January 2003 Archives

Glen Gillmore

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Matthew MacDonald, co-author of ADO.NET in a Nutshell, ASP.NET in a Nutshell, and Programming .NET Web Services, has a terrific article on migrating from VB6 to VB.NET in the premier issue of .NET Developer’s Journal — an up-and-coming magazine.

Based on what I’ve learned about Visual Basic migration to .NET, his succinct summary was right-on-target:

A) “The best approach for many VB 6 projects is - scandalously enough - to not migrate at all…. ”
B) “you can make heavy use of .NET’s COM interoperability, and migrate individual modules to .NET piecemeal…”
C) “for stand-alone applications that don’t use COM, you might be better off maintaining the the unmanaged world of VB 6 until a full rewrite is possible.”


Have you migrated existing code to VB.NET? Was it as painful as expected?

Glen Gillmore

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

In my quest to learn more about IPv6 and the lack of broad scale deployment, I came across an article by Geoff Huston, titled “Waiting for IPv6.” It states that IPv6 doesn’t have features that can’t already be accomplished with IPv4. Additionally, he goes through many of the key “benefits” of IPv6 and proclaims that they mostly fall into the category of myth.

Latif Ladid and Jim Bound, both from the IPv6 Forum, give a
response to Geoff’s article, defending and clarifying various issues.

If you are evaluating the benefits of IPv6, check out IPV6 Essentials - also available online through Safari.

If you have decided to deploy IPv6, why? If not, why?

Glen Gillmore

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://rcrnews.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=6662

According to RCR Wireless News, Bell Canada and inCode Telecom are teaming up to extend an existing pay phone infrastructure into 802.11b Wi-Fi hotspots that will reach up to 300 feet. “Get away from me with your laptop. I’m trying to have a personal call here!”

Glen Gillmore

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/Jan03/01-14GSPrelease.asp

The Government Security Program (GSP) is being positioned as a way to combat IT security concerns. Microsoft already allows access to it source code through a similar Shared Source program just for governments called the GSLP - announced earlier last year. This seems like more of a PR program to let governments know about an existing way that they can review Windows source code. Or maybe this has different criteria and allows more governments to qualify. The difference wasn’t obvious.

Qualified national governments will be able to read and reference source code (but not change it) so they can debug their programs (or create work-arounds for Microsoft’s bugs).

I plan to attend the FOSE show this year - we’ll see if people are picking up more Microsoft or open source books.

Also see Craig Mundie’s controlled interview.

Do you think seeing the source code to Windows will help Microsoft?

Glen Gillmore

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/default.mspx

It appears that Microsoft has taken a new path with marketing .NET by dropping the confusing “ingredient brand” from Windows Server 2003 (was Windows .NET Server 2003).

How significant is the drop of the .NET name from Windows Server 2003? Will it help, hurt, or not matter?

Glenn Vanderburg

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I know that “data” is technically the plural of “datum”. But I find it jarring when I read that “the data are transmitted” somewhere. In common usage (both speech and informal writing) that data “is transmitted.”

It’s not that “data” is singular; it’s more like a nonspecific collective noun, like “air”. It has come to mean — and I’m going to really massacre the language here, just to emphasize the distinction I’m trying to make — “some datums”. We say “the data is corrupt” in the same way we say “the air is polluted.”

At this point you may be thinking I’m just upset that the dictionary doesn’t agree with the way I do things. For the record, though, I’m a careful speaker and writer who usually argues for the rules people have forgotten rather than the common, often sloppy usage. This time I think the change in usage has happened for good reasons.

One reason, I think, is that “datum” is so rarely a useful word. I’m not sure why, but we rarely need to distinguish between singular and plural with respect to data; it’s almost never important to talk about a single datum.

A related reason is that it’s unclear what constitutes a datum. Is it always a bit? Or some larger group of data? (See how slippery it is? Is it reasonable to say that a datum is composed of a group of smaller data?)

My “air” analogy illustrates that problem quite well. Is a molecule of oxygen also an “air molecule”? Air is a mixture, so identifying the smallest unit of air is a tricky thing.

There are contexts, perhaps, where data are discrete and well structured so that the distinction makes sense. But in most cases, data is complex, with an almost fractal structure, and the line between data and datum is almost impossible to draw. (This paragraph is a test, by the way. Which of those sentences seemed most natural to you?)

I think it’s time to acknowledge that the old rule, in this case, is obsolete. Circumstance and usage has turned “data” into a collective, singular noun. It refers to “some data” — and in the tradition of computer science, “some” can mean “zero or more”. “Datum” can still be useful on the rare occasions where you need to emphasize a singular unit that can’t be described as a bit, byte, octet, scalar, etc.

Update: a respondent, “gojomo”, points out that the correct linguistic term for the common usage of “data” is “mass noun“. Other examples of mass nouns include water, blood, light, money, and cheese.

Which way do you use the word “data”? Can you think of good reasons for the rules to stay the way they are?