Inspired by someone’s tweet from yesterday, I set off thinking about the current state of the competing web browsers out there. Yes we may have gotten over the Netscape/Internet Explorer wars (embarrassingly for Netscape, but also a greatly iconic moment in the demise of the dotcom bubble), but this did remind me of a paper by Paul Wernick and Tracy Hall in 2004 where they tried to make a point that there are no paradigms in the software development world. Yes, there may be Java vs .Net vs the rest of the myriad of tools out there, but there is no ‘one paradigm to rule them all.’ Or at least dominate the others. It would seem, the internet browsers we love and hate would be still in the same stage of their life-cycle. I thought it might be interesting to have a ‘pinch of salt’ meditation about this.
Paradigms Revisited
Yes we may have heard this term a painfully large amount of times during college/university/etc, and/or especially in the working world where the term is thrown around almost as if it makes one sound smarter the more times it is blabbered. Problematically, and not surprisingly the term is of course hardly used in the correct context. The context of which is as the original coiner of the term, ‘Paradigm Shift,’ Thomas Kuhn, intended.
So what exactly is a paradigm then?
Thomas Kuhn, in his 1968 ‘essays’ entitled ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ identified clear stages that compose the make-up of a scientific revolution. In short, those were 1) a pre-paradigm stage, where there are multiple, conflicting views on a phenomena 2) a period of ‘normal science’ where a the dominating paradigm is agreed upon by practitioners of the science and 3) ‘revolutionary science,’ where new ‘out of the box’ thinking is needed, and new ideas generated, to deal with anomalies that may have occurred, of which the current scientific thinking cannot answer for. At stage #2, it can be considered a ‘paradigm.’ Put 2 and 3 in sequence and you have got yourself a ‘paradigm shift’ in your hands. Web browsers seem to be not even out of stage #1 yet.
Pinch of salt
Okay, yes I’m diluting the pure sense of a scientific revolution here, but this is of course a ‘just for fun’ exploration. Now let us imagine for a while that instead of scientists, we have browser users. Can we identify the reasons why people stick to the browsers that they use? In my completely unscientific observations I have noticed the following trends:
Internet Explorer: Most people use this browser because it is ‘just there’ and is often set to be the default browser on a windows system.
Safari: Likewise, this browser is the default on the Mac. Although it does indeed have an awesome RSS parser.
Firefox: Most business users I’ve spoken to have decided to use Firefox because they have read somewhere that there are security flaws with Internet Explorer. Firefox users on the Mac feedback to me that it renders pages much better than Safari (does it?). Firefox is starting to move in the direction of bloatware though. Scary.
Google Chrome: A nice toy. Loads YouTube videos well. I haven’t used it since the day I installed it.
Opera: Had the great feature of tabbed browsing. Then everyone else came along and took the idea away.
Others: Yes, there are lots of other browsers out there being used. Especially obscure ones like Lynx. Which I personally use when a text based browser is needed (such as downloading things via putty on a remote system).
Browser wars
So, sorry guys, as much as a leader of the pack might stake the claim to be the most heavily used browser out there: if we try to analyze it through terms of a Kuhnian paradigm shifts, the mass adaptation of one ‘browser to rule them all’ is still very much opposed by the fact that there are droves of users all using different browsers, for their various advantages. We can’t call it a ‘paradigm’ unless there is a clear leading, and largely uncontested (and not necessarily correct) scientific school of thought. Here we can see that the browser wars are still very much in the ‘pre-paradigm’ status.
What does this mean?
We’re going to see the browser wars go on for a long time yet. Maybe this is a good thing, as in most Kuhnian scientific revolutions there will eventually be a winner. Or maybe an anomaly might happen such that we start to see more applications running under Adobe AIR, and such Rich Internet Applications (RIAs) might become ‘the paradigm.’
Just sayin’
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
September 8th, 2009
A man’s wife commits suicide and he then goes on to marry a young, attractive but incompatible woman who drives him into the ground both mentally and financially. Add to this the outcome of a failing World War I effort and you might get the beginnings of a man who’s losing his marbles.
Which is great news for science, because it might be that only people who are on their way to becoming a fully fledged Bedlamite are daring/insane enough to try and probe further into some of the most far fetched theories.
To illustrate this, we can discuss the commonly accepted science that oceans are made up not just of plain H2O water, but also include a vast array of other materials such as diluted salts, minerals and metal elements.
“Metal elements?” you say? “Gold is a metal element isn’t it?”
Yes indeed it is. An unverified source reads that the world’s oceans contain about six milligrams of gold per tonne of water. Which appears, on the surface, to be quite believable. Given the vast amount of water in the world’s oceans it would seem that six milligrams of gold per tonne of water equates to infinite wealth to anyone who can master a method to filter this gold out.
However, only a person of most unsound mind or driven by extreme greed (i.e. the desire to quickly pay off Germany’s World War I debts to the sum of 132 million gold Deutschmarks) would attempt such a gigantic and risk laden task.
Enter Fritz Haber. The renowned chemist who’d so far, via synthesis of fixed nitrogen from the atmosphere, saved the world from starvation (and later fueled Germany’s war efforts.) After his earlier successes, poor old Fritz seemed to have lost his mind and believed it would be magnificent if he could somehow use a chemical, or electrochemical, method to achieve this lofty goal to bring unfathomed amounts of gold back to Germany.
Good news for Fritz: there was actually a technique in existence for this which was known by Babylonians as ‘cupellation.’ In cupellation, lead sulfide is used to precipitate the gold from the water, and the resulting mix of lead and gold can be purified by burning off the lead.
Fantastic. One would think. Until it is tried on a sizable scale. Fritz and his team took to the seas to try exactly this. After five years of failures, Fritz finally gave up in 1927 and concluded that 1) after five years, he had still not managed to make the plan feasible and 2) the data where he got the original idea from was most likely to be incorrect.
Unfortunately, he did not even bother to publish most of the data he collected during the time. I guess the world could sure do with some new data to carry on this lofty challenge. Much respect to Fritz Haber too. We might be needing a new such thinker very soon (to be covered in later blog posts).
The madness: Believing that something exists without solid proof?
The act: Spending millions of somebody else’s dollars to try and prove it.
The legacy: It is still unproven as to whether this problem can be solved. In theory it can. What do you think?
Is anyone crazy enough to continue? The challenge is there folks. Just remember your economics teachings when you are rapidly bringing more gold into the world.
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
July 18th, 2009
I woke up today with this thought in my mind.
If our existence is nothing but a grain of sand in relation to the history of the universe. Then what happens if we all work together effectively?
We might just be able to create something awesome; if just only for a finite moment:
Sand is awesome if it works together effectively!
Original image from: http://digital-tech-guide.blogspot.com/2007/06/pics-sand-art-part-3.html
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
July 13th, 2009
I’ve been reading a lot of stuff on blogs and such recently about the new entrants to the workforce dubbed ‘Generation Y’
Now I’m neither a Gen X or a Gen Y myself, as I’m unfortunately born on the cusp of the two (labeled the lost generation or the MTV generation). Not to mention I’m not hip enough for generation Y, yet not greedy and amoral enough to be considered a part of generation X. Yet for the past two years I have found myself managing various staff who deeply belong to Generation Y. Previous to this two years I really didn’t feel that I was ‘getting it.’ By copying my former employer’s pressure cooker style of management I (seemed to have) caused resentment and job dissatisfaction amongst the people who I worked with. Just reflecting on a portion of, what I would call, the more successful past two years that I have spent, I’d now like to scribble about some of my experiences with the Generation Y crew.
I wont go into much detail here for the sake of anonymity but let’s call them ‘Team #1′ and ‘Team #2.’ Both of which, were great experiences for me.
Team #1
Team #1 was a team of developers that were external to my company. Team #1’s CTO has been running his own company since his university days (do generation Y even need to go to university these days?), he openly tells me that he’s failed three times, with his first venture being completely ‘dumb’ yet a humbling experience. Now he is bouncing back to run a profitable company within only two years of graduating. Judging by the work that his company has done for me so far, I’d love to engage them again in future. The energy that I see in his office is immense. People love working for him, people enjoy the environment he’s created and have no resentment about working long hours and going the extra mile when assistance to clients is needed. The team are some of the brightest people I’ve met, but at the same time some of the most humble and willing to consistently learn new things and try things that they might not be 100% comfortable with. A mix that I truly admire.
Interesting features of Team #1. a) The developers seldom start work before 10am and b) I paid a visit to the office one day to find the entire team (directors included) having a HUGE battle on World of Warcraft. Where’s my project? ‘Already complete & fully tested’ I was told, ‘time for a reward for the developers (and a team building exercise)’
Team #2
Team #2 is a team of developers directly under my ‘command,’ i.e. in the same office. I have done my best to keep ‘out of their face’ as much as possible and let them steer most of the development work by myself acting as the ‘mentor’ rather than the boss. To my pleasure they have delivered exactly (almost) what I have been expecting and I’ve not had a single day where I’ve felt stressed out by what they’re doing/or not doing.
The only thing that I’ve not figured out how to do yet is motivate them under times of extreme pressure (since there hasn’t been any). Perhaps the balanced working environment has nullified any sort of air of pressure? Or perhaps I still have a lot more to experience and learn.
Anyway, the lessons I’ve learned so far are quite revealing about our new entrants to the workforce. A new generation Y needs a new style of managing. They need an interesting project to work on which they can feel responsible for and proud of when complete. Give them the opportunity to make themselves shine and they will give their heart and soul to their work.
You might have heard it all before (and there’s probably many more which I can’t think of right now), but based on the experiences listed here; the advice to those managing teams of Generation Y-ers is as follows: (Feel free to comment and add more about your experiences too)
1. Be a mentor, not a boss. If you try the hard line approach, they are more than likely to reject you as an oppressor. Generation Y is much much less likely to want to be controlled by ‘The Man.’ Or perhaps not less likely to want, but less likely to put up with it.
2. Don’t demand them to be at their desk at 8.30am. They’ll likely come after 10, with less resentment of their ‘perceived to be’ constrained rigid working hours and actually end up putting more hours in than they would if instructed to come at 8.30am to 5pm each day. (of course, this does not apply to support staff who need to be available at all times). Let them manage their energy, not their time.
3. Let them discover. Don’t answer their questions directly. (any teacher will tell you that this is the best way to make students learn).
4. Let them play games in office time. They’ll make it up after hours; or in increased levels of productivity during an inspired moment. As in the case of Team #1, an hour or so of Warcraft isn’t going to make a project three months late but paradoxically seems to be the catalyst to greater productivity. Generation Y enjoys intrinsic rewards.
5. Generation Y don’t give a crap about your years of experience and won’t show you any respect for it. Don’t try to interfere with minor issues such as choice of methodology. In this aspect, the Gen Y-ers might come across as a bit arrogant, but do let them figure it out organically and they’ll respect you for believing in their ability to figure things out themselves.
6. Pay them well and keep them engaged. Gen Y won’t sit around complaining about their salary/bad job, yet still turn up to work each day for their resentful cheque/check (unlike Gen X). Gen Y will just leave the company and go somewhere else that engages their talent more… better still: start their own company with friends.
Those are just a couple of the lessons I’ve learned so far. I guess there is more and more for me to learn and figure out as I go.
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
June 1st, 2009
Yep. So this is the way to butcher Shakespeare:
All the world’s a start-up,
And all the employees and employers merely players:
They have their exits and their seed funding;
And one entrepreneur in his time plays many roles,
His acts being of many ages. At first the visionary,
Thinking and daydreaming during his employer’s time.
And then the prototyping, with his midnight oil
And bloodshot eyes in the morning, creeping like snail
To his day job. And then the demonstrator,
Pitching like furnace, with a profitable ballad
Made to his uncle’s bank account. Then the formation
Full of strange mission statements and, once again, bearded like a student,
Coding for honor, sudden and quick with their development,
Seeking the dot com bubble revival
Even in the recession’s mouth. And then the profits,
In fair compensation to all that pledged their allegiance,
With eyes excitable and suit of formal cut,
Full of presentations and modern technologies;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts,
Into the lean and slipper’d consultant,
With spectacles on nose and iphone on side,
His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide
For his restless mind; and excitable voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
For another crazy idea that may shape history,
Is second willing to do it all again,
Sans fear, sans self-doubt, sans worries, sans regrets.
(feel free to add suggestions for changes of lines)
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
May 31st, 2009
This was written in 1997 by Leif Edvinsson and Michael Malone. Nice musings on how our 21st century would be, but how much of it is actually true? Has everyone rushed to the cool places?
“… the twenty-first century will see radical changes in where and how people live. In particular, the combination of powerful information technologies will make it possible for people to live and work anywhere and still enjoy most of the fruits of life in a big city or suburbia or the countryside— from culture and the arts to role-playing and simulated participation in distant world events.”
“These same technologies will also make work more and more portable, shifting jobs from centralized work sites to virtual offices located at home or on the road or in neighborhood centers”
“If we can live and work anywhere, where shall we live and work?”
“… in one of life’s bigger ironies, freedom always brings with it new responsibilities. Faced with this infinite choice of how and where to live and work, what will we choose? Will everyone race to the cities, or to the countryside? Will mountain and seaside resorts suddenly swell with new year-round residents? …”
Extracts from ‘Intellectual Capital: The proven way to establish your company’s real value by measuring its hidden brainpower. Leif Edvinsson and Michael S. Malone’
From a personal standpoint. I’d still rather live in the city where everything is convenient and it is easy to set up meetings with people (face to face communication is always the best!). The other voice inside me is telling me to go and live in the countryside where it is nice and quiet and it is fertile ground for my own creative thoughts.
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
April 26th, 2009
They are often advertised in the newspaper, in the tabloids or hidden away somewhere in the back of the paper where the advertising comes cheap (rat #1. why would a rich organization need cheapo advertising?). Some other tell tale signs are:
- Usually “FREE” (note that the word ‘free’ will be in capitals, larger than the other fonts, colourful, etc). In Singapore the ‘free’ statement would usually be in one of those awful clipart explosions ala:
- Repeat the word ’success’ over and over again.
- Show pictures of ’success’ cheezy grins, happy families, high performance sports cars, you name it. All the stuff they want you to want.
- Picture of a young smug guy/girl in a shirt and tie who “made it.” (note to self: When I make a shedload of money, no more shirt and tie… only shorts and tee-shirt for my private beach/island)
- Overuse of words like ‘freedom’ and ‘destiny’
- Trading mistakes that your brokers don’t want you to know! (really? because I would have thought if I get rich then my broker gets rich too, no?)
- Limited seats! Register Now! (don’t fall behind okay!)
and best of all
- Make money and become a millionaire in just 20 minutes a day. (That would be awesome! If I spend 8 hours a day, that means I can be worth $24 million easily). Something isn’t right here.
Even if there is a magic way to make loads of risk free money out of shares; can all of this free information can be condensed into a one day seminar? If so, are those people on a two year masters degree in financial engineering wasting their time and money? They could just go for a one day seminar instead!
So many rats. Dear oh dear. Know any others?
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
April 20th, 2009
When we say “No Idea” does it mean that we have no idea? Or does it mean, “give me a moment I’m thinking of a solution?”
Sometimes this concept might be lost in translation. A non-anglophone might interpret it as meaning “I don’t know,” thus giving the impression of incompetency.
I learned recently that saying “Not Bad” in a Chinese context actually means “Really Good!” whereas in our English world it could simply mean what it states: “Not bad, not amazing… acceptable.” (unless we change our tone with it).
I guess we must be careful with our words when speaking to non-native speakers of our own language.
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
March 24th, 2009
In the past we often used pen and paper to get our work done.
Nowadays we believe that sitting in front of a computer for long enough will surely enough produce some decent work given enough time.
My own experiments with this show that either 1) I am not using the tool correctly, or 2) it is a fallacy. In fact, sometimes I just feel myself staring at my computer screen whilst time disintegrates.
I have been pondering over this and find that we might be missing some creative catalysts such as twiddling our pens, staring at artifacts in the given room/area that we are seated, scribbling wildly, enjoying the fun of tearing something up, having the ability to change our location easily or even work outside without an electrical outlet. I’m sure there are many others too.
Furthermore, it is quite difficult to concentrate on our thinking at hand without an email or an instant message popping up on our screen to disrupt us.
The questions are: should we go back to pen and paper? Although the computer has increased our productivity, has it increased or decreased our creativeness? The kind of vocations that the ‘creative class’ are engaged in these days are not simply entering pre-defined work orders (ala Taylorism) but require much more thinking, creativity, harmonization of experience and learned knowledge, etc. Are computers/machines perhaps a legacy of Taylorism that do more to prevent unadulterated creativity than to fertilize it?
An interesting point on this comes in the form of Craig Grannell’s five tools to help designers make better websites. Those are: Basecamp, Firefox Web developer toolbar, Subversion, Silverback and most importantly ‘pen and paper‘
It appears to be a very long time before the computer will replace us, or at least, our thinking ability.
Let us go forth, draw, scribble, dream, write and let us see if we can free our minds to produce much better work away from our computer than chained to it.
Tweet This Post
Possibly Related Posts:
March 1st, 2009
Next Posts
Previous Posts