Follow me on Twitter at
FYI, I'm blogging most of my stuff over at More Wally now.
You might want to add my rss feed to your reader at:
September 2004 - Posts - Wallace B. McClure

Wallace B. McClure

All About Wally McClure - The musings of Wallym on Web, HTML5, Mobile, Xamarin.iOS, Xamarin.Android, and Windows Azure.


Visual Studio Magazine Column Personal Blog


Book Authors




Georgia Tech Bloggers



September 2004 - Posts

Business Week's latest on Overseas Outsourcing - Dot Bomb Part Deaux?

This seems to be one of the few business publications with a realistic view of Overseas Outsourcing. 

One thing that does upset me in the whole discussion of overseas outsourcing is this view by American developers, engineers, and technical types is that somehow the people that work overseas in India, China, or Eastern Europe are somehow not intelligent.  There is value in locality (being near the customer).  There is value in speaking the same language as the customer.  Not being able to fulfill those requirements does NOT make someone not intelligent.  To believe that somehow the United States has a monopoly on intelligence baffles my mind.


Posted: Sep 28 2004, 07:49 AM by Wallym | with 1 comment(s)
Filed under:
Infoworld Development Survey

Based on a quick look at the articles, I would agree that what they are saying is what I am seeing in the marketplace.


Posted: Sep 27 2004, 10:24 AM by Wallym | with no comments
Filed under:
Commerce One goes bankrupt,11280,96156,00.html?from=homeheads

I remember about 7 or 8 years ago starting to see the runup of dot-com stocks like Yahoo that was based on unreasonable assumptions.  I remarked that people were speculating on what the "present value of future value" is.  I am glad that the internet bubble burst in 2000.  It brought people back to reality.  A couple of thoughts from that time still float through my mind.

  • You can't take someone with little or no development experience and expect them to produce a quality product.  Experience and intelligence costs money.
  • Stock is just a promise.  It is not cash.  It is not real.  It is merely a promise that someday, you might get something.  I remember sitting in a meeting in 2000 where this company wanted me to come work for them.  All their statements revolved around their stock prices was going to go through the roof.  I told them that their stock had no value.  It didn't exist at the time, nor does it now.  From 1986, I remember a poster with the catch phrase at the bottom "Cash make friend, credit make enemy."  I find it very disturbing that people in the technology field will trade significant money for stock ownership at an alarming rate.  Some ownership is a good idea, however, you must be realistic with regards to the direction and growth of a company.
  • People with great ideas don't necessarily know how to run a business.  At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is "Did more money come in than go out."  Thought of another way, "Is there more money in the bank account now than there was at the start of the day."
  • Just because you think something is a great idea does not mean that the idea will be accepted within the marketplace.  Market analysis is important before throwing lots of money at product development.
  • My father says that the only difference between a small company and a large company is the number of zeroes.  That is true about 90% of things.  You need to be careful on the remaining 10%.  For example, if Quicken/QuickBooks will work for your company, there is little reason to invest in something bigger.  Don't spend $25,000 on a product that will suit your needs for 10 years, when a $100 product will suit your needs today and for the next few years.  Don't laugh, I have seen small companies do this.
Posted: Sep 27 2004, 07:54 AM by Wallym | with no comments
Filed under:
Everyone else is making money but me.........

Well, not really.  I find that people seem to always think that others are making huge money from whatever they are doing. 

On a personal front, you would be amazed at the number of peole that think I am rich from writing a computer programming book.  It is only after you sit down with them and disect the economics of writing a book that it becomes obvious that writing a book is not a huge money maker for the authors of most technology books.  In fact, I would classify writing a technology book as falling under the area of money-loser.

Another example.  Do you think that online music is a big money maker for the online music stores?  Think again.  This article seems to question the viability of online music stores because of the fairly small margins.  Is the article real or merely propoganda to be used against the music labels?  That's for someone else to decide.


Posted: Sep 27 2004, 07:27 AM by Wallym | with 1 comment(s)
Filed under:
Linux -> Windows migration,1759,1651701,00.asp

Fairly interesting read.  Seems to go against the current "popular" thinking that moving off of Windows to Linux is good.  Funny how technology types get into the religous issues and the business people just want to know about things like cost and supportability.


Posted: Sep 27 2004, 07:20 AM by Wallym | with 1 comment(s)
Filed under:
HP drops Itanium 2 workstations

The writing is on the wall for IA64 on the desktop.  Looks like x64 is going to be the desktop 64 bit CPU for the near future.



Posted: Sep 26 2004, 01:11 PM by Wallym | with no comments
Filed under:
Simple Reflection in .NET Whidbey

Here is some simple Reflection code that I wrote to see what is in some .NET assemblies.  Suggestions are welcome.  Its not very "Whidbey-esque," but it gets the job done.


string strDotNetDir = @".......";

string strSql = String.Empty;

string strCn = ".....";

string strTypeOfType = String.Empty;

Assembly b = Assembly.LoadFrom(strDotNetDir + "System.Data.dll");


SqlConnection sqlCn = new SqlConnection(strCn);

SqlCommand sqlCm = new SqlCommand();


Type [] types = b.GetTypes ();

MethodInfo[] methods;

Type[] tInterfaces;

string[] strNames;

sqlCm.Connection = sqlCn;

sqlCm.CommandType = CommandType.Text;


foreach (Type t in types) {

      if ( t.IsPublic )


            if (t.IsClass)


            methods = t.GetMethods();

            foreach(MethodInfo m in methods)


            //store the methods that were found.



            strTypeOfType = "Class";


        if (t.IsEnum)


            strNames = Enum.GetNames(t);

            foreach (string s in strNames)


               //store the Enum names.


            strTypeOfType = "Enum";


        if (t.IsInterface)


            tInterfaces = t.GetInterfaces();

            foreach (Type t2 in tInterfaces)


               //store the interface(s) that were found.


            strTypeOfType = "Interface";


        if (strTypeOfType != String.Empty)


         //do something with what you found as far as the type.


        strTypeOfType = String.Empty;



if ( sqlCn.State != ConnectionState.Closed )





sqlCn = null;


sqlCm = null;


Posted: Sep 24 2004, 08:43 PM by Wallym | with no comments
Filed under:
Non-techncial - Spyware/Adware appear to be gone

Thanks to Doug King's statements about the need to be persistent, I was able to get the spyware/adware off the system.  Thanks Doug for urging me on.


Personal Opinion - Should MS back port some of the XP IE SP2 fixes to older versions of Windows?

There has been a lot of talk about MS back porting part of their XP SP2 IE fixes to older versions of Windows.  I wonder if they truly should.  After all, operating systems eventually fall off from achieving support.  Here is IBM's support schedule for the AS/400 / iSeries.  How well do they support their products after the end of program support?  Take the case of Windows 2000.  How much support should one expect from Microsoft 4 1/2 years after that product has shipped?  NT4?  Its been 8 years since that shipped.  WinME?  4 years.  What about older versions of Linux?  How many major features are back ported to 2.2 or 2.4?  Microsoft is a business, they are entitled to make money.

One the other side of the coin, only about 50% of the installed base of Windows has updated to WinXP.  Perhaps MS should think about back porting some of the updates to Win2k and WinME?  Back porting would definitely be useful in securing a high percentage of systems on the internet. The change to the ActiveX downloading and the popup-blocking would be greatly recieved.

FYI, it is not my intention to start a flame-war.  I'm just posting the thoughts running through my head.  I try and keep personal opinions in my head, but this subject started my mind racing.


Sql Dependency rules in .NET 2.0 Whidbey

There are a couple of rules that I have been posted in the newsgroups that I wanted to post.  "Select * from Table" will not work with the SqlDependency object.

  • You must specify the columns that you want to use.
  • The schema/owner must be specified.
  • The data must be queried after the dependency is created and defined.
  • Service Broker must be running on that database.  This can be checked by calling "Select databasepropertyex('db Name', 'IsBrokerEnabled')".  A '1' means that the broker is enabled.  A '0' means that the broker is not enabled.  This can be turned on by calling. "ALTER DATABASE dbName SET ENABLE_BROKER".
  • "GRANT SEND ON SERVICE :: SqlQueryNotificationService to GUEST" in the msdb database.
  • Once the OnChanged event is fired, you must rebuild the SqlDependency object.

Use this select command "select col1, col2 from dbo.Table" as appropiate.

I am looking for more rules.  If you have them or know them, let me know.

Thanks to Niels Berglund, Marcel Gnoth(?), Bjorn Backlund, and Pablo Castro for their posts about this in the ADO.NET Whidbey newsgroup.


More Posts Next page »