[Wed Jun 30 19:08:25 CEST 2010]

SmartPlanet published sometime ago a list of the top 20 most common passwords that is well worth a look. Difficult as it may be to believe, the list includes passwords such as: 123456, 12345, 123456789, Password, iloveyou, princess or just first names. Obviously, whatever software vendors may do to improve the security of their OSes, it won't help much as long as users are not educated enough. {link to this story}

[Wed Jun 9 14:08:25 CEST 2010]

We read on eWeek that the creator of Ruby on Rails has criticized Steve Ballmer quite strongly which, as it was to be expected, has generated a certain amount of controversy:

In a June 4 post entitled You couldn't pay me to work for Ballmer, Hansson notes that he has never been a Microsoft fan, "Not even when I was using Windows (that I begruddindly moved to after the Amiga)," he added. "But at least you used to have some awe and respect for the gorilla that was Microsoft. Bill Gates might have been an evil genius, but at least he was a genius."

Apparently Hansson wishes for a more formidable opponent for the continually growing band of Web developers that have formed around his creation. He calls Ballmer pitiable and pathetic.

As opposed to Gates, Hansson said: "Now contrast this to Steve Ballmer. Who's certainly no genius and calling him evil is to belittle evil. He has turned the gorilla into a buffoon. And frankly, it's sad. Gone are the feelings of rage (except when they patent troll people for being Web apps) and left is pity."

Strong words, without a doubt. I wouldn't call Ballmer "pathetic" or "pitiable", among other things because it's not my style to call names. However, I think I've already written somewhere else that I do see Ballmer merely as a decent and well prepared business executive, sort of like Carly Fiorina or Jonathan Schwartz, but not a genius on a par with people like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates... heck, I don't even see him on the same level as Scott McNealy or Larry Ellison. Now, is this a problem? For Microsoft, I think it is. They have gone from a business genius like Bill Gates to a plain decent exec (i.e., Steve Ballmer). I do not think he has what it takes to innovate. Not even to catch up in a world that is constantly changing. He does know his numbers and may be good at analyzing markets, but he definitely is no Steve Jobs, capable of seeing which way the wind blows and even channeling it wherever he wants it to go. But he is no Bill Gates either, always with his ear to the ground feeling every single tremor of the world around him and ready to adapt to what he sees out there. Rather, I see Ballmer like a non-descript executive, efficient and capable, hard-working without a doubt, but who can never go beyond what is already there. He lacks the imagination. He is too conservative-minded. I remain convinced that this is the reason why Bill Gates chose him as his successor. He thought that a behemoth such as Microsoft needed a good administrator, someone who could consolidate it and avoid losing too much market share in the battles to come, more than anything else. So, although I don't like Hansson's disrespectful choice of words, in the end I do agree with his views on the subject. {link to this story}

[Thu Jun 3 12:42:26 CEST 2010]

Computer World published an article yesterday about how China is trying to unseat the West in supercomputing:

China is now receiving world attention for building the second-most-poweful supercomputer on the planet, the Nebulae, a 1.27 petaflop system, according to the just-released Top500 list.

The top system is Cray's 1.76 petaflop Jaguar supercomputer at the US Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Building a supercomputer is not just a testosterone-fueled race to take the Top500 crown. Highe-performance computing, which allows people to model and develop simulations, is all about creating a computing infrastructure for accelerating product development and research in every conceivable area.

Supercomputers may well be emerging as a visible symbol of battling national economies.

Does the author imply that they are emerging just now as "a symbol of battling national economies"? I would say it has been the case for quite sometime now, perhaps since the 1970s or so. At the very least, there was a time in the late 1980s and early 1990s when it seemed as if the Japanese might be able to take over the US in this field, and yet it never materialized. It could very well be what is happening now, once more. Yet, it does look as if China's emerging role in the global scene is here to stay. There will be ups and downs, of course, but a behemoth of almost 1.5 billion people has no way to go but up in the coming decades. It is now clear that, as in other fields (politics, economics, military...), China is now trying to exert its muscles in the field of supercomputing. I don't think there is much we can do to stop it. So, we'd better learn to deal with that reality. {link to this story}