Jul 29

Qi Lu

Update 1:17 p.m. PDT: A source familiar with Yahoo’s situation confirmed that Lu is in fact leaving the company.

Yahoo already lost several high-level executives in the last week:

Update 6:34 p.m. PDT: The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the reorganization will centralize product groups into a central product organization.

Update 12:17 p.m. PDT: Lu, who leads search and monetization work at Yahoo, can’t be in an easy position. Yahoo just announced a major agreement under which Google–Yahoo’s top rival–will supply its own search ads next to Yahoo’s search results.

Three more executives are leaving the company: Qi Lu, executive vice president of engineering for search and advertising technology; Brad Garlinghouse, senior vice president of communications and community; and Vish Makhijani, senior vice president of search, TechCrunch reported Thursday.

“You can see that Jerry does not have the support of the leadership inside Yahoo,” the source said.

(Credit:
Yahoo)

Update 5:07 p.m. PDT: I’ve confirmed all three departures from multiple sources familiar with the situation.

“We have a deep and talented management team across all areas of the company. Our successful implementation of our core strategies and the timely rollout of key products this year testifies to the effectiveness of our team, and we continue to recruit outstanding talent. Yahoo continues to be a leader in our industry and remains a unique, exciting, and important place to work even as we experience the attrition that’s to be expected in the Internet industry.”

The executive parade from Yahoo could well be getting a lot longer.

Yahoo didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Garlinghouse is best known outside Yahoo for his “Peanut Butter Manifesto”, in which he complained, “We want to do everything and be everything–to everyone…The result: a thin layer of investment spread across everything we do and thus we focus on nothing in particular.”

• Jason Zajac, who has been general manager of social media, head of finance for the audience division, and vice president of corporate strategy.

(Credit:
Stephen Shankland/CNET News.com)

• Jeremy Zawodny, an evangelist of what’s now become the Yahoo Open Strategy.

• Stewart Butterfield and Caterina Fake, the husband-and-wife co-founders of Flickr.

Brad Garlinghouse

• Usama Fayyad, chief data officer and executive vice president of research and strategic data solutions.

But one source within the company had a more skeptical view of the reorganization, believing it a forced reaction to executive departures rather than the cause.

“It’s definitely not a shuffle,” the source said. But while some have called for the ouster of Chief Executive Jerry Yang, the change won’t affect him or President Susan Decker, apparently. And it likely won’t involve layoffs.

The pressure has to be strong for Makhijani, too. Yahoo is interested in search, but in the last year, search queries performed at Yahoo in May declined 13.8 percent to 1.33 billion while Google’s increased to 4.65 billion, according to statistics released Thursday by Nielsen Online. And third-place Microsoft, whose search queries increased 72 percent to 1.04 billion, is trying to poach Yahoo search employees.

Update 3:40 p.m. PDT: Yahoo offered a statement, but it’s only general:

• Jeff Weiner, executive vice president of the network division.

I have to wonder: Is this the level at which attrition is “expected”?

And there’s more: Yahoo plans a major reorganization, potentially to be announced as soon as next week, one source said. This change will be of much bigger magnitude than the rejiggerings of recent quarters.

One factor contributing to some of the executive departures is dissatisfaction with how they’d end up after the reorganization, the source said. Another is what amounted to the choice of recommitting to Yahoo or moving on.

Jul 29

NNDB, a directory of important people and celebrities (the two are not exclusive) standing for Notable Names Database, has put together a mapping tool that lets you connect the dots to see how people are intertwined.

One example, featured in this demo video, shows the overlap of board members for large tech companies, including Apple, Intel, Yahoo, and Microsoft. You can use the tool to figure out who’s worked where, then drill down to their personal histories–both work and play, with very little effort.

The backgrounds of each individual are maintained by the NNDB community and its editors. You can also go in to create your own charts, though you’re limited to NNDB’s directory of people and companies.

(Credit:
CNET Networks)

This reminds me a lot of Cogmap, a service that lets you map out the hierarchy of your workplace. It’s got a little more flash, though, and is similar to They Rule, a site outdated about four years that chronicles the “ruling class” of corporations around the world.

Thanks Harrison.

Wondering how companies fit together, and where there's overlap? Check out NNDB's mapper tool.

For those who are less corporate-inclined, some of the celebrity “maps” are pretty amusing, including charts of who’s been romantically involved with whom.

I was going to do one for CBS and CNET, but alas we’re not there. You can, however, compare CBS to NBC, ABC, and even Fox Broadcasting. There’s not a lot of overlap, but you can easily see people’s positions at the company and where else they’ve worked.

Jul 29

Poisoning the DNS servers run by Comcast, for example, would affect all Comcast users who haven’t switched to OpenDNS. Poisoning the authoritative DNS server for a domain affects the entire world. The patches for the DNS bug make it harder, but not impossible to poison DNS servers.

The test is available at recursive.iana.org (see above). It is fairly self-explanatory. In the results, “Not recursive” is a good thing. Click here for a full-size screenshot of the test results.

Anyone involved in creating a Web site should run this test.

Thanks to Larry Seltzer for mentioning this in his blog, finding this report on the IANA Web site is all but impossible.
See a summary of all my Defensive Computing postings.

This is discussed in a report from the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), called Frequently Asked Questions on Cache Poisoning and Cross Pollination. The topic is a bit nerdy, so I’ll try to explain it simply.

Some DNS server computers talk to you and me, while others talk to their fellow DNS servers. The DNS servers run by your ISP or by OpenDNS answer queries from Internet users, converting the name of computers into their underlying IP address (for more, see “What you need to know about the latest DNS flaw”). These are called “resolving” or “recursive” DNS servers.

When a resolving/recursive DNS server doesn’t know the IP address for a given domain, it asks other DNS servers for help. The ultimate authority for translating a particular domain name into an IP address lies with the “authoritative” DNS servers for that domain. If, for example, a Web site is hosted with a Web site hosting company, the hosting company is responsible for running the authoritative DNS servers for all the sites they host.

The discussion to date about the latest DNS problem has been from the point of view of an end user, someone browsing Web sites. But there is another aspect to the DNS problem, one that concerns owners of Web sites.

Web site owners need to be concerned because the current bug in DNS only applies to resolving/recursive DNS servers, not to authoritative DNS servers. This is good news, but only if the authoritative DNS server is only being used as an authoritative source. If it is also being used to do resolving, then it can be hacked (often referred to as “poisoning”).

Fortunately, IANA has a very simple test that reports whether the authoritative DNS servers for a particular domain are configured to only do authoritative work (a good thing) or whether they also do resolving work.

Jul 29

The inaugural balls this year have a new emphasis on interactivity as well.

“CNN airs,” says one post from a deli in Washington. “A small sitting room is packed with diners eating out of Styrofoam containers. Three limo drivers beside a salad bar talk rapidly in an eastern language.”

The Huffington Post pre-inaugural ball Monday night featured text messages from guests displayed on a giant computer.

The desire to share the experience led to more organized communications as well. Inauguration-watchers from Oregon to Massachusetts sent anonymous comments to Januarythe20th.com, describing the scene around them as the swearing-in took place. Participants of the “mass observation” sent comments to Januarythe20th either via e-mail or Twitter.

(Credit:
Stephanie Condon/ CNET News)

“It allows us to share the experience with everybody live, as opposed to getting home and saying, ‘Guys, you should’ve been there, you should’ve seen it,’” she said.

The committee made use of more practical interactive features as well, offering text alerts for event scheduling updates, public transportation news, weather reports, and more.

Campbell used her cell phone to send pictures and text messages to her sister in Florida, her brother-in-law in New Jersey, and her brother in Virginia.

“I think we’re more connected with the experience, the overall process from the primaries to today,” because of technology, said Ghajiibah Campbell, who came from Baltimore with her family to watch the inauguration. “It made you not only more connected, but willing to be connected–it wasn’t an inconvenience.”

Regular citizens will also be able to contribute to the Official Barack Obama Inaugural Book by uploading their pictures to Photobucket.

Dawn Chandler from New York said she was sending text messages to her relatives throughout the ceremonies describing “how cold it was, how long we were waiting–it was worth the wait–and the speech.”

Andrea Williams takes a picture of herself in Washington on Tuesday to send to her family.

WASHINGTON–Barack Obama was sworn in as president Tuesday in what many spectators viewed as the nation’s most interactive inauguration ceremony so far.

(Credit:
Stephanie Condon/ CNET News)

As millions of people in Washington and around the globe watched a weekend of festivities, culminating with Tuesday’s ceremony, they gave their instant feedback online and through text messages and other means to family, friends, and anyone else listening. At the same time, event organizers were able to give spectators live updates about the state of affairs in the nation’s chilly, crowded capital.

Most people who watched the inauguration did it through traditional television broadcasts, a medium that hasn’t changed significantly in half a century. But it was also possible to tune in online; our sister site CBSNews.com, for instance, streamed the inauguration live over the Internet. And people learned about the inaugural action from pictures uploaded by friends, comments on Twitter and other social media, and direct text messages from event organizers.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee’s Web site will host a live blog of the Neighborhood Inaugural Ball Tuesday night, which is open to Washington residents. The committee is encouraging people to host their own inaugural balls across the country and text in photos or video of their events, some of which will be aired on ABC’s broadcast coverage of the Washington inaugural balls.

Countless others also used their handheld devices to share the historical moment with loved ones.

New media received top billing at the pre-inaugural ball held Monday night by the news aggregation and commentary site Huffington Post. Even as stars like Ben Affleck, Dustin Hoffman, and Michael J. Fox milled around the lowly lit, sleekly designed Newseum in downtown Washington, they were overshadowed by a giant computer displaying text messages sent in from lesser-known guests at the party.

Jul 27

Not me! I’m a mere blogger, trying to report as objectively as possible on all these different businesses. I’ve got a well-developed sense of skepticism, honed by my somewhat-schizoid existence over the last 15 years as a writer and analyst covering the world of high tech (all day, every day), and playing bass in half a dozen gigging and recording bands (from which I’ve been on hiatus for the last year or so). I hope to provide some balance, or at least the occasional arched eyebrow, if anybody gets too self-promotional.

If you’re interested in such questions, and you’re heading to the South by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas, this year, check out a panel discussion in which I’ll be participating called The Artist as Entrepreneur at 1:30 p.m Wednesday. Most of the people on the panel are in the business of helping musicians use the Web and other digital tools to turn their music from hobby into career–or at least sell a few CDs and get some decent gigs.

Also on the panel are Derek Sivers, who founded online music marketplace CD Baby (which I write about all the time) and left last year to form a new business, MuckWork. I’ve also blogged about TuneCore, an online marketplace for digital downloads from independent artists, whose CEO, Jeff Price, is on the panel. I’m looking forward to meeting the other folks on the panel and hearing their stories.

What should bands pay for? Can art and marketing coexist? Has the digital world made do-it-yourself recording, marketing, and distribution easier, or do musicians still need the old-fashioned triumvirate of booking agent, record label, and radio airplay to thrive?

Apart from that, I’ll be meeting with a bunch of other companies that straddle the edge of music and technology, catching as much music as I possibly can, and if all goes according to current plan, I’ll be talking to Metallica for about five minutes on Friday about its upcoming Guitar Hero game.

I’ll blog as much as I can, and you can always follow me on Twitter.

From the artist’s perspective, Sonicbids charges subscription fees for creating and maintaining an electronic press kit, then provides an automated system for submitting that presskit to get gigs–including some pretty big ones, including SXSW, Seattle’s Bumbershoot, and the Vans Warped Tour. (Full disclosure: Panos invited me to be on the panel, for which I get a free badge to the show. I’m covering travel and all other expenses out of pocket.)

You can read about the other panelists on the SXSW site, but I’ve met Panos Panay, the moderator, and talked to him at length about the music business and his company, Sonicbids.

Jul 23

Download Audio File

Download Audio File

(Credit:
Google)

Download Audio File

Walker offered what he called both a “structural” answer as well as the “behavioral” answer.

Barring some unlikely bolt of inspiration at Microsoft, Google should continue to pad its already formidable lead in search advertising. And now that Google CEO Eric Schmidt says the company intends to turn its attention to display ads, who of sane mind would bet against its chances?

Listen now:

Listen now:

Listen now:

But Google obviously doesn’t agree that size and market dominance pose even remote antitrust parallels with IBM in the 1960s or Microsoft in the 1990s. The chief reason: the markets in question are very different. Earlier Friday, Google’s general counsel, Kent Walker, and Dana Wagner, the U.S. competition counsel, got on the phone to explain why.

Download Audio File

We’re still quite a way from the point where regulators conclude that Google is too big for its britches, but just for fun, I typed the question, “Is Google a monopoly?” into my search engine. (Wanna guess which search engine I use?) My query brought back 461,000 responses. Clearly, people have debated this question for quite some time, even as the company continues to grow ever larger.

Kent Walker, VP and General Counsel

Since antitrust decisions get decided in Washington, it’s not surprising, then, to learn that lobbyists for Google and its rivals are shadowing each other in the corridors of power. Google’s Walker suggests that most of the noise around competition issues is being generated by competitors like Microsoft–but also the cable and phone companies who don’t like Google’s position regarding Net neutrality.

Listen now:

Listen now:

I agreed with much of his argument. The parallels with Microsoft are off. In Microsoft’s case, the company got into trouble because it used its desktop monopoly to force companies to adopt Internet Explorer. Still, is there not a point –call it 70 percent market share or 90 percent market share, or somewhere in between–where Google opens itself to the title of monopolist, even if it got there by virtue of building a better mousetrap? Wagner took a crack at that question, countering that the magic number fascination “was a little bit of a red herring.”

Google does acknowledge its role as a “disruptive company,” but Walker suggests that the real battle is between desktop-based computing, including operating systems and productivity applications, and cloud-based computing. To the degree the latter trend emerges, he said, that spells trouble for Microsoft. “In a sense that’s the real market, if you will,” he said. “It’s how do people use technology to do what they need to do. That can be search to find things more broadly on the Internet. But more broadly, it’s to use the Internet, to use the network to share information to create new goods, tools and services.”

But will advertisers see their rates go up as a result of the Yahoo-Google search deal? There have been reports suggesting as much. And of course, one of the filters regulators use for antitrust review is to what extent it hurts customers, or, in this case, advertisers. Not surprisingly, Wagner argues that advertisers’ costs will head in the opposite direction.

“The nature of the Internet is just a fundamentally different world from the sale of packaged software or the bundling of software with OEMs (original equipment manufacturers),” said Walker, “The standard line we have is that competition is just one click away,”

Download Audio File

Jul 21

Microsoft still paying people to search

Today’s stories:

Netflix adds 2,500 streaming movies from Starz

Qwest union workers reject deal

HP to buy LeftHand Networks

Photos: Deconstructing the cell phone

Oracle buys maker of 3D retail software

Apple drops NDA for iPhone developers

Plus, Electronics Arts has scrapped an upcoming title a year into development. And Netflix subscribers get more movie titles when using the “Watch Now” feature. Listen now:

Download today’s podcast

EA kills ‘Tiberium,’ says misses quality standards

Report: Norway says ‘nei’ to iTunes DRM, again

Microsoft has introduced SearchPerks, a sort of “frequent flier” program that lets people cash in for every search they do. What’s it worth for consumers? And what does Microsoft hope to gain from it? CNET News reporter Ina Fried explains.

Jul 16

Rambus first sued Samsung in 2005 for allegedly violating its patents of various dynamic random access memory, or DRAM, devices. Samsung immediately countersued in the Eastern District
Court of Virginia, claiming that the patents were invalid and unenforceable.

Samsung refused the offer but continued with its court motion to obtain them. The district court in July 2006 denied Samsung its attorney fees–in that sense ruling in favor of Rambus–but included in its ruling a lengthy opinion addressing allegations that Rambus was guilty of tampering with evidence.

In a similar case, a district court found Rambus guilty of spoliation of evidence. Rambus quickly settled that case and, in September 2005, moved to dimiss
its claims against Samsung. However, Samsung’s attorney fees were still in dispute, so Rambus offered to fully compensate for them.

The court’s decision to stay out of the case leaves in place an April appeals court ruling (PDF) that a district court had no jurisdiction to grant an order that–while technically in favor of Rambus–included negative opinions about the company.

Unhappy with this turn of events, Rambus argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to even give the ruling, since its offer to pay Samsung the attorney fees rendered the case moot. In April of this year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with Rambus, vacating the previous order and remanding the case back to the court with instructions to dismiss Samsung’s complaint. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear Samsung’s appeal leaves the lower court’s decision in place.

The Supreme Court has refused to consider appeals from Samsung Electronics in a case against Rambus, a memory design and patent licensing company, closing a saga that began in 2005 over alleged patent infringement.

Jul 15

But what about the management, not just providing 1,000 individual operating systems?

Whitehurst: Most of the things we’re doing now are all building blocks around effectively running grids or clouds. Whether those happen internally or externally, I don’t know, but that’s clearly the next-generation infrastructure. So with our virtualization strategy, which we call Linux Automation, we basically say applications certified once run anywhere–on bare metal, a virtual instance, or on the EC2 cloud or any other cloud running RHEL. If you look at the products we have coming out this year, Red Hat MRG for messaging and grid, it’s all about the grid. We created a whole new business unit around management. IPA to start putting together the security. We worked with one large customer who live-migrated things from their own data center to the cloud and back.

If you look at the S&P 500, seven of the top twenty companies are tech, and other than Google, they’re not high-growth. But they’re just printing money because switching costs are so high. There’s this incredible amount of residual goodwill to Red Hat because we’re seen as an alternative to that. Oracle announced a 20-something percent price increase just as the economy starts heading south. How can you do that unless you’re pretty sure nobody can switch? High switching costs led to infrastructure cost creep. Once you get hooked, you can’t get off.

Being Red Hat’s CEO is always a balancing act. On the one hand you have the sometimes philosophically fervid open-source software community, volunteers and professionals who collectively produce the software Red Hat packages, tests, tunes, sells, and supports. On the other are the much more pragmatic customers who just want their technology to work. Red Hat must be friends to both camps–neither a parasite sponging off the hard work of others, nor a useless middleman selling what can be downloaded for free.

What if you want to switch to Novell’s Suse Linux Enterprise?

Whitehurst: You’d have to ask different customers. A lot threaten us in contract negotiations over price. We luckily don’t lose a lot that way. If you look at IDC numbers, there’s about as much unpaid Red Hat as there is paid Red Hat out there, if you look at unpaid RHEL, Centos, and Fedora. Clearly people value the functionality, but a lot of people don’t pay us for it.

(Credit:
Red Hat)

If someone wants to move something from inside their firewall to outside, they need to feel confident it will run. If you’re running it on Joe Bob’s Cloud Linux, does it feel like it’s certified? There is clear value to having a consistent Linux that’s certified across those platforms. So we built the infrastructure to do that. It doesn’t surprise me Amazon went with us. Anybody can run almost anything that runs on the data center on it, on it, it’s certified, and they can call and get tech support.

I draw a clear distinction between where we create value and where we extract value. You can’t get too enamored with one or the other. The airline industry creates a ton of value, but it’s never figured out how to extract any of it for itself. It’s great for society, but never captured any money for itself. With our model, we create value by working with the community to develop really good software. We extract value by making open-source consumable by the enterprise.

Well, speaking of competition, how about Canonical. They’re funding Ubuntu development aggressively. Do you see them in customer bids?

Whitehurst: I haven’t heard of them in any customer bid. There are a couple issues there. They’re primarily a desktop provider. We’re primarily a server provider. Those are pretty different skill sets. I welcome Ubuntu everywhere. Let them get desktops all over the place. I think that’s good for Linux and good for the ecosystem. It’s just they have a single set of bits. They don’t have a dual model with community and enterprise bits. I don’t see how anybody’s going feel real comfortable, without the certifications and support and enterprise nature of those bits, feeling comfortable running those in a mission-critical environment.

I talk to them every now and again, and certification is more on their to-do list than on their done list.

Whitehurst: It’s the hard stuff. It’s not real sexy stuff.

Have you seen any benefits from their interoperability announcements that came out of antitrust actions?

Whitehurst: My understanding is most of it is still vaporware. It’s things they will do. Some of the interoperability things–they said they’d promise not to enforce (intellectual property rights) or you can use these APIs (application programming interface) as long as you’re not selling. They’re trying to relegate open source to a very narrow hobbyist niche. That’s a bit problematic. But that said, we welcome a little regulatory oversight there and also welcome good hard competition.

What about management tools, though?

Whitehurst: We can live-migrate the things (moving running applications from one server to another). A lot of the tools are there. We’re working on it, though.

This is where we stick to our knitting. Open-source, with our model, works best where certification, support, mission-critical (reliability) matter. That’s where middleware matters, because it has similar sets of characteristics (to operating systems). Virtualization is another one. Those are the areas you’ll see us focused on. It’s where we can add value and make money.

“The clouds will all run Linux,” Whitehurst said in an interview.

But the switching cost is still there.

Whitehurst: You can stop paying us and keep using the same bits (the software). That’s the point. The bits are free. You no longer get the support, but you can get support elsewhere. If you don’t think we’re adding value that year, you can stop paying us and keep the bits, so we’ve got to add value with service and support.

There’s a lot of movement toward building large-scale Web infrastructure. Your product plays more to one server running the database here, one server running the app server there. What do you think about getting higher into the stack for enabling a very large, coordinated, distributed infrastructure?

Whitehurst: Like the Amazon EC2 cloud running on RHEL?

Q: What’s your biggest surprise since starting at Red Hat?

Whitehurst: I think I finally get the joke. I was a senior exec, and like every other senior exec I had a huge IT budget. Mine was as large as Red Hat’s revenues last year. You sit there and say, “Why are my IT costs going up, but I’m getting less and less functionality?” Every IT professional says the same thing: my lights-on costs are going up. But wait a minute! I bought a laptop, and it cost me half as much as it did three years ago, and my costs are going up? I get the joke now.

So that has evolved into a standard partner certification play, and maybe some cross-selling agreements?

Whitehurst: Yeah. What we found is a lot of people shopped on the exchange then went directly to the vendor to buy, which makes sense. So we’ve turned it more into a catalog. What we’re working on hard is the appliances and certified stacks to make the stuff more consumable.

Red Hat has often been an advocate of open-source software, pushing the philosophical envelope, not just the business envelope. You’re from the business mold, not the open-source advocacy mold. How do you see Red Hat’s role now in leading the charge and waving the flag?

Whitehurst: I joined because I believe in the mission. I’ve been a Fedora user for years at home. Economically, it is a fundamentally better way to develop software. One thing I love about the company is it’s a great confluence: when we do well as a company, we do good for the communities of use and societies around us. The last thing that wasn’t open-source was Red Hat Network, and we just open-sourced it. We’re all in. We are and should be leaders in open source, and that’s the right decision for our shareholders as well.

The airline industry is charging for checked bags now. Does this feel like sunny optimism compared to your last job?

Whitehurst: Yeah. When you had an operational mistake you killed people. When you had a misstep you could literally liquidate the company. This seems a little simpler. Obviously we have our challenges, but let’s just say I’ll take a good business model over a bad business model any day of the week. We figure out how we add value in a differentiated way and extract it in a defensible way.

One of the interesting dynamics in the open-source world is the constant back and forth with Microsoft. Sometimes they’re disparaging, and sometimes they’re embracing. How’s the current state of affairs with Redmond right now?

Whitehurst: The good news is I’m the new guy, so there’s no personal baggage there. Clearly they’re our single largest competitor, so we battle on a lot of things and have a lot of different opinions of things.

One question on extension is on getting subscription revenue beyond the operating system: How’s that working, for example with JBoss (Java server software)?

Whitehurst: We have said that JBoss is growing twice as fast or more than our core software was in the first quarter, and we’re targeting that for the entire year. It’s looking good. We just announced our SOA Suite. It far exceeded our expectations.

Today, we have Uli Drepper meeting with a bunch of major customers and invited Intel to talk about power management in chips, to talk about the next generation and what they need and what we need and feedback to Intel. If you’re not a Red Hat customer, you’re not there. That leadership in where the kernel is going is very important to most customers. It’s much more smaller Web sites that decide not to pay.

But you can automate it–if I need 18 more instances on the cloud I can turn them on, then turn them back off?

Whitehurst: Absolutely. Our user interfaces are not as good as VMware’s, but we have pretty extraordinary functionality we haven’t touted as much as we should. (Amazon has) the single largest instance of virtualization out there. It’s all our virtualization. They’re moving workloads around all the time.

Red Hat's new CEO, Jim Whitehurst

I recognize Red Hat’s a prominent alternative to incumbent players, but Red Hat’s been around for awhile now, and it’s not easy to get off Red Hat. It might be easier to get off RHEL than say, AIX from IBM, but…

Whitehurst: It’s very simple. You can stop paying us.

Do the smaller customers pay when they get bigger?

Whitehurst: We see very little fee-to-free. We see quite a bit of free-to-fee, when customers get bigger, wake up, and say, “We probably need that support and certifications.”

The former Delta Airlines chief operating officer, who took the reins of the most established open-source software company from Matthew Szulik in January, names cloud computing as a top priority. Loosely speaking, the term refers to computing services available to anyone online rather than custom data centers isolated within corporate confines, but it also dovetails with the general idea of computing services running at massive scale on a more flexible infrastructure.

What about all these high-growth companies with humongous scale-out infrastructure, like Google or Amazon? Does it concern you that these companies are able to use Linux for free?

Whitehurst: Amazon is very much a paying customer. Google is the very rare exception. As a company gets more sophisticated, one can argue the value of the support is less, but as companies get more sophisticated, the importance of the thing we provide goes up. So for instance, if Amazon wants to get something upstream into the (Linux) kernel because they need some functionality for EC2 (the Elastic Compute Cloud Web service), who can get it upstream? We can.

So will you be sticking with the Red Hat Exchange for your attempt to monetize higher-level software?

Whitehurst: Yes. I want to be clear. On the exchange, I’m frankly not a big fan. We really have de-emphasized the actual exchange. The actual Red Hat Exchange program is extremely important because I do think we add a lot of value (at lower levels), but as customers want more solutions, we need to be working to ensure we have certified stack solutions–either appliances or certified stacks. So our RHX partnerships are extremely important there.

Open source is iterative innovation–thousands of small projects going on out in the community. Iterative innovation is what makes open-source so powerful, and it is a disaster if you’re running a data center. Every two years, we set aside the major bits, test them, performance-tune them for the major applications, etc. Making it consumable is where we’re able to extract value.

Red Hat’s new chief executive, Jim Whitehurst, has his eyes on the sky.

Whitehurst, who long has used Linux himself, discussed these and other subjects shortly before the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo, which begins August 7.

Jul 15

(Credit:
IBM)

When Stretch came along, IBM, which controlled about 70 percent of the computer market and about 90 percent of the punch-card business, was already fending off charges it exerted monopoly control. Brooks said that when Watson ordered the original price cut to $10 million, “that put it at under cost and violated antitrust…antitrust was a fact of everyday life in all our thinking.”

Of course, it was anything but. In fact, the lessons learned from Stretch paved the way for the subsequent development of IBM’s System/360, which turned out to be a smash success. Meanwhile, the innovations invented for Stretch subsequently entered the wider world of mainstream computing.

“We were about 300 people working in Poughkeepsie (New York),” said Kolsky. “Individual teams met frequently. That’s why it’s hard to tell who invented what. Generally, morale was high. You wouldn’t know it by looking up here, but it was a young person’s group…there were only two people over 40. Most members of the team were in their 20s and 30s.”

Stretch: announced April 1960 and withdrawn in 1961.

(Credit:
Computer History Museum) So how does it feel to be associated with one of Big Blue’s biggest failures?

“A lot of what went into that effort was later helpful to the rest of the industry,” Allen said with the sort of understatement you’d expect from a former winner of the prestigious Turing Award. Fact is that Allen and the 300-some people who collaborated on Stretch invented many of the concepts that later became standard computer technologies. The short list includes multiprogramming, pipelining, memory protection, memory interleaving, and the eight-bit byte.

But they were in for a shock. IBM’s then-CEO, Thomas Watson, Jr. judged the 7030 to be a failure. Even though the machine was about 30 to 40 times faster than other systems, IBM won a bid submitted to Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory on its pledge to build a supercomputer that was at least 100 times faster than the 704.

“It’s a pretty good model of a highly ambitious program that, at the time, was considered having not met its objectives,” he said. “But when you look at some of the things that came out of that effort and how it’s influenced the computer industry today, (Stretch) has had a profound, indirect, benefit to this industry.”

The first system was developed for the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory under contract to the Atomic Energy Commission

Many members of that original team, now grayer and more slow-of-gait than they were during the Eisenhower administration, filled an auditorium Thursday night at the Computer History Museum to reminisce and consider the legacy they bequeathed. Fred Brooks, who was a system planner for Stretch, and Harwood Kolsky, who worked on product planning, later joined Allen on stage for a panel discussion moderated by The New York Times reporter Steve Lohr.

Left to right: Stretch collaborators Fran Allen, Fred Brooks, and Harwood Kolsky, and The New York Times’ Steve Lohr.

In January 1956, work on the Stretch project formally got underway with the goal of building a supercomputer to replace IBM’s 704 supercomputer. The resulting product, called the 7030, as the Stretch was officially known, could perform 100 billion computations a day and handle half a million instructions per second.

Kolsky recalled the initial reaction to Watson’s decision, saying that the project’s engineers thought it served as a potential death knell to future supercomputer development.

In fact, IBM had signed off on a consent decree with the Justice Department in 1956. The company eventually shipped nine systems to customers around the world but then closed the production line forever.

Even though IBM only built nine of the machines, Stretch left behind a legacy that remains a source of pride to the participants who were present at its creation.

With the exception of industry cognoscenti–and the relative handful of folks responsible for engineering and managing the project–Stretch remains a footnote for most people. But maybe that’s starting to change. To underscore the moment, IBM flew in one of its up-and-comers, senior VP of Development and Manufacturing Rod Adkins, to introduce the panel. Earlier in the evening, I sat down for a conversation with Adkins, who placed Stretch in its historical context.

(Credit:
Computer History Museum)

Computer historians should also note the following: Stretch remained the most powerful computer in the world until 1964. Some failure.

“All depends on your perspective,” recalled an amused Fran Allen, not at all regretting her participation in a now-storied mid-1950s supercomputer project popularly known as “Stretch.”

« Previous Entries