The Technical Training and Consulting Update

Pixel Ads and Search Engine Optimization

2006-02-16T01:38:00.000-05:00

The MillionDollarHomePage (MDHP) has a Google Page Rank of 7, and thousands of visitors per day.

Last December, I learned about the MDHP, and the novelty and potential benefit from owning a five-year MDHP link to my site, was just too intriguing to resist. So on January 4th, I bought a 100 pixel block of MDHP real estate with the idea of "researching" the potential of this new form of advertising.

I had no idea about what to expect from my $100 investment, or even how to create an ad -- let alone one that would get noticed amongst the other 9999 pixel blocks.

Currently, in the world of pixel advertising, there's the MDHP and "everything else". The MDHP is unique, well known, hopefully enduring, and truly part of "Internet history". That is not to say that other pixel ad sites will not also gain prominence in the future, but many of today's copycats will never be viable.

Most of what I hope to discuss about pixel advertising relates to my experience with both the MDHP and today's lesser known pixel ad sites. When appropriate, I will compare the important aspects of the newer sites to the MDHP. Hopefully, my experience will be of value to both pixel advertisers and advertising site owners.

In the past few weeks, I prepared and placed more than 25 pixel ads. I also compiled data from Google, MSN Search and Yahoo on their recognition of links to my site from pixel ads. The results differ markedly from search engine to search engine.

The initial data will be presented in my next post.

Updating Firefox and Managing Extensions

2006-02-03T12:30:00.000-05:00

Before you start updating your Firefox browser, it is a good idea to purge unneeded extensions. I suggest you incorporate this preliminary step in any Firefox update.

Since Firefox disables incompatible extensions, you need to proceed carefully if you want to eliminate the risk of losing essential functionality. Firefox 1.5 can list the extensions it will disable in a browser update, but pre-version 1.5 users will have to do their own checking for version compatibility.

My recommended procedure for updating Firefox 1.5:

1. Review your list of installed extensions (Tools>Extensions) and uninstall the ones you no longer need.

2. Where possible, update the extensions that are important to you. This may require a browser restart. (I usually restart applications after any update.)

3. Run a check for the availability of browser upgrades (Help>Check for Upgrades). You will be informed of which, if any, extensions will be disabled by the browser update.*

4. (Optional) Back up the Firefox "profile data". A profile backup preserves a copy of your bookmarks, preferences, passwords and other important browser/system settings. Before you skip this optional step, please consider the work involved in recreating and entering your data and program settings. (I am looking for an authoritative how-to reference for a Firefox backup procedure, and will update this post as soon as I find one.)

5. Update now, later or never

* Pre-version 1.5 Firefox users will need to go to the Mozilla Firefox Add-ons page and check each essential extension for updated browser compatibility. For example, see the entry for ColorZilla.

No Extensions Lost with Firefox 1.5.0.1 Update

2006-02-02T18:36:00.000-05:00

The process of upgrading Firefox 1.5 to release 1.5.0.1 went flawlessly.

On the day the new release was published, Firefox 1.5's automatic update feature sent notification that a new version of the browser was available.

Automatic Update Options:
The automatic update feature's options enable you to select the types of items you want to update, i.e. extensions and themes. You also can control the update feature's autonomy, i.e. "ask me what to do when an update is available" or "just go ahead and install whatever you find, but warn me if extensions will be disabled". While I selected the more permissive option, it is generally safer if permission to proceed was always required.

My Browser's Update:
Unlike my bad experience with the upgrade to release 1.5 (due to inadequate warnings about the potential loss of extensions), I was provided with the data necessary for deciding whether or not to install the 1.5.0.1 update:

* Mozilla's strong recommendation to upgrade immediately
* A list of my extensions that will be disabled with the update
* A convenient link to the Firefox 1.5.0.1 Release Notes (which I now read carefully, prior to updating)

I decided to install the 1.5.0.1 update.

Fortunately, prior to downloading the browser update, I checked for available updates for the extensions that I installed previously. To my (pleasant) surprise, updates were available for the two extensions that I thought would be disabled. My updated extensions worked with the newest release of the browser, and I did not lose any functionality as a result of upgrading.

The one thing missing from the automated notice was a recommendation to check for the availability of extension updates before deciding to download the 1.5.0.1 browser update.

Also, step-by-step instructions for a reliable Firefox upgrade and an optional profile backup would have been useful. And while the browser update was a success, the process did not appear to take a direct path.

My next post will attempt to outline a how-to procedure for upgrading Firefox.

Important Feature:
The Firefox 1.5 developers did a great job of addressing the problem of extensions disabled unexpectedly by a browser upgrade. The automatic update feature in Firefox 1.5 effectively alerts users to the potential loss of functionality when updating their browser.

Warning Required:
I can only hope that Mozilla's marketing and public relations staff, along with the writers in the trade press, will be equally effective in alerting the millions of pre-version 1.5 users who are unaware of the potential functionality loss when extensions are disabled in a Firefox update.

My Gripe about Firefox Losing Extensions

2005-12-15T18:42:00.000-05:00

On his website, Computergripes.com, Michael Horowitz succinctly restated my complaint regarding the loss of functionality from extensions deactivated in the Firefox upgrade: "The gripe is that this happens without warning."

If I knew this loss would occur, I would have waited until all of my essential extensions worked with the upgraded version. This setback will not happen again to me, but in the weeks and months to come, thousands of other unsuspecting Firefox users will get the same unpleasant surprise.

Comments on my previous post from a number of readers offered "workarounds" for the lost functionality problem. Most of these are inappropriate for the vast majority of current and prospective Firefox users. Here is a sample.

Example 1:

"Just type the name of the extension into google and find the website of the person who makes it."

This advice is fine if you know and trust the developer's website. But it is inadvisable for anyone to go to an unknown website and download programs -- we are already facing too much risk of downloading malware or programs that have not been tested thoroughly.

Today's computer users need all the malware protection and software quality assurance they can get. And a bad experience with third party extensions will not only discourage folks from further downloading extensions; it may even sour them on the browser.

I will only download Firefox extensions if they are available through the Mozilla website, or from sources that I know and trust. Hopefully, Mozilla Foundation and the user community will actively monitor the status of Firefox extensions, encourage the developers to update their extension's compatibility, and provide a safe source of tested add-ons.

Example 2:

"Visit this site and download nightly tester tools. users.blueprintit.co.uk/~dave/web/firefox/buildid/nightly.html
It will make all the extensions compatible until an update is available."

This advice is fine if you have the technical expertise to undo any damage or unwanted results. However, most users do not have the requisite skills to correct every problem that could result from using this program.

I also doubt that the program enables all incompatible extensions to work. And if the program has this capability, why not include it with the browser and dispense with compatibility checks? :-)

Example 3:

"Is this anything new? Over the last year or more, as I've upgraded Firefox from 1.0 to 1.0.1 to 1.0.2 all the way up to 1.0.7, and finally to 1.5, I've encountered this problem every time."

The extension problem is new to thousands of users who upgraded previously but did not realize that incompatible extensions no longer worked. (I installed many extensions that I have never used, and never noticed that they were not available after an upgrade.)

Also, because the Firefox user base has expanded rapidly, most users have little experience with the upgrade process, and don't know its negative consequences.

Example 4:

"There's always some extension that isn't compatible with the latest version I just installed. Big deal. I learn to live with it, and anyways, the odds are in my favor that the disabled extention will be upgraded very shortly."

It is a big deal when you come to depend on the functionality of specific Firefox extensions and need them to meet real-world deadlines. Business people need a stable, reliable set of application features, and very few have "System Administration" in their job description.

The repeated loss of extensions does not meet feature availability requirements, and is not acceptable to most IT managers. (It's not that companies would not use Firefox, they just would not upgrade if needed functionality became unavailable.)

In the not-too-distant future, there will be thousands of useful Firefox extensions. This will fuel the adoption of Firefox and make it difficult for its users to switch to another browser. Mozilla Foundation needs to provide sufficient guidance to its Firefox "upgraders" and prevent its extension "assets" from becoming liabilities.

Firefox 1.5 Drops Old Extensions

2005-12-02T20:55:00.000-05:00

By upgrading to Firefox 1.5, many users of prior versions will no longer have some of the added features on which they depend to perform important tasks. Prior to upgrading to version 1.5, Firefox users receive no warning, other than a note buried deeply in the technical "Release Notes," about the potential loss of key features that were added to previous versions.

I got caught up with the excitement over the new features and increasing market share. I did not realize that by upgrading, I was taking one step forward and two steps back.

By design, Firefox enables users to add functionality selectively to their browser, through the use of "add-ons". Once installed, these add-on programs, called extensions or plug-ins, effectively become an integral part of the browser from the user's perspective.

Extensions vary greatly; some perform only a single function such as converting ASCII to Unicode, while others are like small multi-featured applications. Firefox 1.5 plug-ins include Adobe Reader and Macromedia Flash Player.

Unbeknownst to most users, Firefox blocks the installation of an extension if it is incompatible with that version of the browser. From a technical perspective, this compatibility requirement is a good idea. It prevents outdated add-ons from operating unreliably or affecting the performance of the browser and its compatible extensions.

It was quite a shock, and a big disappointment, to learn that my upgraded browser just removed some vital features. The prior version was good enough and worth using until the needed extensions became compatible with a newer version of Firefox. If I would have been cautioned, I would have first checked to make sure that I was not losing essential functionality.

Needless to say, prior to upgrading, current Firefox users should verify that essential functionality will be preserved. What's needed is a warning about the potential loss of features and an up-to-date list of compatible add-ons. If there was a list, I did not see it. So far, this is my only complaint with the new release. The browser is excellent.

Once upgraded, Firefox provides a list of the extensions deactivated from the previous version along with the extensions active in the current version. Hopefully, needed extensions will soon be compatible with version 1.5.

New Firefox users that start with version 1.5 are in for fewer surprises since they will only be adding selected features. On its website, Mozilla has a catalog of Firefox add-ons with descriptions of each add-on's features, number of downloads, user ratings, download size, release date and number, and browser version compatibility.

The availability of hundreds of useful extensions often becomes the compelling reason to use Firefox.

The "add-on friendly" design of Firefox enables Mozilla's developers to focus on the enhancement of the base browser and most widely used features, while third party developers work to create best-of-breed add-on tools for specialized purposes.

With Firefox's automatic update capability, its extensions can be enhanced or fixed as often as needed and installed easily, as soon as they are released. There is no need for users to wait months for a security patch or bug fix in the next release of a huge monolithic program.

I'm really excited about the evolution of Firefox. I will just have to be more careful when I upgrade.

12/15/2005: Please see the follow-on to this post.

Scan Your Registry

2005-04-11T01:09:00.000-04:00

Shortly after I began working with Windows systems, I learned of the term "registry".

Most references to the Windows registry were associated with system failure or malfunction. The registry errors were due to obsolete, incorrect or unwanted entries from applications or malware, file corruption, or a simple editing mistake.

My associates talked about their problems with the registry in the same tone that they talked about heart attacks and strokes.

Even the name, "registry", was imposing enough for me never to tamper with it.

However, the other day at DOWNLOAD.COM, I came across some registry repair tools. My curiosity got the best of me, and I downloaded free trial versions of two registry repair programs:

- WinASO Registry Optimizer (version 2.0.5)

- Registry Mechanic (version 4.0.0.101)

December 04, 2006:
WinASO Registry Optimizer 2.8 - Updated: October 23, 2006

Registry Mechanic 6.0 - Released: November 08, 2006

These programs detect registry errors and, at your option and peril, repair them for you.

I ran both programs on a year old Windows XP machine and found approximately 500 registry errors! I also scanned my old Windows 98 machine (it always ran smoothly), and surprisingly found only 30 errors.

I took the plunge and fixed almost every registry problem.

Now it may only be my imagination, but after the fix, the systems boot faster and run faster too. If nothing else, I feel better using these systems. At least they are still running...

Given my positive experience, I recommend that you scan your Windows registry to assess its health. You will probably find a lot of errors.

However, if you have the slightest doubt about what you are doing, or how you will undo a mistake successfully, take no further action. Leave the repairs to a professional or don't make them at all.

The last thing you want is to damage the operating system beyond repair. You might lose some data, and may need to reformat the disk, reinstall Windows and your applications, restore the backed up data and reenter your system's settings.

I still do not know fully why the registry exists, what it does, and how it does it. But I am glad that I tried to fix it. Perhaps I was just lucky...

In retrospect, I took a big risk.
--

Useful Links:
A Comprehensive List of Books on The Windows Registry

The 2005 Linux vs. Windows TCO Bombshell

2005-04-04T07:19:00.000-04:00

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a key consideration in the selection of application software, computing platforms and other components of enterprise computing architecture. So when a controversial annual Linux vs. Windows TCO survey is released by a prominent industry analyst, it is bound to create near violent worldwide discord between the warring OS camps.

The report by Laura DiDio of the Yankee Group is scheduled for announcement to the press today.

From my understanding of the TCO survey's Executive Summary (thanks to the electronic newsletter, W2Knews), it is full of surprises and bad news that will likely enrage the Linux and Open Source community. Here are some of the key points in the W2Knews article -- including a few findings that really shocked me:

"An overwhelming 88% of corporations report that Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Server 2003 operating system provides equal to or better performance and reliability than Linux in comparable usage scenarios."
Users rated security of Linux and Windows servers nearly equal.
There is no universal clear-cut TCO basis to compel the corporate masses to do a wholesale switch from Windows to Linux.
Patch management woes lessen for Windows, but are on the rise for Linux.
Approximately 20% of businesses will purchase outside indemnification for potential copyright infringement lawsuits.
The Linux market is beginning to experience "forking" or fragmentation among the various distributions and customized code which could result in major management woes.

I think that the last three findings are valid concerns for companies using Linux/Open Source systems and software. I don't have any facts about the magnitude of the related problems, but they should be addressed and minimized to prevent operating costs from spiraling upward and to lower barriers to Linux/Open Source adoption.

However, I really question the validity of the first three findings. In fact, if the performance and reliability findings were reversed, I would not be very surprised. Perhaps the survey participants were not representative of the entire corporate and IT management population.

Until I read this study, I do not feel comfortable speculating further about its controversial findings. However, I will investigate other TCO assessment reports.

TCO trends and data are too important to doubt.

Search Engine Results - Let's Define Terms

2005-02-01T22:29:00.000-05:00

Today, Microsoft introduced a new version of its search engine. MSN Search now uses its own database and technology to generate its search reports. Before today, Microsoft relied on Yahoo's search engine.

In forums, blog postings and journal articles, the terms "better" and "relevant" are used when results from different search engines are compared. But how meaningful are these appraisals, and how are they made? Are these assessments purely subjective opinions, or are they conclusions based on accepted and valid metrics?

For now, I'm sticking with Google -- until I'm convinced that there is something "better".

Optimizing Training Effectiveness

2005-01-19T01:57:00.000-05:00

Since you are visiting our new blog, we would like to share a few thoughts about us and our work. In this post, we will begin to describe our planning for training program development.

Advanced technical training has been a primary service of IAPS since our inception in 1977. We understand the "business" of training -- what works, as well as what doesn't.

Most of our training programs are instructor led, on-site, and customized as needed.

When we plan a training program for a client, we consider the potential role of mentoring, on-the-job training, media-based or computer assisted self study, or a combination of these training modes in addition to our instructor led workshops. These considerations are essential if our client wants to optimize the overall cost and effectiveness of the training program.

In future posts, we will describe additional factors and considerations related to the development of effective training programs for practicing professionals. We will also discuss topics requested by our clients and website visitors.

We look forward to receiving your suggestions and inquiries.

DCE: Will Open Source Renew Interest?

2005-01-17T17:00:00.000-05:00

The source code of the Distributed Computing Environment (DCE) is now being made available under an open source license. Previously, DCE 1.2.2 source code was only obtainable under a traditional software product license.

DCE was introduced in 1991 as industry-standard, vendor-neutral, full featured, scalable middleware. Most of the major computer vendors embraced DCE, which has supported thousands of mission critical applications in small to large enterprises and governmental agencies. Today, DCE deployments still provide many mission critical IT services.

DCE is a mature technology. For the past several years, DCE product development ceased and our DCE training and consulting work solely involved the maintenance or migration of DCE legacy systems and applications.

With DCE source code now freely available to the open source community, it will be fascinating to see how this complex technology will evolve and find new applications. With great interest, we will continue to follow developments in the DCE marketplace.
--

Useful Links:
A Comprehensive List of Books on DCE

Consulting and On-Site Technical Training

2004-12-26T21:59:00.000-05:00

Founded in 1977, IAPS is a leading international training and consulting firm that designs and presents educational programs for technical professionals and managers. IAPS provides technical experts to assist organizations with assessment, design and implementation of leading edge software for electronic products and complex IT systems. IAPS also provides technical litigation support services on intellectual property matters in addition to technical training support services and education consulting.