Seth Godin had a great article that talked about corporate responses to public failures. I sent him a note telling him about what happened here in Canada with Maple Leaf Foods. Here is the note:

Seth,

I find it interesting to compare the corporate responses to the public that these two large companies have taken. In case you haven't heard, last summer, Maple Leaf foods discovered that much of its consumer products were infected with something called Listeria. Literally dozens upon dozens of products were recalled across the country, and in the end 19 deaths were linked to the contamination of Listeria in these products.

What did Maple Leaf do? The company bought a huge amount of TV and print media and had the CEO, Michael McCain, speak frankly and earnestly to Canadians. He apologized for this event and accepted the blame and told his audience what the company was doing about the problem. These ads changed over time as the problem was addressed so the message was always relevant and fresh. The company also set up a website (http://www.mapleleafaction.com/) to communicate openly about what has happened. You can even view the TV spots in an embedded You Tube window.

I seem to recall reading a newspaper article about this last month were Mr. McCain was quoted as saying that he refused to speak with a gaggle of lawyers via a phone conference as the event erupted because "they encourage you to not take the blame, to shift responsibility." Instead he headed to the media cameras at a press conference and began with an apology and an admission that, while not absolutely confirmed (via genetic testing of the Listeria organism) it looked like the death and illnesses that had been reported thus far (only a few at that point) were caused by his company's products.

Maple Leaf has been honest, open and forthright with Canadians about this. This problem shouldn't have happened in the first place, but it did. It is what they did after the problem was discovered that has maintained my trust in this company. Had they hid or spun the news, I wouldn't buy one thing from them ever again. It took guts to do what Michael McCain did...if only more leaders of companies had that much integrity. I can't imagine what the current American financial melt-down event would be like right now had the leaders of these banks, insurance and investment firms had the same level of transparency, honesty and integrity as Mr. McCain. To act any other way is to treat the public with disdain and mistrust.

I am one of the fortunate few on this planet whose mother tongue is in use on the default keyboard layouts I encounter. What a great time to speak English, eh?

What drives me nuts (and I don't blame Microsoft for this) is the wholesale change in notebook keyboard layouts that have emerged over the course of 2008. Am I the only person who is peeved at the introduction and almost ubiquitous use of a new larger 'Enter' key? This new backward L shaped key has caused the removal of the backslash key to places unknown. It isn't like this is the key to the left of 1 in the QWERTY layout (is its shifted character called 'tildie'?) The backslash key is RATHER IMPORTANT and used on a regular basis by anyone who needs to type a directory path or a command line switch that requires the 'pipe' character (the shifted value of that on my keyboard).

Like I said, I don't blame Microsoft for this, and perhaps that is the problem; I don't know WHO to blame or complain to. This keyboard change is spanning manufacturers; Acer, Gateway, HP, Toshiba, Compaq, Sony and probably a few others all have new models showing up with this awful design!

I guess forming some sort of Facebook group might be good therapy, or perhaps some sort of pathetic and time consuming letter writing effort to each of the companies might make a dint in my self-perception of 'making a difference' but I highly doubt that it will really cause them to go back to the 'good old days'.

The real question is; why did this change? I don't recall seeing any groundswell or clarion call for this change to keyboard design to be made. I wonder if the person or committee that decided to screw with millions of keyboards took in to consideration the impact of this change. I realize that most notebook keyboards don't keep to much of a standard when it comes to arrow and Home, Page Up, End, Page Down and F-key locations and sizes, but the backslash key is one of those key locations that I use as a touch-type key. I don't (and shouldn't) have to stop and look at my fingers to figure out where the backslash key is, rather I spend my time typing! I know that when I am confronted with this new dumb layout I will be hitting the enter key when I want the backslash key and my productivity will plummet as I swap between machines with this modified keyboard layout and the other, more accepted standard keyboard layouts.

My only hope is that this design change is short lived and that we will once again begin to see new notebook models with the traditional rectangular Enter key with the backslash where it belongs; above the Enter key, and not somewhere else.

This OS is not supported

That is the message that greeted me when, after reviewing the promotional material that promised 'a robust, open and trustworthy format', I clicked on the download icon.

Promise broken.

Microsoft is promoting XPS (The XML Paper Specification) as a realistic alternative to PDF and they are somehow getting influential voices like the New York Times to talk about it. This makes me wonder just how seriously organizations like the New York Times takes its reputation when junk reporting like this is allowed out the door.

Now, before you write me off as some sort of 'Micro$oft hater', consider what and who I am. I don't hate Microsoft. I, like most of the planet, wish that they would do some things differently, other things better (I wish that the guy who programmed Solitaire was working on Windows...man that OS would NEVER crash then...have you EVER seen Solitaire crash?) and I wish that they would simply not do some things at all. That said, I am someone who has clearly swallowed the Microsoft pill. (red or blue...hmmm, I can't recall) I first began programming with Microsoft languages in 1982 (on Commodore PET computers) and have worked continuously with Microsoft languages and systems and hardware ever since. I really owe my profession to Bill Gates and gang as I've focused on using Microsoft products as my tools of choice. I have a Microsoft Office keyboard (wonderful), a Microsoft wireless mouse, a Microsoft fingerprint reader, a Microsoft SPOT watch, one of the 27 Zunes ever sold in Canada (a grey market purchase through XS-Cargo on Boxing Day) and I am always considering what other new Microsoft product or tool I can put to use where I am. Hence XPS.

This one seems to be a dog. Or at least it is a puppy. Unlike Silverlight, which has been given a broad use appeal effort from Microsoft (still imperfect, but better than XPS) by developing software for this format for Linux, Macintosh and Windows (but not Windows 2000 - for shame!) . XPS is only (as far as I can tell) built for use by those who use Vista or XP. This is hardly cross platform, and certainly does not meet the needs of modern and future business. With the Macintosh platform expanding (slowly) its growth in to the corporate world, selecting document interchange technologies that are not available to all significant platforms is foolhardy.

Microsoft's assertion on the XPS homepage that "XPS documents print better, can be shared easier, are more secure and can be archived with confidence." is simply not true. XPS does not have the longevity or reach that PDF currently provides and therefore is not something that I would trust to format my corporate records (I currently oversee millions of discrete digital and physical records for current and historical archives) in.

If Microsoft is really serious about XPS and the effort to provide the world with a reasonable alternative to PDF (a laudible goal) they will have to ensure that XPS is as robust (perhaps this is already done) and as widely available as PDF readers and writers are today. Until then, it is foolish and negligent to consider XPS to be a format to consider for storage of documents that you want to share today and archive for future generations to access.

Crap

I read a review of Ann Coulter's latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism' on AOL Books (yeah, I know) and was stunned to find out that this woman considers herself to be a Christian. Now, it is far beyond my role to call in to question the state and reality of her faith, and in the article she does seem to sound like an Evangelical Christian. Which is part of the crap part.

You see, I can't imagine myself ever coming to a point of political agreement with her. She is so right-wing that I suspect that she crowds out a few libertarians on the fringe right. While I have not read her book, I have seen interviews with her and have checked out her website, and what I have experienced of this woman's opinions has left no doubt of the very wide and vast gulf between her political views and mine.

There my be some of you out there who might know me well enough to say; 'Hey, Ron! Didn't you used to belong to the Canadian Alliance?' To such a pointed question, I would have to respond in the affirmative. Hey, we all make mistakes - but I still believe that belonging to the party when I did was the right decision. Once the whole charade was revealed by the goofy DRC episode, I was gone. Politics is about one thing; POWER. Until then, I believed that the Alliance was an organization of similar thinking, mature, rational people. Now it is clear that they were nothing much more than a gang of back-biting amateurs.

Others will say; 'Hey, Ron! So, you're happy to be a Liberal, right?' to which I'd have to reply in the negative. I've let my membership lapse as the party has lapsed in to a long period of backwater navelgazing. This is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada circa 1993 all over again. Why else have all of the top-tier leadership contenders stepped back from the current invisible race? Why didn't Michael Wilson run in 1993? It is because these smart people know that the Poseidon is not a ship to be promoted to Captian on.

So, perhaps the rest of my readership may be wondering where I stand politically. Simple. I have continued to create and formulate my own sense of what I believe and hold to be right and noble. Does this fit neatly in to a single party? Of course not. I doubt that (other than Ms. Coulter) most individuals fall neatly within a single political party's ideological bounds. In a practical sense, I continue to drift leftward - but of course there is much that I'd change in the NDP before I could ever consent to a membership.

Back on topic - Ms. Coulter in that interview states that DDT is harmless to humans, and that the banning of DDT puts an anti-biblical viewpoint as the basis for the ban. She asserts that humanity was charged with dominion over the animal kingdom, and therefore in the pecking order, people come first. A quick review of the DDT entry in Wikipedia (yeah, sure, it isn't vetted, but it is trustworthy-IMO) reveals that 7 studies have shown a cancer link in humans from DDT and a profoundly negative impact on some fish, most birds and some aquatic animals like shimp and crayfish. Ann also asserts that this ban on DDT is harming the fight against malaria, but again according to this article, the use of DDT to combat disease where no alternatives or affordable alternatives exist is still legal and practiced.

Even though I haven't read her latest book, what she is reported to have said in this short article is proof enough for me that Ann Coulter is not someone whose words and knowledge is something to be trusted. That is too bad because I don't like to be speaking poorly of a fellow Christian, but when lies and deception are given out as truth, one needs to stand up and set the record straight. I simply wish that she had the integrity to be truthful - even when it hurts her cause.

The Smoking Debate, part zzzzz...

It seems as if the people we've appointed to run this city can't quite find the time to get the job done. It seems to be the story of our times....just not enough people available. Tim Horton's are closing at night, Burger King is closed for most of the weekend...and our city council can't find the time to discuss and decide on just when we will join with the rest of the modern western world and implement a comprehensive restriction on smoking in public areas.

12,000 people took the time to sign a petition to ask that these wunderkinds make the bold decision to move our implementation date ahead by a year, so that we won't die of a new malaise - embarrassment. It seems that the only thing that was decided was a pay raise. (yes, they did decide that that should go ahead)

I've heard the cry from the Mayor's office that city hall would loose credibility with the business sector if it were to change the implementation date that was established a few years ago. This is poppycock. If anything, it should instil a confidence in our elected officials - that they can actually respond to the will of the people, and that they can be counted on to improve on past decisions when the past decision was a poor one. If I owned a bar, I wouldn't be too worried - people across our continent who have lived in a non-smoking community continue to visit bars and drink beer. In fact, even more people come out for two reasons; 1) The majority of the population is NON-SMOKING and therefore will not be put-off by sitting in an ashtray while they enjoy a brew. 2) Many of the previously smoking customers will quit the habit and have more cash for beer, and most of them will likely live longer - giving bar owners even more revenue as they continue to visit for additional years. There are many other advantages to removing smoking in bars and all public spaces, but no doubt you've read them elsewhere.

Hopefully our city council will FINALLY decide on July 24th to move the implementation of our smoking ban forward by one year to January 1, 2007. If they don't, Calgary will become the ashtray of the nation as desperate smokers flock to our city for 17 more months of smoking freedom. 

Here is a great picture of Braden, our wonderful son who is now 18 months old! Obviously he's a sports fan and he knows how to be #1 

How to fix Microsoft's security issues

While this may seem to be a very pompous title, I believe that what I am about to suggest is the best route to better (not perfect) security for Microsoft. We all know what scourge hackers and other malicious bots, worms, virus' and military operatives (yes, I'm serious) are to daily computer use. Face it, you are a target for a very wide gamut of attackers from script kiddies to 'information managers' of the communication divisions of your local military.

Microsoft no doubt cooperates with the American military, ensuring that America's information interests are not 'compromised' by too-good security and encryption. This is not the problem that we hear the mass media baaay on about. Rather, the issue is all about the annoyance and data loss problem, which ironically is also a problem for the military's surveillance, since what is lost can't be spied on.

So, how does one fix this problem? Well, Microsoft has chosen to stop all development work to train and upgrade the skills of its massive population of software developers and to make them aware of how to write code that is less prone to security holes like buffer overruns. So, as we develop new software this MIGHT help make new systems less susceptible to script kiddies and older attack methods, but it does nothing to secure the mound of code that is already out there in the wild. There is, apparently, a small group of developers in Redmond working away to tighten holes as they are reported to Microsoft by 'Whitehat hackers'. This is closing the barn door only after someone tells you that the horse is gone. It isn't a systemic search and repair of the barn. Worse, if someone doesn't tell you about the open gate, there is no assurance (to users of Microsoft's products) that the gaping hole will be shut.

The fix is simple; provide attackers, crackers, hackers and even the pimply-faced-fourteen-year-old-script-kiddies with a financial reward for being the first to document and report a security breech. By providing a generous reward (say $10,000) you could fund the discovery of 100,000 security holes in Microsoft products with just a billion dollars. This may sound like a lot of moolah, but when contrasted with the cost (lost revenue) from global business abandoning the Windows platform for something that is perceived as more secure, it is cheap insurance. The best benefit is that Microsoft would then be able to go to a world of users and declare that they are really serious about security and the elimination of vulnerabilities that exist in its products.

This is key to defeating the LINUX threat, as there is nobody dangling $10,000 for bug fixes to the LINUX kernel or various open-source products. One's name on a contributor's list pales in value when compared to cold, hard, cash. The goodness of one's heart and a passion for a faith (in this case, open source software) is almost always co-opted by money. Love doesn't feed one's children.

Of course this is not a perfect solution (is there ever one?), as not every hacker, cracker or script kiddie will want to help Microsoft. These people can't be had by money, which is the only thing that Microsoft can offer. They are akin to religious zealots who will die before dealing with the devil. The only way to battle against these zealots is to continue to promote the benefits (financial, and perhaps popularity via naming names of contributors if that is appealing) of working with Microsoft.

Microsoft must find a way to 1) secure its products from attack that erodes its perceived security 2) eliminate or decisively hobble its prime threat which is LINUX. Money and fame are the two tools that it has at its disposal and it is the best way to decimate the camps of the enemy open source movement. Unless this camp is defeated, the slow, steady march on Microsoft's territory will continue until Microsoft has little ground left.

Speaking of which, what about Military eavesdropping? How can this threat be eliminated? It can't, and won't be by an American corporation like Microsoft. This is the real new battle-front that will be hidden as long as possible by the mass media, as there is no security benefit to making the public aware of the spying that the government does. For those who want true freedom, those 'true believers' who hate Microsoft, America and all that our world is at this moment, there may appear to be two options; 1) abandon all high-tech and revert to a more primitive existence or 2) embrace alternatives, such as LINUX. Of course, this doesn't prevent contributions to the Open Source movement by military operatives, inserting surveillance capability in OSS software.

You know, as a professional software developer it is very easy to see your code used by an international audience. My latest commercial effort GTS currently does not have any users outside of North America, but it is our intent to see this product in use around the globe. This morning I was reading an article on The Guardian Unlimited website that discusses the trials and tribulations that Microsoft has gone through when distributing software to a global audience.
If Microsoft, arguably the world's most powerful software company, struggles with getting internationalization right, then what hope is there for my company? Yes, we architect's GTS from the ground-up with an international audience in mind. As GTS is a VB product, this means that we built all of the content display (words, captions, etc.) to work from resource files which are a better-than-nothing solution. I say this because resource files are an imperfect solution, since the expectation is that all languages are generally about the same size when it comes to the verbosity of meaning. Resource files simply provide the same content in different languages, so one command button may say 'Exit' in English but 'Sortie' in French. Mind you, there is only a 2 character difference between the words, but this is a 50% larger size than the English version. It really hasn't caused us a problem with single words (yet), but when it comes to having more than a few words and bam you get slapped by the 'gotcha'.

The real problem here is the fact that resource files were meant to be a way to keep a SINGLE source code set to produce multiple language versions. The reality is that you sometimes HAVE to fork your code to accommodate layout changes necessitated by one language. Some of you may be saying that this isn't necessary, as we could simply make the whole app fit the largest common denominator, but this involves other pain - mostly with our established customer base.

When you go about making wholesale changes to any layout or interface, it takes people time to adjust to the new location of the presentation contents. This is change, and most people really don't like change, especially when it isn't really necessary (as far as they can see) . The question comes down to who should have to change, who is it that will bear the brunt of the work to change; me the small software development company owner, or the myriad of users of my product?

Well, the real power here exists not with the guy at the programming keyboard, but rather it exists with our customers. GTS is in a very competitive market, and while it is doing well and expanding its horizons, our customers and potential customers have other choices. If we abuse them or lead them to feel that we don't really consider them above all else, they can easily walk away from our relationship. Yes the programmer makes the content of the application, but it really is the user who controls what is there.

All this verbage is a way to help you understand the difficult decision that we face at SinglePOINT as we expand to wider audiences (even within Canada, we need to fully support French, as our Quebec and New Brunswick markets expect it). In the end, I vote that we do NOT fork our code base, as this can effectively double our effort (or quadruple++ it) with every forking. I know that to put our users through change isn't great, but I hope that when they do upgrade to the next version of GTS, that any changes to the user interface layout are delivered with a good balance of improved performance, features and usability.

In the end, if we can spend more time improving GTS while we also shuffle its look and feel to accomodate an international audience, I believe that our customers will accept the pain for the gain.