I.T. Erudio

Category: business

  • Team building

    The word “team” implies a coordinated ensemble. The word comes into the English language via Old High German with obvious “draft animal” connotations.

    Since modern English is a combination of Germanic and French/Latin vocabularies, we tend to have multiple words for the same concept – e.g. the French/Latin companion to “team” is probably “companion”/”company” (please excuse the mild attempt at word play).

    Both “team” and “company” imply functional relationships but different connotations. If you Google for “company building” (images) you will probably get pictures of “office buildings”/real estate. Search for “team building” (images) and you will probably get groups of smiling people “doing things.”

    Corporation

    Even less personal is “corporation” which comes from the Latin “corporatus” – “to form into a body.” In modern English the name implies a formal “legal” structure designed to allow “association” without liability – e.g. a “limited liability company” is a corporate form.

    One of the first “corporations” – the British East India Company (BEIC) – formed in 1600 for “Trading into the East-Indies.” They grew to the point where company activity accounted for half of ALL world trade in the mid 1700s/early1800s. “The Company” got so big that they had all of the issues of a nation-state – and the British Crown became increasingly entangled in “company” affairs to the point that the corporation was dissolved in 1874 and the “British Empire” assumed control.

    The relevant point of the BEIC story is that they were more of an “accidental empire” than a planned endeavor. The same ends up being true of MOST “startup companies.”

    Startups

    Just for fun we will define “startup success” as “lasting longer than 5 years” and hiring at least 1 employee. Historically “successful” startup companies consist of (at least) 3 “founders.”

    In general those three founders consist of:

    1. the “visionary/sales” person – who is good at explaining what the company does.
    2. the person actually skilled at doing “whatever” it is the company does
    3. the “operations” person who handles the “business” side

    In the last half of the 20th Century “venture capital” became a thing – and modern examples abound e.g. Intel, Apple, Google all instantly come to mind.

    This isn’t a “carved in stone” rule, the idea is that no one person is going to be able to perform all three functions for a large organization simply because they involve different skillsets. One function is not more important than another – all three have to work together for the startup/company/TEAM to succeed.

    It is in that “working together” where “team building” happens.

    Team

    The “division of labor” concept has an interesting history – that I won’t bother going over (“The Wealth of Nations” – Adam Smith 1776).

    To point out the obvious “team sports” a require a “team” of players. The number of players varies by sport but what makes a “team” a “team” is that you need more than 1 member. The degree of specialization between team members also (obviously) varies by sport – BUT understanding “player specialization” becomes the first step when we are “building a team.”

    Selection

    Being able to attract, select, and retain the right “team members” is essential to any organizations success and continued existence – not just “nice for growth.”

    Something like “talent” or “experience” aren’t major considerations if you are struggling to fill a vacant position. In that scenario the major challenge becomes placing “marginally qualified” players in positions.

    The small “startup” faces the same challenge – but a startup is literally “betting the company” on each new hire. A “bad hire” when the company consists of a handful of employees will have a larger impact on the company’s future than “massive corporation” making a bad hire.

    Remember – just in general – most startups fail. “Cash flow”/lack of financing is the major REPORTED reason for failure. While industries differ – saying that “employees are any organizations most valuable asset” is a cliche for a reason. Once an organization “settles” on hiring “lower grade” employees they are on their way to extinction.

    The problem is that those “lower grade” employees will tend to stick around and hire even lower grade employees to make themselves look good. It is possible to reverse the trend – but it isn’t easy. Arguably we are discussing a “normal” cycle of “organization” life and death – but again “normal” doesn’t mean “desirable” or “inevitable.”

    Retention

    If you get the “selection” part right then the need to retain those employees should be clear.

    For the record – the reason “good employees leave” is probably NOT “money.” Dig a little and you will find a lot of “advice” about how “money doesn’t motivate” – which is only partially true. i.e. the point becomes that if the organization is paying folks “enough” then paying “more” won’t increase retention.

    BUT if the organization isn’t paying “enough” – then that is obviously the easiest part of the “retention” equation to fix.

    The other parts of the “retention equation” are things like “mission”/”purpose” and then “interpersonal relations” within the organization.

    e.g. if someone feels they are making a valued contribution and serving a worthwhile purpose – then they will probably stick around until they are forced to retire. Then if someone feels like they are taken for granted and EVERYTHING is a whining contest – well, the competent employees probably leave the first chance they get …

    I’m also fond of pointing out that “job seekers” are “interviewing” the organization as well as “being interviewed” during the hiring process.

    If you don’t like the way you are treated during the hiring process – then you should have serious thoughts about accepting a job offer. A professional company staffed by competent employees is NOT going to have a “third rate” hiring process.

    Team Building Exercises

    I question the benefits of artificial “team building” exercises. You know, the “obstacle course” rope climbing sort of thing that is supposed to build “team spirit.”

    Motivational speakers are a dime a dozen. Forcing folks to socialize while doing make work activities is ACU = Almost. Completely. Useless.

    There is a lucrative market in selling those ACU activities because, well, there are a lot of incompetent executives out there looking for easy solutions to low employee moral, high turnover, and general under productivity.

    HOWEVER, real, productive “training” is something it is hard to have too much of.

    Elite

    There are no easy solutions to guarantee “good hires.”

    HOWEVER, the first step is setting high standards and having a worthwhile mission.

    Comparing the U.S. Marines to the other services is a little deceptive – i.e. the “Marines” are a component of the Depart of the Navy – still “the few, the proud, the marines” rarely had to resort to “drafting” recruits.

    In comparison the U.S. Army is twice as big as the U.S. Marines (well, Google tells me the Army has around 500,000 active duty soldiers and the Marines under 200,000 active duty), the U.S. Navy is around 350,000 active duty, and the U.S. Air Force also “around” 350,000 active duty

    Within the Army and Navy you have “special services.” How those “special services” folks are selected and trained is the stuff of legend – and not what I’m concerned with here.

    The “big concept” from a team building point of view is that those “special services” folks need the “regular service” in much the same way that the ‘edge of the knife” doesn’t exist without the rest of the knife.

    They work together to serve a common mission – i.e. they are a “team.” The “rank and file” need to be treated with respect even if the “Elite” deserve a little preferential treatment.

    From a “non military organization” point of view – the top 20% (i.e. the “Elite“) of employees in a large organization are probably more productive than the next 70%, and the bottom 10% probably need to be “eased out the door.”

    The goal of “leadership” should be to retain that elite 20%, work with the 70% who are solid contributors (and might move into the 20%), and also treat the bottom 10% with respect while helping them find their way (which may not be with the organization).

    Remember: Yes, “rank has its privileges” but that is always because “rank also has obligations.”

  • Mr Warhol and photography copyrights

    Since Andy Warhol died in 1987 – the Supreme Court was probably/technically ruling against his “estate” in their recent decision.

    Mr Warhol had used a photograph of Prince (“The Artist”) in a 1980’s painting (“Orange Prince”) – money changed hands among the concerned parties back in the early 1980’s so there wasn’t any problem until Prince Rogers Nelson died in 2016 and the Warhol image was used in some publications

    the crux of the issue was that back in the early 1980s Mr Warhol had paid for “one time use” of the photograph – SO was using Warhol’s painting in a magazine 30 years later a violation of the photographers copyright?

    Obviously the issue was convoluted enough that it ended up before the Supreme Court – so I won’t try to summarize it here – short form: the Supreme Court said “yes, the usage violated the copyright holders rights”

    Wait, what about Prince…

    now, ordinary folks might ask – what about the estate of “Prince Rogers Nelson” shouldn’t they have been involved somehow? well, again, the case was about COPYRIGHT – so it is the COPYRIGHT holder that was seeking redress

    SO when Prince’s music was played (assuming his estate still owned the copyrights) – THEY got paid, but the copyright holder of the photograph was/is the photographer.

    Just like in the music industry where “every time the music is played, SOMEONE gets paid” because of copyright – in the photography business “every time the picture gets used, someone gets paid” i.e. the copyright owner.

    Of course there is also the concept of “work for hire” – e.g. when Perry White sent out cub reporter Jimmy Olsen – the pictures Jimmy took belonged to the newspaper because they were paying young Mr Olsen to do a job.

    Peter Parker on the other hand was a freelance photographer for the JJ Jameson at the Daily Bugle – so Mr Parker got paid for his photographs and probably retained the rights to his work.

    I suppose if we could find a real copy of the Daily Planet the copyright notice on a picture Jimmy Olsen took would say “Copyright YEAR Daily Planet publishing” but a real copy of the Daily Bugle with a picture from Peter Parker would say “Copyright YEAR Peter Parker”

    In either case Superman or Spider-Man weren’t getting paid because they were performing in the public arena. Maybe they would have been received a “session fee” if they arranged a time and intentionally posed in front of the camera – but you get the idea …

    Public Photographs

    just in general if you are a “public person” doing your thing “in public” then photographs taken of you “in public” are the property of the photographer – e.g. this is how “paparazzi” make a living

    if you go to a Taylor Swift concert and take pictures of the performance – then YOU own the photographs and can do what you want with them.

    which means that it is possible for an artist to violate the copyright law by using a picture of themselves without the permission of the photographer. It happens on a regular basis.

    of course there is also the “Dave Chappell” solution where the performer can prohibit phones/cameras at the performance as a condition of entry — but that is an additional expense and MOST of the time performers want the publicity when they are “performing.”

    when they AREN’T performing is when the “negative” side of fame becomes an issue – but that is a different subject.

    Copyright

    The point of having “copyright laws” is to allow artists to profit from their creative work.

    There are folks out there that will argue that copyright laws “stifle creativity.” Well, you don’t need to be a student of history to see through that strawman argument.

    Consider Mr Shakespeare – writing 400+ years ago before “copyright laws” – how did he make “money?” Well, his “acting companies” had “benefactors” – which was why they were the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men” and then when King James I became their benefactor in 1603 thy became “King’s Men.” Then they also received money from performing productions/ticket sales.

    The idea of “publishing rights” back then was non-existent. The moveable type printing press had only made it to Europe in 1455 – so obviously “copyrights” were not an issue.

    Which means there were no “professional writers” back then – maybe a lot of “playwrights” and folks that had time to “write” as a hobby, but it was not possible to “make a living” as a “writer.”

    “If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    It should be pointed out that Mr Franklin made his fortune as a PRINTER. Ol’ Ben was obviously a gifted writer – but he made money by printing and selling his writing – so he understood the need for “copyright laws” as a profit incentive to creatives.

  • Marketing and Propaganda

    In its best form “marketing”/”advertising” is just “information”

    If you have a great product that does “whatever” the best use of your “marketing” budget is to build awareness of the products benefits among folks that need to do “whatever it is that your product does”

    e.g. say you make beer or running shoes – and your goal is to continue to sell beer or running shoes.

    Spending time educating potential customers about the benefits of your beer or running shoes is gonna be much more effective than – I don’t know, randomly pushing a social agenda.

    e.g. The “craft beer” industry got its start by educating folks on how “good beer” should taste. The “athletic shoe” business had to educate/inform how their shoes improved performance.

    Leadership

    This is where competent leadership would say “hey, we are NOT a social advocacy company — we sell beer (or running shoes) so we are gonna concentrate on making the best beer (or running shoes) and leave the social advocacy for other folks”

    That doesn’t mean your company can’t be a “force for positive change” — i.e. being a “good corporate citizen” is always “good business.” It just means that your company has a product to sell and that shouldn’t involve “propaganda.”

    Donating to charities or allowing employees “personal time” to volunteer will have intangible benefits — but taking a “corporate stance” on “controversial” issues with marketing decisions is a pointless gamble.

    Studio System

    For most of the 20th century the above would PROBABLY have qualified as “corporate dogma” for MOST large corporations.

    Back in the old “movie studio system” where actors were “under contract” – the studio made an effort to control the public image of “movie stars” and wouldn’t let the actors express “controversial opinions.”

    why? because folks on both sides of the issue were potential customers – an actor expressing an opinion would (probably) offend SOMEONE – and that would mean “lower sales”

    Yes, they were selling an illusion, but the point was that the studio was NOT in the “advocacy business” – they were selling “escapism”/”entertainment”

    Michael Jordan pointed out that he intentionally was NOT “political” because “Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes” (or something along those lines).

    Freedom of Speech

    The modern business of sport is inherently tied to the “endorsement deal.” I don’t know if anyone can truly claim to have “invented” the idea of celebrity endorsements – i.e. the birth of “mass media” and “marketing” go hand in hand.

    Babe Ruth was the best baseball player in the world (and an all time great) at a time when “mass media” was shifting from newspapers to radio. Baseball was helped by radio, which meant that Babe Ruth’s value as a “celebrity endorser” was helped by radio. BUT while the Babe endorsed everything from “cereal to Girl Scout cookies to soap” I’m not sure if he made more money from “playing baseball” or from endorsements.

    Arnold Palmer (professional golf great) on the other hand made much more money from “endorsements” than he did from winning golf tournaments. This time Mr Palmer benefited from the growth of “television.”

    If a “modern sports star” was looking for an “endorsement” role model – Mr Palmer is probably hard to beat. I’m not a golfer – but I still think of his commercials for a particular motor oil when I’m buying oil.

    Of course the “products” that Arnold Palmer was selling were “golf” AND “Arnold Palmer” – I’m sure he had opinions of the controversial subjects of his day, and I’m sure he contributed to multiple charities, he just kept those opinions separate from his “golf professional image.”

    In 2023, I’m not opposed to an athlete expressing an opinion on “controversial subjects” – I just prefer that they have an educated opinion on the subject BEFORE they comment.

    Of course then “product endorsements” might be impacted by an athlete expressing their opinions. This withdrawal of “corporate approval” is NOT an attack of “freedom if speech” – again, the “company” needs to remember that it is in the business of selling a “product” NOT active propaganda.

    You keep using that word …

    Propaganda is “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause” — so is “propaganda” a form of “marketing?”

    well, maybe – “propaganda” USUALLY has a very negative connotation. Propaganda is biased and “selectively true” – i.e. trying to present YOUR idea/product in the best possible way – which might also be true of “marketing.” BUT propaganda allows for “allegations” meant to “damage the opposition” – which implies (at best) unethical behavior, which tends counter productive in the long term.

    Again “Good marketing” starts with a quality product/service. The goal is to educate folks on how YOUR product can help them solve a problem NOT convince them that your competitors are evil.

    Maybe if you have an inferior product/idea then selling “fear uncertainty and doubt” (FUD) is your only option — but wise leadership better serve a company by “repositioning” the product or developing a better product/idea.

    Marketing is NOT Manipulation

    My point is that “marketing” should equal “education” but NOT “manipulation.”

    If a group of “corporate executives” is sitting around thinking “We have the most popular product in the land. We have so much market share it is hard for any new marketing campaign to make a BIG difference one way of the other – you know what we should do? How about we hire a ‘spokesperson’ to advocate for a ‘controversial’ subject!” – well, it is probably time to get some new “corporate executives.”

    I cannot think of ANY product at ANY time that has been so popular that the parent company could try to “force feed” a radical agenda to their customers without losing a significant market share.

    If a company has “monopoly power” then their “marketing” doesn’t matter – but if there are multiple competitors and the cost of switching is just “I’m never buying that brand again – I will buy this other brand readily available from a competitor that hasn’t insulted my intelligence/integrity” – well, you will probably get “new executives” when the ones that made the terrible marketing blunder get fired

  • Profit Margins

    If a company is “profitable” over a long period of time that PROBABLY means it is “well run” or “managed properly.”

    Of course we need to define “long period of time” — in a healthy economy companies will come and go just by the natural cultural shifts and technological advances.

    e.g. Thirty years ago multiple companies making a nice profit from selling “long distance” phone service. Then the “interweb” exploded and “cell phones” became ubiquitous and I’m not sure anyone sells “long distance” phone service anymore.

    Prices

    the price of whatever “product/service” that “profitable company” makes is gonna be influenced by a wide range of variables

    A company can’t “lose a little money” on each transaction and expect to stay in business – so MOST reasonable people can appreciate that the idea of “profit” is not evil. However calculating acceptable “profit margins” (in the real world) is harder than plugging numbers into a formula (something like “profit = (revenue – cost)/revenue”)

    First – the sector/industry which the company is competing influences the idea of acceptable “profit margins.”

    e.g. the “oil industry” has to include some % to finding/acquiring “more oil” – the “lumber industry” has to include some % to “planting trees” – the “pharmaceutical industry” has to include some % for “research, development, and approval” of new drugs

    Second – “marginal utility” comes into play and really messes with “prices.”

    How much “the market” is willing to pay for a product is influenced by how much of that product they “need.”

    Remember there is a difference between “need” and “want.” Real “needs” are things like food/water/shelter. Needs are (relatively) limited. “Wants” on the other hand are unlimited – but will vary wildly between individuals.

    e.g. an individual that is hungry, cold, and lost in the wilderness would be willing to pay much more for a “plate of beans by the fire” than someone that is living in a nice warm house with plenty of food.

    The “value” of diamonds and water are another classic example – if you are dying of thirst, you will “pay” for water and (probably) aren’t concerned with diamonds of any quality. But if you have all the water you need (you know, it tends to fall out of the sky in certain places) – then “shiny things” like diamonds are worth a lot more.

    Cost

    Of course just because “water” can be obtained for free – that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “market” for water. The problem with water is that it is easily contaminated. Historically “dirty water” has been the cause of a LOT of epidemics – which is another subject.

    “Water” may be obtained for “free” – but “clean potable water” doesn’t happen by accident. SO “bottled water” is its own little industry. The larger point being that the “product cost” is not directly linked to the “product price.”

    The same would be true for diamonds – i.e. raw diamonds require some additional work to become “jewelry.”

    SO with any product the company selling the products has other “production costs” than just “materials.”

    If those additional costs are managed poorly – then a product that costs $0 could be sold for “$large number” and the company might NOT be “profitable.”

    OR if those additional costs are managed properly – then the “total cost of production” might be lower so the “product price” might be lower AND the company would be “profitable.”

    Of course it is also possible for a company to have “record profits” despite poor management — but those tend to be short lived “bubbles.”

    As for the stock market: what the “stock market investor” wants to see in a company is “slow and steady” long term growth. Meanwhile the “stock market speculator” is looking for “wild swings” in profits.

    The “intelligent investor” will do more “investing” than “speculation” – I think someone won a Nobel Prize in economics for pointing out that “diversification” was a good thing – which is basically saying that a little “speculation” is a good thing for “long term profits.” This is why “investment professionals” will talk about “risk appetite.”

    In an ideal case our ‘well managed company’ would see slow and steady profit growth year over year. Each year may not set a new “record” for profits, but the graph line would be sloping upwards.

    While that “hot new company” in an “emerging industry” PROBABLY won’t show profits at all for the first few years – but that doesn’t mean an investor shouldn’t risk a small % …

    SO “diversification” is going to look differently for different investors at different points in their lifetime – but the “big idea” is that (from a financial planning point of view) you should never put EVERYTHING into anything …

    Government intervention

    My internal alarms start going off anytime a “government official” starts talking about a company/industry having “record profits” and how this isn’t “fair” to the public.

    Well, we have the “history of socialism/communism in the 20th Century” to point out the dangers of “centrally planned economies.”

    If you want to argue that the USSR and Maoist China were not “true communism” – fine. I understand the difference between the “speculative economics” that Karl Marx wrote about and the “real world implementation” of tyranny done under his name – that isn’t the point.

    The point is that any human government intervention into individual sectors of the economy tends to be counterproductive. Modern economies are vast and complex and change at a pace faster than human government and effectively regulate.

    I can appreciate the goal of “fairness” – but the problem is human nature and “information flow.” Is the purpose of government is NOT to make society “fair.” That simply is not possible with human government.

    I’m not questioning the “intent” of attempts at socialism – I’m pointing out the failures of trying to arbitrarily change human nature and the problems of “scarcity.”

    Mr Marx expected “capitalism” to solve the “scarcity” problem – and then “communism” would happen naturally. I tend to disagree with his hypothesis that if all of humanities basic needs were met that we would live together in peace and harmony – again, “human nature” comes into play.

    But it is pretty to think that Mr Marx wasn’t completely wrong (but again, 20th Century history isn’t on his side)

    The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

    Ronald Reagan

    All of which means that by the time “government reacts” the problem has probably changed and any government regulation is going to be pointless and ineffective.

    This is why “do something” legislation after a “disaster” might actually make the root problem worse — and “don’t make things worse” is probably a good goal for any human government.

    Of course being able to tell the difference between “we must act now” and “it is better to do nothing” is VERY hard. It does illustrate why “politicians” tend to be despised and true “statesmen”/leaders are few and far between …

  • … have a drink on me

    … “spirits” as a reference to “distilled alcohol beverages” apparently traces back to the belief that they drinks held the “life force” (i.e. “spirit”) or the “essence” of the grains or plants that were used.

    the English word “spirit” (first usage as a noun – 14th Century) traces back to the Latin “spiritus” (literally, breath, from “spirare” to blow, breathe – thank you Merriam-Webster)

    SO most likely folks figured out how to make wine and beer first – then the wine makers figured out the distillation process, and we got things like “aqua vitae” and whiskey/whisky. fwiw: If the product is made in America or Ireland – it is most likely called whiskey (notice the ‘e’) and the rest of the world spells it without the ‘e’ – so we get “Scotch whisky” but that is “Jim Beam Bourbon Whiskey”

    for most of American history (well, probably right up to the “prohibition era” – 1920-1933) whiskey almost had the status of “legal tender.” In an era before mass transit and refrigeration making whiskey was simply good business – i.e. an in demand product that had a long shelf life and could be transported (relatively) easily.

    Of course in 2023 making “spirits” is still very profitable for the same reasons – but distillation of alcohol is also heavily regulated for various reasons — e.g. protecting public health (e.g. if done incorrectly you get methanol – which will kill you fast – instead of ethanol – which will also kill you, just a little slower), and collecting tax $$ being the big factors.

    Oh, and “home brewing” of beer became legal in the 1970’s — I don’t know if “making wine” for “personal consumption” has ever been illegal in the U.S. (i.e. I’m pretty sure “home wine making” was still allowed even during the “prohibition era” – for “religious/cultural” reasons, but I’m not 100% on that)

    … but of course if you mess up the wine or beer making process – you just end up with something that tastes bad, but isn’t likely to kill you fast. Transporting beer between state lines used to be illegal (e.g. the plot for “Smokey and the Bandit”). Living in Ohio we couldn’t (legally) get “Yuengling” beer from Pennsylvania until 2011 – there are conflicting stories on “why” it took until 2011, but I’m sure its “root cause” goes back to prohibition era laws (e.g. the two states border each other – so you would think that Ohio would have been one of the first States to get “Yuengling distributors” rather than the last).

    random observation — a “beer truck” was involved in an accident in Ohio recently – I was a little concerned and then I saw pictures of cases of “Coors Light” and thought “that wasn’t a beer truck – that was Coors Light – which isn’t the same thing (ok, I like darker, heavier beers – neither “Bud” and/or “Coors” are at the top of my “preferred list”)

    ANYWAY – the idea of the “mixed drink” is probably as old as “drinking.” From an “ancient history” point of view alcoholic beverages were always “watered down” before being consumed – this was probably the same idea as modern “carbonated beverage” distribution. e.g. “fizzy drink maker” sells the “drink syrup” to establishments that then add the carbonation before serving to customers – which is how restaurants are able to give “free refills” on “fountain drinks” and “fast food chains”/”convenience stores” can sell “huge drink” for $1 — so the “wise ancients” would have stored their wine/liquor in a more concentrated form – and then added water to adjust for “proof”/potency

    random thought: for “mixed alcohol drinks” larger ice cubes tend to be used (primarily) because the cubes melt slower, and therefore don’t dilute the drink as much – and if you are paying for some exotic concoction that comes with ice in the glass, you might care how it tastes – i.e. no ice served with “shots” but they will probably have been “chilled” if requested or if the bartender wants to put on a show.

    For whiskey they have “whiskey stones” that can be chilled and won’t melt – but they come across as gimmicky to me – maybe add a drop of water to that high quality whiskey/whisky to activate the flavors, and if you are “drinking for effect” don’t pay for the good stuff

    The “modern cocktail” is sometimes described as the United States’ contribution to world “liquor culture.” The short form idea being that a lot of “cocktails” were created to mask the taste of bad liquor mass produced (illegally – you know gangsters/bootlegging/that whole thing) during prohibition — Winston Churchill’s quote about how to make a martini (“Glance at the vermouth bottle briefly while pouring the juniper distillate freely.”) illustrates the point that “high quality gin” (which Mr Churchill would have been drinking) didn’t require vermouth to make it palatable).

    That same concept kind of applied to “tough guy” drinks – e.g. the cowboy is drinking whiskey while standing at the bar – the hard-boiled private eye had a bottle of whiskey in a desk drawer. Philip Marlowe tended to drink “Gimlets” which (originally) was just gin (or vodka) and lime juice – but you can add simple syrup if you want it sweeter. The “Gimlet” name most likely traces back to a 19th century British Navy Doctor (Rear-Admiral Sir Thomas Desmond Gimlette) – who suggested adding lime juice to Officers “daily ration” of gin (enlisted men got rum – add lime juice to the rum and you get “Grog”)

    Glance at the vermouth bottle briefly while pouring the juniper distillate freely.

    Winston Churchill

  • To REALLY mess things up …

    SO, I tried to change “permalinks” in WordPress and ALL the links broke.

    I’ve been using WordPress for years – but to be honest I’ve never tried to do anything “complicated” (i.e. beyond the “content management” for which WordPress is designed).

    Of course this “blog” thing isn’t making me an $$ so I don’t put a lot of effort into WordPress “customization” – i.e. it doesn’t REALLY matter what the “permalinks” look like.

    “Optimized URLs” used to be a “search engine optimization” (SEO) thing (well, it probably still is a SEO thing) — so I’m not saying that “permalink structure” isn’t important. I’m just pointing out that I haven’t had a reason to change it from the default.

    And Then…

    Like I said, WordPress is great for the occasional “blog” posting – but then I wanted to do some “web 1.0” type file linking – and, well, WordPress ain’t built for that.

    Yes, there are various plugins – and I got it to work. AND THEN —

    I should also mention that I’ve tried launching various “Facebook pages” over the years. One is Old Time Westerns.

    Now, Facebook as a platform wasn’t real sure what “pages” were for – my opinion is that they were basically TRYING to create a “walled garden” to keep users on Facebook – and then of course users see more Facebook ads.

    No, I am NOT criticizing Facebook for offering new services trying to keep people on Facebook — but “Facebook pages 1.0” weren’t particularly useful for “page creators.” In fact Facebook wanted (wants) page creators to PAY to “boost posts” — which functionally means NOTHING goes “organically viral” on Facebook.

    Again, I’m also NOT criticizing Facebook for wanting to make $$ – but no, I’m not going to PAY for the privilege of doing the work of creating a community on a platform, which can decide to kick me off whenever they like.

    Did I mention …

    … I have the required skills to do the “web publishing” thing – so for not much $ I can just setup my own servers and have much more control over anything/everything.

    SO the motivation behind the “Westerns” page was more about me getting in my “amateur historian” exercise than about building a community.

    Ok, sure, I would love to connect with people with the same interests – which is one of those things the “web” has been great at from the “early days.” Notice that I didn’t day “Facebook” is great a finding people of common interests, but the Internet/Web is.

    Facebook is great to “reconnect” with people you once knew or have met – but not so good at “connecting” new people with a common interest.

    Hey, if you are “company” selling “product” and you have a marketing budget – then Facebook can help you find new customers. If you are “hobbyist” looking for other “hobbyists” – well, not so much.

    Yes, Facebook can be a tool for that group of “hobbyists” – but unless you have a “marketing budget” don’t expect to “organically” grow you member list from being on Facebook.

    fwiw: “Facebook pages 2.0” has become “groups” or something – Wikipedia tells me Yahoo! pulled the plug on “Yahoo! Groups” in 2020. The “fun fact” is that the whole “groups” concept predates the “web” – that sort of “bulletin board” functionality goes back to the late 1970’s early 1980’s. Remember the movie WarGames (1983)? That was what he was “dialing into.”

    ANYWAY …

    I have various “example” sites out there – I’ve pointed out that WordPress does somethings very well – but doesn’t do other things well.

    Yes, you could “extend” WordPress if you like – but it isn’t always the “right tool for the job.”

    SO “data driven example” https://www.iterudio.com/us —

    small “progressive web app”: https://media.iterudio.com/j/

    Another “data driven example” – but this time I was trying to create a “daily reading app” from a few of the “wisdom books”: https://clancameron.us/bible/

    A “quote app”: https://clancameron.us/quotes/

    AND then the latest – which is just javascript and css https://www.iterudio.com/westerns/

    The original plan was to just create some “pages” within WordPress – and I wanted the URL to be “page name” — which is why I was trying to change the “permalinks” within WordPress.

    My guess is that the problem has to do with the fact the the “uniform resource locator” (URL) on my server gets “rewritten” before it hits the WordPress “permalink” module – which then tries to rewrite it again. The error I was getting seems to be common – and I tried the common solutions to no avail (and most potential solutions just made the problem worse).

    To err is human; To really foul things up requires a computer.

    Anonymous

  • talkin football

    The NFL “divisional playoffs” were this weekend (January 22, 2023) – I thought the “better teams” all won today (Cincinnati beat Buffalo, San Francisco beat Dallas)

    Bengals

    The final score was Bengals 27 – Bills 10. To my eyes the Bengals are playing like a championship team – I’m not predicting anything, just saying that they are doing a lot of the things that championship teams do.

    Of course the Bengals continue to be disrespected by the “experts” simply because, well, they are the Bengals.

    e.g. The “spread” was Bengals +6 – which means that the Bills were a 6 point “favorite.”

    Sure the Bills were the home team, and they are obviously also a very good team composed of professional athletes – but a 6 point favorite?

    Well, you see the “line”/”point spread” in a football game is about getting equal money bet by both sides – then the “house” is guaranteed a % of the money wagered – no matter who wins.

    The “spread” isn’t about which team is actually better – it is completely about how money is being wagered on the game. Which again comes back to my point that the Bengals are being disrespected by the “experts”

    Experts

    Full disclosure – I don’t enjoy “picking” football games. Just in general I don’t bet on sports.

    As a “seasoned fan” I don’t bother to watch much “pre-game” coverage. I’ll turn on the game just before kick-off and usually mute the ‘announcers” and listen to music during the game.

    HOWEVER – when I was a “not so seasoned fan” I would sometimes watch ALL of the pre-game coverage, then the games, then watch the highlight shows. SO I’ve listened to a lot of “television experts” predict football games.

    There was an old “football expert” by the name of Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder who used to predict NFL game scores back in the 1970s/80’s.

    Now, ol’ Jimmy was probably wrong more than he was right – I don’t remember ever hearing his “correct/incorrect” numbers – but he was also a “Las Vegas bookmaker” so his win/lose record was MOSTLY irrelevant.

    Again, if you are a “bookmaker” you just want a lot of money bet ON BOTH TEAMS – so then you are guaranteed to make money not matter who wins.

    ANYWAY – at the end of his career (before he said something inappropriate and got himself fired in 1988) ol’ Jimmy loved himself some Dallas Cowboys (and in his defense the Cowboys were very good in the late 70’s and early 80’s).

    The problem was that the Cowboys as a franchise had some problems in the mid 1980’s (which culminated in a change of ownership in 1989), and were just not a good team – but ol’ Jimmy kept on picking them to win

    from a “psych 101” point of view ol’ Jimmy “The Greek” was suffering from a bad case of “confirmation bias” in regards to the Cowboys — i.e. he keep expecting them to be championship contenders because they had been championship contenders for so long.

    And that brings us to the 2022 Dallas Cowboys. They lost to the San Francisco 49ers today 12 – 19. The line was Cowboys +4.

    My guess is that the “betting public” made the “point spread” smaller in the Dallas game and larger in the Bengals games because of “confirmation bias” — i.e. the general public expects the Cowboys to be better than they are and for the Bengals to be worse.

    Which is why they play the games …

    My opinion on the Bengals win is that the Bengals were the “better team” today. The Bills certainly didn’t “quit” or “play poorly” so much as the Bengals played very well as a team and were in control from start to finish (they looked like “Champions”).

    ‘dem Cowboys

    The Cowboys had another “golden era” in the early-mid 1990’s – winning 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. But haven’t been back to a Super Bowl or Conference championship game since 1995.

    In that 27 year “championship game” drought they have only had 7 losing seasons. Team Owner Jerry Jones is willing to invest money in the team, they have a state of the art stadium, and a large passionate fan base – i.e. if there is a “recipe for success” the Cowboys have been following it.

    Watching the game today – my opinion was that the teams were “physically equal.” It was a close, entertaining game but I would describe it as the “Cowboys lost” just as much as the “49ers won.”

    No disrespect for San Francisco – they are another “doing things right” franchise (but they have made a couple Super Bowl appearances since their “golden era” back in the 1980’s/90s).

    But the Cowboys continue to make “small mistakes” that are hard to justify/explain.

    The Steelers Hall of Fame Coach Chuck Knoll once said that “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    “Before you can win the game, you have to not lose.”

    Chuck Knoll

    Yeah, it is a great “football coach” quote – what he (probably) meant is that more games are “lost” because of players making (self-inflicted) mistakes than are ‘won” by players making great plays.

    SO the Cowboys have a lot of very talented players – that managed to find a way not to win. I have an opinion on the “why” of the Cowboys continued “non championship” run – but it is just an “opinion” and it isn’t important or useful at the moment …

    To the 49ers credit, they let the Cowboys make those mistakes, took the win – and will play next week against the Eagles.

    BUT I didn’t get that “championship” feel from the 49ers – that doesn’t mean they won’t win against the Eagles. The Eagles are very good and were dominant in their win – but the Giants had that “happy they won last week” look – so the game will be interesting …

  • authentication, least privilege, and zero trust

    When we are discussing “network security” phrases like “authentication”, “least privilege”, and “zero trust” tend to come up. The three terms are related, and can be easily confused.

    I’ve been in “I.T.” for a while (the late 1980’s) – I’ve gone from an “in the field professional” to “network technician” to “the computer guy” and now as a “white bearded instructor.”

    Occasionally I’ve listened to other “I.T. professionals” struggle trying to explain the above concepts – and as I mentioned, they are easy to confuse.

    Part of my job was teaching “network security” BEFORE this whole “cyber-security” thing became a buzzword. I’ve also had the luxury of “time” as well as the opportunity/obligation to explain the concepts to “non I.T. professionals” in “non technical jargon.”

    With that said, I’m sure I will get something not 100% correct. The terms are not carved in stone – and “marketing speak” can change usage. SO in generic, non-technical jargon, here we go …

    Security

    First, security as a concept is always an illusion. No I’m not being pessimistic – as human beings we can never be 100% secure because it is simply not possible to have 100% of the “essential information.”

    SO we talk in terms of “risk” and “vulnerabilities.” From a practical point of view we have a “sliding scale” with “convenience and usability” on one end and “security” on the other. e.g. “something” that is “convenient” and “easy to use”, isn’t going to be “secure.” If we enclose the “something” in a steel cage, surround the steel cage with concrete, and bury the concrete block 100 feet in the ground, it is much more “secure” – but almost impossible to use.

    All of which means that trying to make a “something” usable and reasonably secure requires some tradeoffs.

    Computer Network Security

    Securing a “computer” used to mean “locking the doors of the computer room.” The whole idea of “remote access” obviously requires a means of accessing the computer remotely — which is “computer networking” in a nutshell.

    The “physical” part of computer networking isn’t fundamentally different from the telegraph. Dots and dashes sent over the wire from one “operator” to another have been replaced with high and low voltages representing 1’s and 0’s and “encapsulated data” arranged in frames/packets forwarded from one router to another — but it is still about sending a “message” from one point to another.

    With the old telegraph the service was easy to disrupt – just cut the wire (a 19th century “denial of service” attack). Security of the telegraph message involved trusting the telegraph operators OR sending an “encrypted message” that the legitimate recipient of the message could “un-encrypt.”

    Modern computer networking approached the “message security” problem in the same way. The “message” (i.e. “data”) must be secured so that only the legitimate recipients have access.

    There are a multitude of possible modern technological solutions – which is obviously why “network administration” and “cyber-security” have become career fields — so I’m not going into specific technologies here.

    The “generic” method starts with “authentication” of the “recipient” (i.e. “user”).

    Authentication

    Our (imaginary) 19th Century telegraph operator didn’t have a lot of available options to verify someone was who they said they were. The operator might receive a message and then have to wait for someone to come to the telegraph office and ask for the message.

    If our operator in New Orleans receives a message for “Mr Smith from Chicago” – he has to wait until someone comes in asking for a telegraph for “Mr Smith from Chicago.” Of course the operator had no way of verifying that the person asking for the message was ACTUALLY “Mr Smith from Chicago” and not “Mr Jones from Atlanta” who was stealing the message.

    In modern computer networking this problem is what we call “authentication.”

    If our imaginary telegraph included a message to the operator that “Mr Smith from Chicago” would be wearing a blue suit, is 6 feet tall, and will spit on the ground and turn around 3 times after asking for the message — then our operator has a method of verifying/”identifying” “Mr Smith from Chicago” and then “authenticating” him as the legitimate recipient.

    Least Privilege

    For the next concept we will leave the telegraph behind – and imagine we are going to a “popular music concert.”

    Imagine that we have purchased tickets to see “big name act” and the concert promoters are holding our tickets at the “will call” window.

    Our imaginary concert has multiple levels of seating – some seats close to the stage, some seats further away, some “seats” involve sitting on a grassy hill, and some “seats” are “all access Very Important Person.”

    On the day of the concert we go to the “will call” window and present our identification (e.g. drivers license, state issued ID card, credit card, etc) – the friendly attendant examines our individual identification (i.e. we get “authenticated”) and then gives us each a “concert access pass” on a lanyard (1 each) that we are supposed to hang around our necks.

    Next we go to the arena gate and present our “pass” to the friendly security guard. The guard examines the pass and allows us access BASED on the pass.

    Personally I dislike large crowds – so MY “pass” only gives me access to the grassy area far away from the stage. Someone else might love dancing in the crowd all night, so their “pass” gives them access to the area much closer to the stage (where no one sill sit down all night). If “big recording executive” shows up, their “pass” might give them access to the entire facility.

    Distinguishing what we are allowed to do/where we are allowed to go is called “authorization.”

    First we got “authenticated” and then we were giving a certain level of “authorized” access.

    Now, assume that I get lonely sitting up there on the hill – and try to sneak down to the floor level seats where all the cool kids are dancing. If the venue provider has some “no nonsense, shaved head” security guards controlling access to the “cool kids” area – then those guards (inside the venue) will check my pass and deny me entry.

    That concept of “only allowing ‘pass holders’ to go/do specifically where/what they are authorized to go/do” could be called “least privilege.”

    Notice that ensuring “least privilege” takes some additional planning on the part of the “venue provider.”

    First we authenticate users, then we authorize users to do something. “Least privilege” is attained when users can ONLY do what they NEED to do based on an assessment of their “required duties.”

    Zero Trust

    We come back around to the idea that “security” is a process and not an “end product” with the “new” idea of “zero trust.” ” Well, “new” as in “increased in popularity.”

    Experienced “network security professionals” will often talk about “assuming that the network has been compromised.” This “assumption of breach” is really what “zero trust” is concerned.

    It might sound pessimistic to “assume a network breach” – but it implies that we need to be looking for “intruders” INSIDE the area that we have secured.

    Imagine a “secret agent movie” where the “secret agent” infiltrates the “super villain’s” lair by breaching the perimeter defense, then enters the main house through the roof. Since the “super villain” is having a big party for some reason, out “secret agent” puts on a tuxedo and pretends to be a party guest.

    Of course the super villain’s “henchmen” aren’t looking for intruders INSIDE the mansion that look like party guests – so the “secret agent” is free to collect/gather intelligence about the super villain’s master plan and escape without notice.

    OR to extend the “concert” analogy – the security guards aren’t checking “passes” of individuals within the “VIP area.” If someone steals/impersonates a “VIP pass” then they are free to move around the “VIP area.”

    The simplest method for an “attacker” would be to acquire a “lower access” pass, and then try to get a “higher level” pass

    Again – we start off with good authentication, have established least privilege, and the next step is checking users privileges each time they try to do ANYTHING.

    In the “concert” analogy, the “user pass” grants access to a specific area. BUT we are only checking “user credentials” when they try to move from one area to another. To achieve “zero trust” we need to do all of the above AND we assume that there has been a security breach – so we are checking “passes” on a continual basis.

    This is where the distinction between “authentication and least privilege” and “zero trust” can be hard to perceive.

    e.g. In our concert analogy – imagine that there is a “private bar” in the VIP area. If we ASSUME that a user should have access to the “private bar” because they are in the VIP area, that is NOT “zero trust.” If users have to authenticate themselves each time they go to the private bar – then that could be “zero trust.” We are guarding against the possibility that someone managed to breach the other security measures.

    Eternal vigilance

    If you have heard of “AAA” in regards to security – we have talked about the first two “A’s” (“Authentication”, and “Authorization”).

    Along with all of the above – we also need “auditing.”

    First we authenticate a user, THEN the user gets authorized to do something, and THEN we keep track of what the user does while they are in the system – which is usually called “auditing”.

    Of course what actions we will choose to “audit” requires some planning. If we audit EVERYTHING – then we will be swamped by “ordinary event” data. The “best practice” becomes “auditing” for the “unusual”/failure.

    e.g. if it is “normal” for users to login between the hours of 7:00AM and 6:00PM and we start seeing a lot of “failed login attempts” at 10:00PM – that probably means someone is doing something they shouldn’t.

    Deciding what you need to audit, how to gather the data, and where/when/how to analyze that data is a primary function of (what gets called) “cyber-security.”

    “Security” is always best thought of as a “process” not an “end state.” Something like “zero trust” requires constant authorization of users – ideally against multiple forms of authentication.

    Ideally intruders will be prevented from entering, BUT finding/detecting intrusion becomes essential.

    HOW to specifically achieve any of the above becomes a “it depends” situation requiring in depth analysis. Any plan is better than no planning at all, but the best plan will be tested and re-evaluated on a regular basis — which is obviously beyond the scope of this little story …

  • Brand value, Free Speech, and Twitter

    As a thought experiment – imagine you are in charge of a popular, world wide, “messaging” service – something like Twitter but don’t get distracted by a specific service name.

    Now assume that your goal is to provide ordinary folks with tools to communicate in the purest form of “free speech.” Of course if you want to stay around as a “going concern” then you will also need to generate revenue along the way — maybe not “obscene profits” but at least enough to “break even.”

    Step 1: Don’t recreate the wheel

    In 2022, if you wanted to create a “messaging system” for your business/community then there are plenty of available options.

    You could download the source code for Mastodon and setup your own private service if you wanted – but unless you have the required technical skills and have a VERY good reason (like a requirement for extreme privacy) that probably isn’t a good idea.

    In 2022 you certainly wouldn’t bother to “develop your own” platform from scratch — yes, it is something that a group of motivated under grads could do, and they would certainly learn a lot along the way, but they would be “reinventing the wheel.”

    Now if the goal is “education” then going through the “wheel invention” process might be worthwhile. HOWEVER , if the goal is NOT education and/or existing services will meet your “messaging requirements” – then reinventing the wheel is just a waste of time.

    For a “new commercial startup” the big problem isn’t going to be “technology” – the problem will be getting noticed and then “scaling up.”

    Step 2: integrity

    Ok, so now assume that our hypothetical messaging service has attracted a sizable user base. How do we go about ensuring that the folks posing messages are who they say they are – i.e. how do we ensure “user integrity.”

    In an ideal world, users/companies could sign up as who they are – and that would be sufficient. But in the real world where there are malicious actors with a “motivation to deceive” for whatever reason – then steps need to be taken make it harder for “malicious actors to practice maliciousness.”

    The problem here is that it is expensive (time and money) to verify user information. Again, in a perfect world you could trust users to “not be malicious.” With a large network you would still have “naming conflicts” but if “good faith” is the norm, then those issues would be ACCIDENTAL not malicious.

    Once again, in 2022 there are available options and “recreating the wheel” is not required.

    This time the “prior art” comes in the form of the registered trademark and good ol’ domain name system (DNS).

    Maybe we should take a step back and examine the limitations of “user identification.” Obviously you need some form of unique addressing for ANY network to function properly.

    quick example: “cell phone numbers” – each phone has a unique address (or a card installed in the phone with a unique address) so that when you enter in a certain set of digits, your call will be connected to that cell phone.

    Of course it is easy to “spoof the caller id” which simply illustrates our problem with malicious users again.

    Ok, now the problem is that those “unique user names” probably aren’t particularly elegant — e.g. forcing users to use names like user_2001,7653 wouldn’t be popular.

    If our hypothetical network is large enough then we have “real world” security/safety issues – so using personally identifiable information to login/post messages would be dangerous.

    Yes, we want user integrity. No, we don’t want to force users to use system generated names. No, we don’t want to put people in harm’s way. Yes, the goal is still “free speech with integrity” AND we still don’t want to reinvent the “authentication wheel.”

    Step 3: prior art

    The 2022 “paradigm shift” on usernames is that they are better thought of as “brand names.”

    The intentional practice of “brand management” has been a concern for the “big company” folks for a long time.

    However, this expanding of the “brand management” concept does draw attention to another problem. This problem is simply that a “one size fits all” approach to user management isn’t going to work.

    Just for fun – imagine that we decide to have three “levels” of registration:

    • level 1 is the fastest, easiest, and cheapest – provide a unique email address and agree to the TOS and you are in
    • level 2 is requires additional verification of user identity, so it is a little slower than level 1, and will cost the user a fee of some kind
    • level 3 is for the traditional “big company enterprises” – they have a trademark, a registered domain name, and probably an existing brand ‘history.’ The slowest and most expensive, but then also the level with the most control over their brand name and ‘follower’ data

    The additional cost for the “big company” probably won’t be a factor to the “big company” — assuming they are getting a direct line to their ‘followers’/’customers’

    Yes, there should probably be a “non profit”/gov’ment registration as well – which could be low cost (free) as well as “slow”.

    Anyone that remembers the early days of the “web” might remember the days when the domain choices were ‘.com’, ‘.edu’,’.net’, ‘.mil’, and ‘.org’ – with .com being for “commerce”, .edu for “education”, .net was originally supposed to be for “network infrastructure, .mil was for the military, and .org was for “non profit organizations.”

    I think that originally .org was free of charge – but they had to prove that they were a non-profit. Obviously you needed to be a educational institution to get an edu domain, and the “military” for a .mil domain was exactly what it sounds like

    Does it need to be pointed out that “.com” for commercial activity was why the “dot-com bubble/boom and bust” was called “dot-com”?

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch ….

    For individuals the concept was probably thought of as “personal integrity” – and hopefully that concept isn’t going away, i.e. we are just adding a thin veneer and calling it “personal branding.”

    Working in our hypothetical company’s favor is the fact that “big company brand management” has included registering domain names for the last 25+ years.

    Then add in that the modern media/intellectual property “prior art” consists of copyrights, trademarks, and patents. AND We (probably) already have a list of unacceptable words – e.g. assuming that profanity and racial slurs are not acceptable.

    SO just add a registered trademarks and/or a domain name check to the registration process.

    Prohibit anyone from level 1 or 2 from claiming a name that is on the “prohibited” list. Problem solved.

    It should be pointed out that this “enhanced registration” process would NOT change anyone’s ability to post content. Level 2 and 3 are not any “better” than level 1 – just “authenticated” at a higher level.

    If a “level 3 company” chooses not to use our service – their name is still protected. “Name squatting” should also be prohibited — e.g. if a level 3 company name is “tasty beverages, inc” then names like “T@sty beverages” or “aTasty Beverage” – a simple regular expression test would probably suffice.

    The “level 3” registration could then have benefits like domain registration — i.e. “tasty beverages, inc” would be free create other “tasty beverage” names …

    If you put together a comprehensive “registered trademark catalog” then you might have a viable product – the market is probably small (trademark lawyers?), but if you are creating a database for user registration purposes – selling access to that database wouldn’t be a big deal – but now I’m just rambling …

  • Random Thoughts about Technology in General and Linux distros in Particular

    A little history …

    In the 30+ years I’ve been a working “computers industry professional” I’ve done a lot of jobs, used a lot of software, and spent time teaching other folks how to be “computer professionals.”

    I’m also an “amateur historian” – i.e. I enjoy learning about “history” in general. I’ve had real “history teachers” point out that (in general) people are curious about “what happened before them.”

    Maybe this “historical curiosity” is one of the things that distinguishes “humans” from “less advanced” forms of life — e.g. yes, your dog loves you, and misses you when you are gone – but your dog probably isn’t overly concerned with how its ancestors lived (assuming that your dog has the ability to think in terms of “history” – but that isn’t the point).

    As part of “teaching” I tend to tell (relevant) stories about “how we got here” in terms of technology. Just like understanding human history can/should influence our understanding of “modern society” – understanding the “history of a technology” can/should influence/enhance “modern technology.”

    The Problem …

    There are multiple “problems of history” — which are not important at the moment. I’ll just point out the obvious fact that “history” is NOT a precise science.

    Unless you have actually witnessed “history” then you have to rely on second hand evidence. Even if you witnessed an event, you are limited by your ability to sense and comprehend events as they unfold.

    All of which is leading up to the fact that “this is the way I remember the story.” I’m not saying I am 100% correct and/or infallible – in fact I will certainly get something wrong if I go on long enough – any mistakes are mine and not intentional attempts to mislead 😉

    Hardware/Software

    Merriam-Webster tells me that “technology” is about “practical applications of knowledge.”

    random thought #1 – “technology” changes.

    “Cutting edge technology” becomes common and quickly taken for granted. The “Kansas City” scene from Oklahoma (1955) illustrates the point (“they’ve gone just about as far as they can go”).

    Merriam-Webster tells me that the term “high technology” was coined in 1969 referring to “advanced or sophisticated devices especially in the fields of electronics and computers.”

    If you are a ‘history buff” you might associate 1969 with the “race to the moon”/moon landing – so “high technology” equaled “space age.” If you are an old computer guy – 1969 might bring to mind the Unix Epoch – but in 2022 neither term is “high tech.”

    random thought #2 – “software”

    The term “hardware” in English dates back to the 15th Century. The term originally meant “things made of metal.” In 2022 the term refers to the “tangible”/physical components of a device – i.e. the parts we can actually touch and feel.

    I’ve taught the “intro to computer technology” more times than I can remember. Early on in the class we distinguish between “computer hardware” and “computer software.”

    It turns out that the term “software” only goes back to 1958 – invented to refer to the parts of a computer system that are NOT hardware.

    The original definition could have referred to any “electronic system” – i.e. programs, procedures, and documentation.

    In 2022 – Merriam-Webster tells me that “software” is also used to refer to “audiovisual media” – which is new to me, but instantly makes sense …

    ANYWAY – “computer software” typically gets divided into two broad categories – “applications” and “operating systems” (OS or just “systems”).

    The “average non-computer professional” is probably unaware and/or indifferent to the distinction between “applications” and the OS. They can certainly tell you whether they use “Windows” or a “Mac” – so saying people are “unaware” probably isn’t as correct as saying “indifferent.”

    Software lets us do something useful with hardware

    an old textbook

    The average user has work to get done – and they don’t really care about the OS except to the point that it allows them to run applications and get something done.

    Once upon a time – when a new “computer hardware system” was designed a new “operating system” would also be written specifically for the hardware. e.g. The Mythic Man-Month is required reading for anyone involved in management in general and “software development” in particular …

    Some “industry experts” have argued that Bill Gates’ biggest contribution to the “computer industry” was the idea that “software” could be/should be separate from “hardware.” While I don’t disagree – it would require a retelling of the “history of the personal computer” to really put the remark into context — I’m happy to re-tell the story, but it would require at least two beers – i.e. not here, not now

    In 2022 there are a handful of “popular operating systems” that also get divided into two groups – e.g. the “mobile OS” – Android, iOS, and the “desktop OS” Windows, macOS, and Linux

    The Android OS is the most installed OS if you are counting “devices.” Since Android is based on Linux – you COULD say that Linux is the most used OS, but we won’t worry about things like that.

    Apple’s iOS on the other hand is probably the most PROFITABLE OS. iOS is based on the “Berkely Software Distribution” (BSD) – which is very much NOT Linux, but they share some code …

    Microsoft Windows still dominates the desktop. I will not be “bashing Windows” in any form – just point out that 90%+ of the “desktop” machines out there are running some version of Windows.

    The operating system that Apple includes with their personal computers in 2022 is also based on BSD. Apple declared themselves a “consumer electronics” company a long time ago — fun fact: the Beatles (yes, John, Paul, George, and Ringo – those “Beatles”) started a record company called “Apple” in 1968 – so when the two Steves (Jobs and Wozniak) wanted to call their new company “Apple Computers” they had to agree to stay out of the music business – AND we are moving on …

    On the “desktop” then Linux is the rounding error between Windows machines and Macs.

    What is holding back “Linux on the desktop?” Well, in 2022 the short answer is “applications” and more specifically “gaming.”

    You cannot gracefully run Microsoft Office, Avid, or the Adobe Suit on a Linux based desktop. Yes, there are alternatives to those applications that perform wonderfully on Linux desktops – but that isn’t the point.

    e.g. that “intro to computers” class I taught used Microsoft Word, and Excel for 50% of the class. If you want to edit audio/video “professionally” then you are (probably) using Avid or Adobe products (read the credits of the next “major Hollywood” movie you watch).

    Then the chicken and egg scenario pops up – i.e. “big application developer” would (probably) release a Linux friendly version if more people used Linux on the desktop – but people don’t use Linux on the desktop because they can’t run all of the application software they want – so they don’t have a Linux version of the application.

    Yes, I am aware of WINE – but it illustrates the problem much more than acts as a solution — and we are moving on …

    Linux Distros – a short history

    Note that “Linux in the server room” has been a runaway success story – so it is POSSIBLE that “Linux on the desktop” will gain popularity, but not likely anytime soon.

    Also worth pointing out — it is possible to run a “Microsoft free” enterprise — but if the goal is lowering the “total cost of ownership” then (in 2022) Microsoft still has a measurable advantage over any “100% Linux based” solution.

    If you are “large enterprise” then the cost of the software isn’t your biggest concern – “Support” is (probably) “large enterprise, Inc’s” largest single concern.

    fwiw: IBM and Red Hat are making progress on “enterprise level” administration tools – but in 2022 …

    ANYWAY – the “birthdate” for Linux is typically given as 1991.

    Under the category of “important technical distinction” I will mention that “Linux” is better described as the “kernel” for an OS and NOT an OS in and of itself.

    Think of Linux as the “engine” of a car – i.e. the engine isn’t the “car”, you need a lot of other systems working with and around the engine for the “car” to function.

    For the purpose of this article I will describe the combination of “Linux kernel + other operating system essentials” as a “Linux Distribution” or more commonly just “distro.” Ready? ok …

    1992 gave us Slackware. Patrick Volkerding started the “oldest surviving Linux distro” which accounted for 80 percent share of the “Linux” market until the mid-1990s

    1992 – 1996 gave us openSUSE Linux. Thomas Fehr, Roland Dyroff, Burchard Steinbild, and Hubert Mantel. I tend to call SUSE “German Linux” and they were just selling the “German version of Slackware” on floppy disks until 1996.

    btw: the “modern Internet” would not exist as it is today without Linux in the server room. All of these “early Linux distros” had business models centered around “selling physical media.” Hey, download speed were of the “dial-up” variety and you were paying “by the minute” in most of Europe – so “selling media” was a good business model …

    1993 -1996 gave us the start of Debian – Ian Murdock. The goal was a more “user friendly” Linux. First “stable version” was 1996 …

    1995 gave us the Red Hat Linux — this distro was actually my “introduction to Linux.” I bought a book that had a copy of Red Hat Linux 5.something (I think) and did my first Linux install on an “old” pc PROBABLY around 2001.

    During the dotcom “boom and bust” a LOT of Linux companies went public. Back then it was “cool” to have a big runup in stock valuation on the first day of trading – so when Red Hat “went public” in 1999 they had the eighth-biggest first-day gain in the history of Wall Street.

    The run-up was a little manufactured (i.e. they didn’t release a lot of stock for purchase on the open market). My guess is that in 2022 the folks arranging the “IPO” would set a higher price for the initial price or release more stock if they thought the offering was going to be extremely popular.

    Full disclosure – I never owned any Red Hat stock, but I was an “interested observer” simply because I was using their distro.

    Red Hat’s “corporate leadership” decided that the “selling physical media” business plan wasn’t a good long term strategy. Especially as “high speed Internet” access moved across the U.S.

    e.g. that “multi hour dial up download” is now an “under 10 minute iso download” – so I’d say the “corporate leadership” at Red Hat, Inc made the right decision.

    Around 2003 the Red Hat distro kind of “split” into “Red Hat Enterprise Linux” (RHEL – sold by subscription to an “enterprise software” market) and the “Fedora project.” (meant to be a testing ground for future versions of RHEL as well as the “latest and greatest” Linux distro).

    e.g. the Fedora project has a release target of every six months – current version 35. RHEL has a longer planned release AND support cycle – which is what “enterprise users” like – current version 9.

    btw – yes RHEL is still “open source” – what you get for your subscription is “regular updates from an approved/secure channel and support.” AlmaLinux and CentOS are both “clones” of RHEL – with CentOS being “sponsored” by Red Hat.

    IBM “acquired” Red Hat in 2019 – but nothing really changed on the “management” side of things. IBM has been active in the open source community for a long time – so my guess is that someone pointed out that a “healthy, independent Red Hat” is good for IBM’s bottom line in the present and future.

    ANYWAY – obviously Red Hat is a “subsidiary” of IBM – but I’m always surprised when “long time computer professionals” seem to be unaware of the connections between RHEL, Fedora Project, CentOS, and IBM (part of what motivated this post).

    Red Hat has positioned itself as “enterprise Linux” – but the battle for “consumer Linux” still has a lot of active competition. The Fedora project is very popular – but my “non enterprise distros of choice” are both based on Debian:

    Ubuntu (first release 2004) – “South African Internet mogul Mark Shuttleworth” gets credit for starting the distro. The idea was that Debian could be more “user friendly.” Occasionally I teach an “introduction to Linux class” and the big differences between “Debian” and “Ubuntu” are noticeable – but very much in the “ease of use” (i.e. “Ubuntu” is “easier” for new users to learn)

    I would have said that “Ubuntu” meant “community” (which I probably read somewhere) but the word is of ancient Zulu and Xhosa origin and more correctly gets translated “humanity to others.” Ubuntu has a planned release target of every six months — as well as a longer “long term support” (LTS) version.

    Linux Mint (first release 2008) – Clément Lefèbvre gets credit for this one. Technically Linux Mint describes itself as “Ubuntu based” – so of course Debian is “underneath the hood.” I first encountered Linux Mint from a reviewer that described it as the best Linux distro for people trying to not use Microsoft Windows.

    The differences between Mint and Ubuntu are cosmetic and also philosophical – i.e. Mint will install some “non open source” (but still free) software to improve “ease of use.”

    The beauty of “Linux” is that it can be “enterprise level big” software or it can be “boot from a flash drive” small. It can utilize modern hardware and GPU’s or it can run on 20 year old machines. If you are looking for specific functionality, there might already be a distro doing that – or if you can’t find one, you can make your own