that period. It makes me feel obnoxious & guilty at the same time. I can't stop but think, people are wasting so much precious time. Why would you or I for that matter, waste precious time when, really, you can't turn back the clock, ever! I'm not trying to arouse sarcasm all over my blog, but let's face it, we've had times where we'd rather be spending time at the office, doing some sort of work and getting the money for it too, of course! (or else, why would you?) So then the inevitable question slips in; how do you balance life and work? I take days off during my regular work days, go on little trips here and there. That should do it for me, life's balanced, while work is something more of an array of deranged amalgamation of money-making, self-neglecting, mind-provoking, (sweat-generating, sometimes) cycle of activities that is both a gift and a curse to mankind. A curse because people neglect their families, engaged on having affairs in the office, a little extreme isn't it, but it's true. Don't get me wrong, I'm far from being fond of stereotyping people but for the most part, work is good, keeps people busy, puts money on the table.
Am I already being a workaholic? I don't think so.. I don't even remember why the word "workaholic" was ever invented. It's almost like the word is universally being used to console those who hate work, and to taunt the hardworking society of this world. It just makes it sound so incredibly senseless when you're in your prime trying to do everything, everywhere, every time, out of every opportunity. Enough said, I'm preparing to kill time by piling up books to read up during the holidays. It's gonna be a long, dull and counter-productive holiday season, but then again, the world spins.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
SOA Market Demand North Bound: IBM
This is pretty interesting. The demand for SOA is growing exponentially and so is its market share. A whopping US$ 160 Billion industry? Wow.. Never guessed it.
Friday, 7 September 2007SOA Market Demand North Bound: IBM |
The market for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is seeing a huge increase and there is a fundamental commitment to SOA as the future of process and application design, according to a new survey by IBM... |
The market for Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) is seeing a huge increase and there is a fundamental commitment to SOA as the future of process and application design, according to a new survey by IBM. |
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Poverty and Its Discontents
Poverty doesn't make the world go round. It creates the dreadful chasm that separates the haves and the utterly-deprived. I recently came across a TIME article which talks about world leaders finding solutions to "fix" terroristic mindsets around the world. The issue touches upon sensitive subjects including US foreign policy issues, and it makes much more sense, in that the world's most powerful nations should gather together and find a solution to alliviate the sufferings of third world nations, such as providing better education systems, deploying food aids, educating the public on health, closing in the gap between the rich and the poor, public facilities etc. Absolute poverty brings about desperation, mental breakdown of moral character, dysfunctional mindset, lack of willingness to understand right from wrong. While Abraham Maslow might have suggested the theoretical approach to the solutions to such problems, the practice is yet to be tested on. Countless efforts had been made to create a higher number of middle-class population in third world countries, attempts have been partly unsuccessful, due to the extreme difficulties facing aid workers, non-profit organizations in assisting those countries to fix the basic dilemnas of their own misjudgments.
The rich and poor cannot possibly have the same mindsets. What the rich considers a need, is beyond the wildest imagination of the poor. Take for example, the Internet. Why would the poor need internet access for? It is not in their best interest whether they are able to have it or not. It's the rich who needs it to trade shares on the stock markets, book plane tickets and go on luscious vacations in remote tropical islands, do research on the newest 6.0L SUVs available on the market. Another is; financial stability. How the heck are they supposed to grasp the concept of what an investment is when their level of education is somewhat meager, or minimal at best. What matters most to the poor is food, water and basic shelter. If even those basic needs are not within their reach, the list of other things coveted by the rich would be rendered useless. They are compelled to have such narrow mindsets, and it is literally inevitable. Their impulsive reluctance to differentiate the wrong from right deepens that chasm, which automatically sets the stage for barbaric, primitive and inhuman acts inflicted upon others in their society. Poor countries don't provide social welfare to the population, let alone education. For the most part, they need to rely on themselves to survive. Pollution-laden and heavily-congested streets elevate the stress level of the poor, as they commute to work each day not by cars, or buses but by bicycles and motorcycles thus exposing themselves to direct contact with the toxic and hazardous air (for the record, vehicles in third world countries don't require exhaust filters or catalytic converters to be installed in order to be street-legal). Time devaluation is another drawback in poor countries, they are just not as well educated to grasp the fundamental ideas of time management. Put it this way: You wouldn't be thinking of a dream house, or a dream vacation when you're constantly in survival mode, somewhere in the Amazon jungle for life ! That's almost how I figured it.
The sheer phychological pressure (and deprivation) exerted on individuals in these countries, somewhat catalyses, if not amplifies, the tendency to go to the extremes. These include joining Madrasahs, Jihad-oriented groups, religious sects teaching all sorts of terror tactics imaginable. Terror groups thrive in poor countries, largely because of state breakdowns, governments unable to even supply the basic needs of the people; clean potable water, decent transportation systems (roads, railways), financial stability, justifiable political system, fair trial of criminals, justice, equality and the list goes on. These undoubtfully contributes to how a person reacts to the allurement of getting involved in a Jihad, or terrorism war.
The rich and poor cannot possibly have the same mindsets. What the rich considers a need, is beyond the wildest imagination of the poor. Take for example, the Internet. Why would the poor need internet access for? It is not in their best interest whether they are able to have it or not. It's the rich who needs it to trade shares on the stock markets, book plane tickets and go on luscious vacations in remote tropical islands, do research on the newest 6.0L SUVs available on the market. Another is; financial stability. How the heck are they supposed to grasp the concept of what an investment is when their level of education is somewhat meager, or minimal at best. What matters most to the poor is food, water and basic shelter. If even those basic needs are not within their reach, the list of other things coveted by the rich would be rendered useless. They are compelled to have such narrow mindsets, and it is literally inevitable. Their impulsive reluctance to differentiate the wrong from right deepens that chasm, which automatically sets the stage for barbaric, primitive and inhuman acts inflicted upon others in their society. Poor countries don't provide social welfare to the population, let alone education. For the most part, they need to rely on themselves to survive. Pollution-laden and heavily-congested streets elevate the stress level of the poor, as they commute to work each day not by cars, or buses but by bicycles and motorcycles thus exposing themselves to direct contact with the toxic and hazardous air (for the record, vehicles in third world countries don't require exhaust filters or catalytic converters to be installed in order to be street-legal). Time devaluation is another drawback in poor countries, they are just not as well educated to grasp the fundamental ideas of time management. Put it this way: You wouldn't be thinking of a dream house, or a dream vacation when you're constantly in survival mode, somewhere in the Amazon jungle for life ! That's almost how I figured it.
The sheer phychological pressure (and deprivation) exerted on individuals in these countries, somewhat catalyses, if not amplifies, the tendency to go to the extremes. These include joining Madrasahs, Jihad-oriented groups, religious sects teaching all sorts of terror tactics imaginable. Terror groups thrive in poor countries, largely because of state breakdowns, governments unable to even supply the basic needs of the people; clean potable water, decent transportation systems (roads, railways), financial stability, justifiable political system, fair trial of criminals, justice, equality and the list goes on. These undoubtfully contributes to how a person reacts to the allurement of getting involved in a Jihad, or terrorism war.
Open Source As a Mainstream Alternative
Why does Open Source matter? Is Open Source really free? Would proprietary software be entirely wiped out from the face of the earth in, say, fifty year's time? These are the questions that come tumbling upon the people of the IT Industry.
For me personally, Open Source has contributed a great deal to our organization's systematic approach to software usage, whether they be user-based applications or back-end server sides. I feel the organization has benefited immensely from such an undertaking. Open source software successfully delivered what it promised, from easy-to-use interfaces, to full-fledged functionality packed in those binary packages that's never before imaginable (considering it's developed by a community of enthusiasts, part-timers, and downright hobbyists).
While I'm not promoting Open Source in any way, it does speak the truth, for itself. Plain free software, most fully-functional and even comparably more useful to its payware counterparts (not to mention some perform better than their proprietary counterparts). No gimmicks, no frills, just plain good, working software. You'd never had to worry about violating copyrights, incriminating licenses, or the imposition of additional fees when using them (this being limited to usage, while some fees are imposed if you're a developer and want to sell for a profit. The licenses themself are usually under various Open Source licenses, GNU GPL (General Public License), BSD and Apache being the norm of some examples).
Open Source communities are getting larger and larger and they seem to appear by the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Creativity, innovation, and radical improvements are added to the already feature-packed softwares, benefiting millions across the globe. Patches are more frequently updated, as developers from different parts of the world, working from different time zones contributing to the software tree (as opposed to a few developers working to fix that decade-old bug)
The passion to develop helps create this phenomenon, some wanting recognition from the developer community as a whole would turn to open source as a staging monumental step to elevate status. Many such developers eventually work for well-known, high-profile dot com companies such as Google and eBay.
Software giants such as Microsoft, had begun undertakings to promote and sponsor Open Source conventions, seminars and conferences where permissible. This is a no surprise, if the world's moving in that direction, wouldn't it be also right to say you need to move in that direction too? Strangely enough, news had gone around, Microsoft asking some Linux distributions to join in a pact to co-develop a branch of Open Source operating system. While many of the Linux distributions rejected Microsoft's idea, some are still pondering if the joint-venture would be worth the effort.
While the idea has been around for decades, only in recent years does open source gain popularity as it's developer base increases exponentially. After all, would Steve Jobs be right when he said (quoting from Alan Kay) "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." ?
The propensity to say "I believe so" lingers in my mind.
For me personally, Open Source has contributed a great deal to our organization's systematic approach to software usage, whether they be user-based applications or back-end server sides. I feel the organization has benefited immensely from such an undertaking. Open source software successfully delivered what it promised, from easy-to-use interfaces, to full-fledged functionality packed in those binary packages that's never before imaginable (considering it's developed by a community of enthusiasts, part-timers, and downright hobbyists).
While I'm not promoting Open Source in any way, it does speak the truth, for itself. Plain free software, most fully-functional and even comparably more useful to its payware counterparts (not to mention some perform better than their proprietary counterparts). No gimmicks, no frills, just plain good, working software. You'd never had to worry about violating copyrights, incriminating licenses, or the imposition of additional fees when using them (this being limited to usage, while some fees are imposed if you're a developer and want to sell for a profit. The licenses themself are usually under various Open Source licenses, GNU GPL (General Public License), BSD and Apache being the norm of some examples).
Open Source communities are getting larger and larger and they seem to appear by the thousands, if not tens of thousands. Creativity, innovation, and radical improvements are added to the already feature-packed softwares, benefiting millions across the globe. Patches are more frequently updated, as developers from different parts of the world, working from different time zones contributing to the software tree (as opposed to a few developers working to fix that decade-old bug)
The passion to develop helps create this phenomenon, some wanting recognition from the developer community as a whole would turn to open source as a staging monumental step to elevate status. Many such developers eventually work for well-known, high-profile dot com companies such as Google and eBay.
Software giants such as Microsoft, had begun undertakings to promote and sponsor Open Source conventions, seminars and conferences where permissible. This is a no surprise, if the world's moving in that direction, wouldn't it be also right to say you need to move in that direction too? Strangely enough, news had gone around, Microsoft asking some Linux distributions to join in a pact to co-develop a branch of Open Source operating system. While many of the Linux distributions rejected Microsoft's idea, some are still pondering if the joint-venture would be worth the effort.
While the idea has been around for decades, only in recent years does open source gain popularity as it's developer base increases exponentially. After all, would Steve Jobs be right when he said (quoting from Alan Kay) "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." ?
The propensity to say "I believe so" lingers in my mind.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
SOA & ECM Day Conferences - Singapore, 23rd & 24th of April 2007
Just got back from Singapore, 2 days ago, after attending the SOA & ECM (Service-Oriented Architecture & Enterprise Content Management) Day conferences there. The events were held by SDA Asia Magazine (a periodical focusing largely on Enterprise-Level IT). Sponsors of the events include big names in IT; Software AG, EMC, Serena Software, Sun Microsystems, HP (IT Governance & SOA Divisions), IBM (WebSphere Portal & WorkPlace Divisions), Interwoven Inc.
I get a better idea of what SOA (you can find a pretty good definition of SOA at xml.com) literally means, in terms of IT Governance; The management of ERP Systems, The integration of legacy systems with cutting edge technologies, How these processes can be tuned in accordance with a company's needs, and to loose-couple processes so as to be dynamically linked (instead of obsolete methods of statically linking processes). Basically, in a way, that is saying SOA implies a wide range of methods on how you can fine-tune your company's IT infrastructure to boost efficiency (so the CFO would stop bugging you about infrastructural and operational costs, ROI and overexpansion (in some cases) ). And efficiency literally means, costs are cut down, profits jump, ROI is faster than projected, and company gaining higher ground against competitors (so to say). Such includes, integration of systems where possible. Instead of running 2 or 3 parallel systems, you consolidate them to run on a single system, which automatically brings about cost savings in many areas (companies have a wide-range of pre-defined areas specific to each industry/sector).
While SOA is a rapidly growing new technology on the Enterprise-level systems, there's yet a need to gather up proof, on how effective SOA can accomodate current needs of upgrading old systems and in what time frame are we talking about here? How can SOA balance the needs of the CIO and the CFO, as we know the two different individuals has very different vantage points in terms of company expenditures and investments (who would always, undoubtfully, be in a tug-of-war with each other) ? Would ROI play a major role as a deciding factor, as whether SOA could or could not be implemented as a result of cost concerns? Time frame of which such tasks are being carried out? (too slow and the system fails, too fast and there would be problems later on).
Thus, challenges remain: How do we implement such a monolithic task of separating existing systems without causing glitches on the operational backend of it? or the infrastructural for that matter? How do we diagnose the problems of the current system, as we need to do that first, before any SOA implementation can be done. Would the big IT guys provide good enough solutions to accomodate the changing needs of the company? If they do, at what price tag? And for the wide range of different system integration needs, how much bang for the buck can they possibly ante up, as compared to what the Open Source community can?
ECM covered a less broad topic, as it discussed the delivery of content across a company, and how well content is managed. One of the presenters gave an example on a case he'd worked with; How an Indonesian company stacks its records of customer shipments & invoices in a warehouse that approximately held about 20 years of all transactional records (on paper), and all of a sudden, there was a need to find a customer's invoice among the large stacks of papers, and figuratively, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. It took the company 4 men, and 5 working days before finding the document needed. Moreover, after they found the document, it was processed manually from one division to another, so there can only be one person accessing that document simultaneously. All in all, the process took 10 days. Now, he compared that to a content management system, where a document is stored on a mainframe/blade system, and all one need to do is search for that document online, and have it ready in minutes, for the multiple personnels on multiple divisions. And there can be some 40-50 people from different divisions accessing the document simultaneously, saving time, effort and money!
SOA may be a defining factor for large enterprises, as IBM, HP and the like, had taken measurable steps in preparing for the IT Governance age in the coming days of IT-entrenched companies wanting to stay ahead of the pack. I reckon we need to look forward, that new methods of integration developed today, may kindle global skepticism, but unnecessarily do so in the near future. They may well be crucial tools to survive in the IT-oriented business environments.
If you wish to read up more on SOA, here are some links that I find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented_architecture
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/09/30/soa.html
I get a better idea of what SOA (you can find a pretty good definition of SOA at xml.com) literally means, in terms of IT Governance; The management of ERP Systems, The integration of legacy systems with cutting edge technologies, How these processes can be tuned in accordance with a company's needs, and to loose-couple processes so as to be dynamically linked (instead of obsolete methods of statically linking processes). Basically, in a way, that is saying SOA implies a wide range of methods on how you can fine-tune your company's IT infrastructure to boost efficiency (so the CFO would stop bugging you about infrastructural and operational costs, ROI and overexpansion (in some cases) ). And efficiency literally means, costs are cut down, profits jump, ROI is faster than projected, and company gaining higher ground against competitors (so to say). Such includes, integration of systems where possible. Instead of running 2 or 3 parallel systems, you consolidate them to run on a single system, which automatically brings about cost savings in many areas (companies have a wide-range of pre-defined areas specific to each industry/sector).
While SOA is a rapidly growing new technology on the Enterprise-level systems, there's yet a need to gather up proof, on how effective SOA can accomodate current needs of upgrading old systems and in what time frame are we talking about here? How can SOA balance the needs of the CIO and the CFO, as we know the two different individuals has very different vantage points in terms of company expenditures and investments (who would always, undoubtfully, be in a tug-of-war with each other) ? Would ROI play a major role as a deciding factor, as whether SOA could or could not be implemented as a result of cost concerns? Time frame of which such tasks are being carried out? (too slow and the system fails, too fast and there would be problems later on).
Thus, challenges remain: How do we implement such a monolithic task of separating existing systems without causing glitches on the operational backend of it? or the infrastructural for that matter? How do we diagnose the problems of the current system, as we need to do that first, before any SOA implementation can be done. Would the big IT guys provide good enough solutions to accomodate the changing needs of the company? If they do, at what price tag? And for the wide range of different system integration needs, how much bang for the buck can they possibly ante up, as compared to what the Open Source community can?
ECM covered a less broad topic, as it discussed the delivery of content across a company, and how well content is managed. One of the presenters gave an example on a case he'd worked with; How an Indonesian company stacks its records of customer shipments & invoices in a warehouse that approximately held about 20 years of all transactional records (on paper), and all of a sudden, there was a need to find a customer's invoice among the large stacks of papers, and figuratively, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. It took the company 4 men, and 5 working days before finding the document needed. Moreover, after they found the document, it was processed manually from one division to another, so there can only be one person accessing that document simultaneously. All in all, the process took 10 days. Now, he compared that to a content management system, where a document is stored on a mainframe/blade system, and all one need to do is search for that document online, and have it ready in minutes, for the multiple personnels on multiple divisions. And there can be some 40-50 people from different divisions accessing the document simultaneously, saving time, effort and money!
SOA may be a defining factor for large enterprises, as IBM, HP and the like, had taken measurable steps in preparing for the IT Governance age in the coming days of IT-entrenched companies wanting to stay ahead of the pack. I reckon we need to look forward, that new methods of integration developed today, may kindle global skepticism, but unnecessarily do so in the near future. They may well be crucial tools to survive in the IT-oriented business environments.
If you wish to read up more on SOA, here are some links that I find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented_architecture
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/09/30/soa.html
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Indonesian Stocks Flying Sky High
For the past few months (notably this past month), stock prices had soared to record highs, (so did the JSX Composite Index). This is an interesting time to invest, as predictions are being conceived that stocks are climbing higher up still. I speculate the phenomenon is caused by firstly; liquid cash being poured into the country by foreign investors seeking a high profit margin in emerging markets. Secondly, mining sectors are growing exponentially in production thus setting record high operating incomes during the past year. Thirdly, metal prices continue to escalate. For instance, tin, which has gone up about 30% in price since last year, had caused so much hype, that goverment-run businesses are earning 3-figure profit margins in 2006 (PT Timah Tbk: TINS.JK , gaining an increase of 206% in net profit last year alone, compared to 2005). This will inevitably lead to better confidence on the market this year. Notwithstanding, other sectors such as finance & banking, agro-industry, infrastructure have all their share of good riddance on the bull market too. The indications are clear, the stocks are flying, the JCI is the third best performer in all Asian markets (with Shanghai being first, and Hong Kong second). So why not invest now !?
RSS Everything !
RSS this, RSS that..
I believe we've come to an age of getting used to having to obtain information at our fingertips, at the instant we want them, no more dilly-dallying when doing so. It gets to the point where I'm overly frustrated each time I can't access a piece of information I need to quickly enough.. So then I discovered RSS, a while back and walla..! No more looking up and foraging the whole pile of old, rusty, left-out-in-the-dark bookmarks! RSS has a fine way of publishing the right information for me, personal links that need to be visited every once in a while, and getting devotional readings has never been easier too! RSS keeps all the information at hand, and just by having an RSS reader, it's almost like you don't need a web browser (for browsing at least..). For a while, I've been using infoRSS (a plugin reader for the Firefox browser), but yesterday I had to uninstall it, because it's giving me a hard time. I can't get the configuration thingy figured out, it's way too complicated.. Nevertheless, I discovered Google Reader, a pretty neat web-based reader (you need to have a Google account to use it though) that's popular with everyone (almost) using RSS. It has cool functions to go with that, like "starring" your favorite RSS topics, just like how you star your favorite messages on Gmail, its interface is very similar to Gmail, so you won't have a hard time figuring out the options, menus, etc. It's worth the try if you're looking for a good, decent, straight-forward RSS reader, or if you haven't used one before. Since then, I've RSSed this, and RSSed that. I practically RSS everything I can get my hands on, to save myself time from opening too many browser tabs, getting lost somewhere and getting nowhere in the end.
So, if you've not used RSS before, why not give it a try. Look for the XML
or RSS feed symbol 
on web pages, as they contain web feeds which can be viewed / read using any RSS reader (hundreds around, the most popular ones are: My Yahoo! and Google Reader, and a bunch of others I can't possibly remember). All you've gotta do is copy that link, and paste it on your RSS reader, or if your browser supports it as an add-on, just right-click on the link, and "Add link to RSS reader" (or other similar commands). There you have it, reading articles on the web has never been easier !
I believe we've come to an age of getting used to having to obtain information at our fingertips, at the instant we want them, no more dilly-dallying when doing so. It gets to the point where I'm overly frustrated each time I can't access a piece of information I need to quickly enough.. So then I discovered RSS, a while back and walla..! No more looking up and foraging the whole pile of old, rusty, left-out-in-the-dark bookmarks! RSS has a fine way of publishing the right information for me, personal links that need to be visited every once in a while, and getting devotional readings has never been easier too! RSS keeps all the information at hand, and just by having an RSS reader, it's almost like you don't need a web browser (for browsing at least..). For a while, I've been using infoRSS (a plugin reader for the Firefox browser), but yesterday I had to uninstall it, because it's giving me a hard time. I can't get the configuration thingy figured out, it's way too complicated.. Nevertheless, I discovered Google Reader, a pretty neat web-based reader (you need to have a Google account to use it though) that's popular with everyone (almost) using RSS. It has cool functions to go with that, like "starring" your favorite RSS topics, just like how you star your favorite messages on Gmail, its interface is very similar to Gmail, so you won't have a hard time figuring out the options, menus, etc. It's worth the try if you're looking for a good, decent, straight-forward RSS reader, or if you haven't used one before. Since then, I've RSSed this, and RSSed that. I practically RSS everything I can get my hands on, to save myself time from opening too many browser tabs, getting lost somewhere and getting nowhere in the end.
So, if you've not used RSS before, why not give it a try. Look for the XML
or RSS feed symbol 
on web pages, as they contain web feeds which can be viewed / read using any RSS reader (hundreds around, the most popular ones are: My Yahoo! and Google Reader, and a bunch of others I can't possibly remember). All you've gotta do is copy that link, and paste it on your RSS reader, or if your browser supports it as an add-on, just right-click on the link, and "Add link to RSS reader" (or other similar commands). There you have it, reading articles on the web has never been easier !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
