Tickets for the Apple Worldwide Developer Conference went on sale on Thursday, April 25. They sold out in two minutes.

Who says that the iPhone has lost its allure? Not developers. Sure, Apple’s stock price is down, but at least Apple Maps on iOS doesn’t show the bridge over Hoover Dam dropping into Black Canyon any more.

Two minutes.

To quote from a story on TechCrunch,

Tickets for the developer-focused event at San Francisco’s Moscone West, which features presentations and one-on-one time with Apple’s own in-house engineers, sold out in just two hours in 2012, in under 12 hours in 2011, and in eight days in 2010.

Who attends the Apple WWDC? Independent software developers, enterprise developers and partners. Thousands of them. Many are building for iOS, but there are also developers creating software or services for other aspects of Apple’s huge ecosystem, from e-books to Mac applications.

Two minutes.

Mobile developers love tech conferences. Take Google’s I/O developer conference, scheduled for May 15-17. Tickets sold out super-fast there as well.

The audience for Google I/O is potentially more diverse, mainly because Google offers a wider array of platforms. You’ve got Android, of course, but also Chrome, Maps, Play, AppEngine, Google+, Glass and others beside. My suspicion, though, is that enterprise and entrepreneurial interest in Android is filling the seats.

Mobile. That’s where the money is. I’m looking forward to seeing exactly what Apple will introduce at WWDC, and Google at Google I/O.

Meanwhile, if you are an Android developer and didn’t get into Google I/O before it sold out – or if you are looking for a technical conference 100% dedicated to Android development – let me invite you to register for AnDevCon Boston, May 28-31. We still have a few seats left. Hope to see you there.

As I write this on Friday, Apr. 19, it’s been a rough week. A tragic week. Boston is on lockdown, as the hunt for the suspected Boston Marathon bombers continues. Explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas. Killings in Syria. Suicide bombings in Iraq. And much more besides.

The Boston incident struck me hard. Not only as a native New Englander who loves that city, and not only because I have so many friends and family there, but also because I was near Copley Square only a week earlier. My heart goes out to all of the past week’s victims, in Boston and worldwide.

Changing the subject entirely: I’d like to share some data compiled by Black Duck Software and North Bridge Venture Partners. This is their seventh annual report about open source software (OSS) adoption. The notes are analysis from Black Duck and North Bridge.

How important will the following trends be for open source over the next 2-3 years?

#1 Innovation (88.6%)
#2 Knowledge and Culture in Academia (86.4%)
#3 Adoption of OSS into non-technical segments (86.3%)
#4 OSS Development methods adopted inside businesses (79.3%)
#5 Increased awareness of OSS by consumers (71.9%)
#6 Growth of industry specific communities (63.3%)

Note: Over 86% of respondents ranked Innovation and Knowledge and Culture of OSS in Academia as important/very important.

How important are the following factors to the adoption and use of open source? Ranked in response order:

#1 – Better Quality
#2 – Freedom from vendor lock-in
#3 – Flexibility, access to libraries of software, extensions, add-ons
#4 – Elasticity, ability to scale at little cost or penalty
#5 – Superior security
#6 – Pace of innovation
#7 – Lower costs
#8 – Access to source code

Note: Quality jumped to #1 this year, from third place in 2012.

How important are the following factors when choosing between using open source and proprietary alternatives? Ranked in response order:

#1 – Competitive features/technical capabilities
#2 – Security concerns
#3 – Cost of ownership
#4 – Internal technical skills
#5 – Familiarity with OSS Solutions
#6 – Deployment complexity
#7 – Legal concerns about licensing

Note: A surprising result was “Formal Commercial Vendor Support” was ranked as the least important factor – 12% of respondents ranked it as unimportant.  Support has traditionally been held as an important requirement by large IT organizations, with awareness of OSS rising, the requirement is rapidly diminishing.

When hiring new software developers, how important are the following aspects of open source experience? Ranked in response order:

2012
#1 – Variety of projects
#2 – Code contributions
#3 – Experience with major projects
#4 – Experience as a committer
#5 – Community management experience

2013
#1 – Experience with relevant/specific projects
#2 – Code contributions
#3 – Experience with a variety of projects
#4 – Experience as a committer
#5 – Community management experience

Note: The 2013 results signal a shift to “deep vs. broad experience” where respondents are most interested in specific OSS project experience vs. a variety of projects, which was #1 in 2012.

There is a lot more data in the Future of Open Source 2013 survey. Go check it out. 

Last week, we held the debut Big Data TechCon in Cambridge, Mass. It was a huge success – more attendees than we expected, which is great. (With a debut event, you never really know.)

We had lots of sessions, many of which were like trying to drink from a fire hose. That’s a good thing.

A commonality is that there is no single thing called Big Data. There are oodles of problems that have to do with capturing, processing and storing large quantities of structured and unstructured data. Some of those problems are called Big Data today, but some have evolved out of diverse disciplines like data management, data warehousing, business intelligence and matrix-based statistics.

Problems that seemed simple to solve when you were talking about megabytes or terabytes are not simple when you’re talking about petabytes.

You may have heard about the “Four V’s of Big Data” – Volume, Velocity, Variety and Veracity. Some Big Data problems are impacted by some of these V’s. Other Big Data problems are impacted by other V’s.

Think about problem domains where you have very large multidimensional data sets to be analyzed, like insurance or protein folding. Those petabytes are static or updated somewhat slowly. However, you’d like to be able to run a broad range of queries. That’s an intersection of data warehousing and business intelligence. You’ve got volume and veracity. Not much variety. Velocity is important on reporting, not on data management.

Or you might have a huge mass of real-time data. Imagine a wide variety of people, like in a social network, constantly creating all different types of data, from text to links to audio to video to photos to chats to comments. You not only have to store this, but also quickly decide what to present to whom, through relationships, permissions and filters, but also implement a behind-the-scenes recommendation engine to prioritize the flow. Oh, and you have to do it all sub-second. There all four V’s coming into play.

Much in Big Data has to do with how you model the data or how you visualize it. In non-trivial cases, there are many ways of implementing a solution. Some run faster, some are slower; some scale more, others scale less; some can be done by coding into your existing data infrastructure, and others require drastic actions that bolt on new systems or invite rip-and-replace.

Big Data is fascinating. Please join us for the second Big Data TechCon, coming to the San Francisco Bay Area in October. See www.bigdatatechcon.com.

While in Cambridge wrapping up the conference, I received an press release from IDC: “PC Shipments Post the Steepest Decline Ever in a Single Quarter, According to IDC.”

To selectively quote:

Worldwide PC shipments totaled 76.3 million units in the first quarter of 2013 (1Q13), down -13.9% compared to the same quarter in 2012 and worse than the forecast decline of -7.7%.

Despite some mild improvement in the economic environment and some new PC models offering Windows 8, PC shipments were down significantly across all regions compared to a year ago. Fading Mini Notebook shipments have taken a big chunk out of the low-end market while tablets and smartphones continue to divert consumer spending. PC industry efforts to offer touch capabilities and ultraslim systems have been hampered by traditional barriers of price and component supply, as well as a weak reception for Windows 8. The PC industry is struggling to identify innovations that differentiate PCs from other products and inspire consumers to buy, and instead is meeting significant resistance to changes perceived as cumbersome or costly.

The industry is going through a critical crossroads, and strategic choices will have to be made as to how to compete with the proliferation of alternative devices and remain relevant to the consumer. 

It’s all about the tablets, folks. That’s right: iPads and Android-based devices like the Samsung Galaxy, Kindle Fire, Barnes & Noble Nook and Google Nexus. Attempts to make standard PCs more tablet-like (such as the Microsoft Surface devices) just aren’t cutting it. Just as we moved from minicomputers to desktops, and from desktops to notebooks, we are moving from notebooks to tablets.

(I spent most of the time at the Big Data TechCon working on a 7-inch tablet with a Bluetooth keyboard. I barely used my notebook at all. The tablet/keyboard had a screen big enough to write stories with, a real keyboard with keys, and best of all, would fit into my pocket.)

Just as desktops/notebooks have different operating systems, applications, data storage models and user experiences than minicomputers (and minicomputer terminals), so too the successful tablet devices aren’t going to look like a notebook with a touchscreen. Apps, not applications; cloud-based storage; massively interconnected networks; inherently social. We are at an inflection point. There’s no going back.

I know many female IT professionals. In some parts of the tech field, there are lots of women. In others — including software development — females are fairly rare.

Is this a problem? If so, why? Those are legitimate questions. Do companies have compelling reasons to recruit more female developers? Do universities have compelling reasons to seek more female computer science students – or more female computer science faculty and researchers? Do open source projects and other peer-driven collaborative ventures have compelling reasons to welcome female contributors?

I say yes to all the above. The reasons are difficult to articulate, but it’s clear to me that a programming culture that pushes women away is cutting off access to half the pool of available talent. I also believe (at a gut level) that gender-balanced departments and teams are more collaborative, more creative, and more welcoming to those females who work there – and to many men as well.

 This is a problem of culture, not one of intelligence, talent, drive or initiative. The macho attitude pervading many coding shops creates a hostile attitude for many women. Not just hostile. Sometimes the project teams are quite literally abusive in ways both subtle and overt.

In that sort of toxic environment, everyone, men and women alike, are justified in finding someplace more welcoming to work or study or contribute. When women chose a different department, a different company, a different career, a different academic major, or a different online community, everyone loses.

What are the solutions? I truly don’t know. I don’t believe that books like Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” have the answer. Similarly, I don’t believe that Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer can serve as a reasonable role model for female rank-and-file programmers.

The life of a huge company’s CEO or top executive is worlds away, no matter the gender, from the workers in the cubicles. Yes, it’s fun and informative to learn from standout performers like Sandberg, Mayer, Carol Bartz, Meg Whitman, Ursula Burns or Virginia Rometty. However, their example does not clearly illustrate a career path that other women can follow, any more than the typical male programmer can advance by copying Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison or Mark Zuckerburg.

Let me point out a few resources.

 

This is one of a series of articles I wrote for the monthly Bulletin of Peninsula Temple Sholom in Burlingame, Calif.

I am delighted to report that the Board of Trustees has voted to offer Rabbi Dan Feder another contract to remain at Peninsula Temple Sholom. The vote was unanimous (20-0), which is a strong message of support for our congregation’s spiritual leader.

Hiring and managing the Temple’s senior professional staff and clergy is one of the most important responsibilities of the Board of Trustees. (Some of the others are managing finances, approving an annual budget, overseeing our investments, attracting and retaining members, and setting policies.) This vote about the rabbi’s contract may have been the single biggest action for this Board term.

The basics: Rabbi Feder’s current five-year contract began July 2009, and ends June 2014. The contract specifies that the Board will let the rabbi know our intentions about renewal 15 months before the contract ends – that is, in spring 2013. That long period protects both parties’ interests: Should the Board vote not to renew, we have time to find a new rabbi, and the rabbi has time to find a new job.

Within the Board, the process of evaluating Rabbi Feder’s performance, and recommending renewal or non-renewal, fell to the Personnel Committee. The P.C. consists of April Glatt (chair), Scott Rodrick, Lauren Schlezinger, Michelle Tandowsky and yours truly.

This is a responsibility nobody took lightly, and the evaluation process spanned many months. The process itself was briefly described in my column in the December 2012 Bulletin, and in more detail in a document posted in the Member’s Only section of sholom.org. As part of this process, the P.C. solicited feedback from congregants, and also personally interviewed dozens of individuals.

An overwhelming majority of the letters and conversations urged us to keep Rabbi Feder here at PTS. Congregants opened their hearts about the beautiful connection Rabbi Feder had made with families through worship, teaching, lifecycle events and pastoral care. Some were particularly impressed by how much Rabbi Feder has grown since joining us in mid-2006.

However, there were certainly letters and conversations offering a different perspective, especially from those who had not bonded with Rabbi Feder or who don’t like that PTS feels quite different today under Rabbi Feder than it felt under Rabbi Gerald Raiskin z”l. While those communications represented a definite minority of comments, the P.C. considered those as well.

Indeed, the Personnel Committee discussed every letter, every email, and every face-to-face conversation, pro and con. We added our own observations of the Rabbi’s performance in many areas which aren’t as visible to the congregation, such as a manager, fundraiser, and administrator. Weighing all the data, the P.C. unanimously recommended that the Board renew Rabbi Feder’s contract, and as mentioned above, the Board voted unanimously on March 13 to accept that recommendation.

This is a good decision. From my own perspective as a lay officer of the Union for Reform Judaism’s own Board of Trustees, I attend services at Reform synagogues all across North America, and work closely with rabbis of all ages, skills and styles. Dan Feder stands out due to his warmth, his scholarliness, his menschlichkeit, his caring, his spirituality, his ethics and his passion for Judaism, social justice and our congregation. We are blessed to have Rabbi Feder here at Peninsula Temple Sholom.

Git, the open-source version control system, is becoming popular with enterprise developers. Or so it appears not only from anecdotal evidence I hear from developers all the time, but also from a new marketing study from CollabNet.

The study, called “The State of Git in the Enterprise,” was conducted by InformationWeek, but was paid for by CollabNet, which coincidentally sells tools and services to help development teams use Git. You should bear that in mind when interpreting the study,  which you can only receive by giving CollabNet your contact information.

That said, there are five interesting findings in the January 2013 study, which surveyed 248 development and business technology professionals at companies with 100 or more employees who use source code management tools:

First: Most developers are not using or planning to use Git. But of those that do, usage is split between on-premises or in a public/private cloud.

How do you use (or intend to use by 2013) Git deployment?

On premises: 30%
Private cloud/virtualized: 23%
Public cloud: 10%
Don’t use/do not intend to use 54%

Second: What best describes your use of Git today?

Git is our corporate standard: 5%
Git is one of several SCMs we use: 20%
Still kicking the tires on Git: 18%
Not currently using Git: 57%

Third: What do you like about Git?

Power branching/merging: 61%
Network performance: 53%
Everyone seems to be using it: 35%
It’s our corporate standard: 13%

Fourth: How do you conduct code reviews?

Automated and manual: 46%
Manual only: 24%
Manual, but only occasionally: 17%
Automated only: 7%
Not at all: 6%

Fifth: By the end of 2013, which SCM tools do you plan to use?

Microsoft TFS/VSS: 33%
Subversion: 32%
Git: 27%
IBM ClearCase: 22%
CVS: 21%
Perforce: 11%
Mercurial: 7%
None: 4%

Some of these technologies have been around for a long time. For example, CVS first appeared in 1986. CollabNet started Subversion in 2000, and it’s now a top-level Apache project. By contrast, Git’s initial release was only in 2005, and it flew under the radar for years before getting traction. Git’s rise to the third position on this study is impressive.