Podcasts about odbc

My interview with Microsoft's Michael Pizzo—a true trailblazer with over 30 years at Microsoft. Michael began his journey integrating Excel with relational data, and went on to play a pivotal role in the design of ODBC, OLE DB, and ADO.NET, driving standards and innovation every step of the way. Now a Principal Architect in our Identity Division, his influence is felt in modern tools like Microsoft Graph. Let's dive into his incredible story! Follow Us Frank: Twitter, Blog, GitHub James: Twitter, Blog, GitHub Merge Conflict: Twitter, Facebook, Website, Chat on Discord Music : Amethyst Seer - Citrine by Adventureface ⭐⭐ Review Us (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/merge-conflict/id1133064277?mt=2&ls=1) ⭐⭐ Machine transcription available on http://mergeconflict.fm

Send us a textSoftware security assessment can make or break your organization's defense posture, yet many professionals struggle with implementing effective evaluation strategies. This deep dive into CISSP Domain 8.3 reveals critical approaches to software security that balance technical requirements with business realities.The recent funding crisis surrounding CVEs (Common Vulnerability Exposures) serves as a perfect case study of how fragile our security infrastructure can be. When the standardized system for cataloging vulnerabilities faced defunding, it highlighted our dependence on these foundational systems and raised questions about sustainable models for critical security infrastructure.Database security presents unique challenges, particularly when managing multi-level classifications within a single environment. We explore how proper implementation requires strict separation between classification levels and how technologies like ODBC serve as intermediaries for legacy applications. The key takeaway? Data separation isn't just a technical best practice—it's an essential security control.Documentation emerges as a surprisingly critical element in effective security. Beyond regulatory compliance, proper documentation protects security professionals when incidents inevitably occur. As one security leader candidly explains, when breaches happen, fingers point toward security teams first—comprehensive documentation proves you implemented appropriate controls and communicated risks effectively.The most successful security professionals step outside their comfort zones, collaborating across organizational boundaries to integrate security throughout the development lifecycle. Static analysis, dynamic testing, vulnerability assessments, and penetration testing all provide complementary insights, but only when security and development teams maintain open communication channels.Ready to strengthen your software security assessment capabilities? Join us weekly for more insights that help you pass the CISSP exam and build practical security knowledge that makes a difference in your organization.Gain exclusive access to 360 FREE CISSP Practice Questions delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up at FreeCISSPQuestions.com and receive 30 expertly crafted practice questions every 15 days for the next 6 months—completely free! Don't miss this valuable opportunity to strengthen your CISSP exam preparation and boost your chances of certification success. Join now and start your journey toward CISSP mastery today!

Fredrik has Matt Topol and Lars Wikman over for a deep and wide chat about Apache Arrow and many, many topics in the orbit of the language-independent columnar memory format for flat and hierarchical data. What does that even mean? What is the point? And why does Arrow only feel more and more interesting and useful the more you think about deeply integrating it into your systems? Feeding data to systems fast enough is a problem which is focused on much less than it ought to be. With Arrow you can send data over the network, process it on the CPU - or GPU for that matter- and send it along to the database. All without parsing, transformation, or copies unless absolutely necessary. Thank you Cloudnet for sponsoring our VPS! Comments, questions or tips? We are @kodsnack, @tobiashieta, @oferlund and @bjoreman on Twitter, have a page on Facebook and can be emailed at info@kodsnack.se if you want to write longer. We read everything we receive. If you enjoy Kodsnack we would love a review in iTunes! You can also support the podcast by buying us a coffee (or two!) through Ko-fi. Links Lars Matt Øredev Matt's Øredev presentations: State of the Apache Arrow ecosystem: How your project can leverage Arrow! and Leveraging Apache Arrow for ML workflows Kallbadhuset Apache Arrow Lars talks about his Arrow rabbit hole in Regular programming SIMD/vectorization Spark Explorer - builds on Polars Null bitmap Zeromq Airbyte Arrow flight Dremio Arrow flight SQL Influxdb Arrow flight RPC Kafka Pulsar Opentelemetry Arrow IPC format - also known as Feather ADBC - Arrow database connectivity ODBC and JDBC Snowflake DBT - SQL to SQL Jinja Datafusion Ibis Substrait Meta's Velox engine Arrow's project management committee (PMC) Voltron data Matt's Arrow book - In-memory analytics with Apache Arrow Rapids and Cudf The Theseus engine - accelerator-native distributed compute engine using Arrow The composable codex The standards chapter Dremio Hugging face Apache Hop - orchestration data scheduling thing Directed acyclic graph UCX - libraries for finding fast routes for data Infiniband NUMA CUDA GRPC Foam bananas Turkish pepper - Tyrkisk peber Plopp Marianne Titles For me, it started during the speaker's dinner Old, dated, and Java A real nerd snipe Identical representation in memory Working on columns It's already laid out that way Pass the memory, as is Null plus null is null A wild perk Arrow into the thing So many curly brackets you need to store Arrow straight through Something data people like to do So many backends The SQL string is for people I'm rude, and he's polite Feed the data fast enough A depressing amount of JSON Arrow the whole way through These are the problems in data Reference the bytes as they are Boiling down to Arrow Data lakehouses Removing inefficiency

Fredrik has Matt Topol and Lars Wikman over for a deep and wide chat about Apache Arrow and many, many topics in the orbit of the language-independent columnar memory format for flat and hierarchical data. What does that even mean? What is the point? And why does Arrow only feel more and more interesting and useful the more you think about deeply integrating it into your systems? Feeding data to systems fast enough is a problem which is focused on much less than it ought to be. With Arrow you can send data over the network, process it on the CPU - or GPU for that matter- and send it along to the database. All without parsing, transformation, or copies unless absolutely necessary. Thank you Cloudnet for sponsoring our VPS! Comments, questions or tips? We are @kodsnack, @tobiashieta, @oferlund and @bjoreman on Twitter, have a page on Facebook and can be emailed at info@kodsnack.se if you want to write longer. We read everything we receive. If you enjoy Kodsnack we would love a review in iTunes! You can also support the podcast by buying us a coffee (or two!) through Ko-fi. Links Lars Matt Øredev Matt’s Øredev presentations: State of the Apache Arrow ecosystem: How your project can leverage Arrow! and Leveraging Apache Arrow for ML workflows Kallbadhuset Apache Arrow Lars talks about his Arrow rabbit hole in Regular programming SIMD/vectorization Spark Explorer - builds on Polars Null bitmap Zeromq Airbyte Arrow flight Dremio Arrow flight SQL Influxdb Arrow flight RPC Kafka Pulsar Opentelemetry Arrow IPC format - also known as Feather ADBC - Arrow database connectivity ODBC and JDBC Snowflake DBT - SQL to SQL Jinja Datafusion Ibis Substrait Meta’s Velox engine Arrow’s project management committee (PMC) Voltron data Matt’s Arrow book - In-memory analytics with Apache Arrow Rapids and Cudf The Theseus engine - accelerator-native distributed compute engine using Arrow The composable codex The standards chapter Dremio Hugging face Apache Hop - orchestration data scheduling thing Directed acyclic graph UCX - libraries for finding fast routes for data Infiniband NUMA CUDA GRPC Foam bananas Turkish pepper - Tyrkisk peber Plopp Marianne Titles For me, it started during the speaker’s dinner Old, dated, and Java A real nerd snipe Identical representation in memory Working on columns It’s already laid out that way Pass the memory, as is Null plus null is null A wild perk Arrow into the thing So many curly brackets you need to store Arrow straight through Something data people like to do So many backends The SQL string is for people I’m rude, and he’s polite Feed the data fast enough A depressing amount of JSON Arrow the whole way through These are the problems in data Reference the bytes as they are Boiling down to Arrow Data lakehouses Removing inefficiency

Stephanie shares her task of retiring a small, internally-used link-shortening app. She describes the process as both celebratory and a bit mournful. Meanwhile, Joël discusses his deep dive into ActiveRecord, particularly in the context of debugging. He explores the complexities of ActiveRecord querying schemas and the additional latency this introduces. Together, the hosts discuss the nuances of package management systems and their implications for developers. They touch upon the differences between system packages and language packages, sharing personal experiences with tools like Homebrew, RubyGems, and Docker. Transcript: JOËL: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Joël Quenneville. STEPHANIE: And I'm Stephanie Minn. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. JOËL: So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: So, this week, I got to have some fun working on some internal thoughtbot work. And what I focused on was retiring one of our just, like, small internal self-hosted on Heroku apps in favor of going with a third-party service for this functionality. We basically had a tiny, little app that we used as a link-shortening service. So, if you've ever seen a tbot.io short link out in the world, we were using our just, like, an in-house app to do that, you know, but for various reasons, we wanted to...just it wasn't worth maintaining anymore. So, we wanted to just use a purchased service. But today, I got to just, like, do the little bit of, like, tidying up, you know, in preparation to archive a repo and kind of delete the app from Heroku, and I hadn't done that before. So, it felt a little bit celebratory and a little bit mournful even [laughs] to, you know, retire something like that. And I was pairing with another thoughtbot developer, and we used a pairing app called Tuple. And you can just send, like, fun reactions to each other. Like, you could send, like, a fire emoji [laughs] or something if that's what you're feeling. And so, I sent some, like, confetti when we clicked the, "I understand what deleting this app means on GitHub." But I joked that "Actually, I feel like what I really needed was a, like, a salute kind of like thank you for your service [laughs] type of reaction." JOËL: I love those moments when you're kind of you're hitting those kind of milestone-y moments, and then you get to send a reaction. I should do that more often in Tuple. Those are fun. STEPHANIE: They are fun. There's also a, like, table flip reaction, too, is one that I really enjoy [laughs], you know, you just have to manifest that energy somehow. And then, after we kind of sent out an email to the company saying like, "Oh yeah, we're not using our app anymore for link shortening," someone had a great suggestion to make our archived repo public instead of private. I kind of liked it as a way of, like, memorializing this application and let community members see, you know, real code in a real...the application that we used here at thoughtbot. So, hopefully, if not me, then someone else will be able to do that and maybe publish a little blog post about that. JOËL: That's exciting. So, it's not currently public, the repo, but it might be at some point in the future. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's right. JOËL: We'll definitely have to mention it on a future episode if that happens so that people following along with the story can go check out the code. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: I've been doing a deep dive into how ActiveRecord works. Particularly, I am debugging some pretty significant slowdowns in querying ActiveRecord models that are backed not by a regular Postgres database but instead a Snowflake data warehouse via an ODBC connection. So, there's a bunch of moving pieces going on here, and it would just take forever to make any queries. And sure, the actual reported query time is longer than for a local Postgres database, but then there's this sort of mystery extra waiting time, and I couldn't figure out why is it taking so much longer than the actual sort of recorded query time. And I started digging into all of this, and it turns out that in addition to executing queries to pull actual data in, ActiveRecord needs to, at various points, query the schema of your data store to pull things like names of tables and what are the indexes and primary keys and things like that. STEPHANIE: Wow. That sounds really cool and something that I have never needed to do before. I'm curious if you noticed...you said that it takes, I guess, longer to query Snowflake than it would a more common Postgres database. Were you noticing this performance slowness locally or on production? JOËL: Both places. So, the nice thing is I can reproduce it locally, and locally, I mean running the Rails app locally. I'm still talking to a remote Snowflake data warehouse, which is fine. I can reproduce that slowness locally, which has made it much easier to experiment and try things. And so, from there, it's really just been a bit of a detective case trying to, I guess, narrow the possibility space and try to understand what are the parts that trigger slowness. So, I'm printing timestamps in different places. I've got different things that get measured. I've not done, like, a profiling tool to generate a flame graph or anything like that. That might have been something cool to try. I just did old-school print statements in a couple of places where I, like, time before, time after, print the delta, and that's gotten me pretty far. STEPHANIE: That's pretty cool. What do you think will be an outcome of this? Because I remember you saying you're digging a little bit into ActiveRecord internals. So, based on, like, what you're exploring, what do you think you could do as a developer to increase some of the performance there? JOËL: I think probably what this ends up being is finding that the Snowflake adapter that I'm using for ActiveRecord maybe has some sort of small bug in it or some implementation that's a little bit too naive that needs to be fine-tuned. And so, probably what ends up happening here is that this finishes as, like, an open-source pull request to the Snowflake Adapter gem. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's where I thought maybe that might go. And that's pretty cool, too, and to, you know, just be investigating something on your app and being able to make a contribution that it benefits the community. JOËL: And that's what's so great about open source because not only am I able to get the source to go source diving through all of this, because I absolutely need to do that, but also, then if I make a fix, I can push that fix back out to the community, and everybody gets to benefit. STEPHANIE: Cool. Well, that's another thing that I look forward to hearing more on the development of [laughs] later if it pans out that way. JOËL: One thing that has been interesting with this Snowflake work is that there are a lot of moving parts and multiple different packages that I need to install to get this all to work. So, I mentioned that I might be doing a pull request against the Snowflake Adapter for ActiveRecord, but all of this talks through a sort of lower-level technology protocol called ODBC, which is a sort of generic protocol for speaking to data stores, and that actually has two different pieces. I had to install two different packages. There is a sort of low-level executable that I had to install on my local dev machine and that I have to install on our servers. And on my Mac, I'm installing that via Homebrew, which is a system package. And then to get Ruby bindings for that, there is a Ruby gem that I install that allows Ruby code to talk to ODBC, and that's installed via RubyGems or Bundler. And that got me thinking about sort of these two separate ecosystems that I tend to work with every day. We've got sort of the system packages and the, I don't know what you want to call them, language packages maybe, things like RubyGems, but that could also be NPM or whatever your language of choice is, and realizing that we kind of have things split into two different zones, and sometimes we need both and wondering a little bit about why is that difference necessary. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I don't have an answer to that [laughs] question right now, but I can say that that was an area that really tripped me up, I think, when I was first a fledgling developer. And I was really confused about where all of these dependencies were coming from and going through, you know, setting up my first project and being, like, asked to install Postgres on my machine but then also Bundler, which then also installs more dependencies [laughs]. The lines between those ecosystems were not super clear to me. And, you know, even now, like, I find myself really just kind of, like, learning what I need to know to get by [laughs] with my day-to-day work. But I do like what you said about these are kind of the two main layers that you're working with in terms of package management. And it's really helpful to have that knowledge so you can troubleshoot when there is an issue at one or the other. JOËL: And you mentioned Postgres. That's another one that's interesting because there are components in both of those ecosystems. Postgres itself is typically installed via a system package manager, so something like Homebrew on a Mac or apt-get on a Linux machine. But then, if you're interacting with Postgres in a Ruby app, you're probably also installing the pg gem, which are Ruby's bindings for Postgres to allow Ruby to talk to Postgres, and that lives in the package ecosystem on RubyGems. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I've certainly been in the position of, you know, again, as consultants, we oftentimes are also setting up new laptops entirely [laughs] like client laptops and such and bundling and the pg gem is installed. And then at least I have, you know, I have to give thanks to the very clear error message that [laughs] tells me that I don't have Postgres installed on my machine. Because when I mentioned, you know, troubleshooting earlier, I've certainly been in positions where it was really unclear what was going on in terms of the interaction between what I guess we're calling the Ruby package ecosystem and our system level one. JOËL: Especially for things like the pg gem, which need to compile against some existing libraries, those always get interesting where sometimes they'll fail to compile because there's a path to some C compiler that's not set correctly or something like that. For me, typically, that means I need to update the macOS command line tools or the Xcode command line tools; I forget what the name of that package is. And, usually, that does the trick. That might happen if I've upgraded my OS version recently and haven't downloaded the latest version of the command line tools. STEPHANIE: Yeah. Speaking of OS versions, I have a bit of a story to share about using...I've never said this name out loud, but I am pretty sure that it would just be pronounced as wkhtmltopdf [laughs]. For some reason, whenever I see words like that in my brain, I want to, like, make it into a pronounceable thing [laughs]. JOËL: Right, just insert some vowels in there. STEPHANIE: Yeah, wkhtmltopdf [laughs]. Anyway, that was being used in an app to generate PDF invoices or something. It's a pretty old tool. It's a CLI tool, and it's, as far as I can tell, it's been around for a long time but was recently no longer maintained. And so, as I was working on this app, I was running into a bug where that library was causing some issues with the PDF that was generated. So, I had to go down this route of actually finding a Ruby gem that would figure out which package binary to use, you know, based off of my system. And that worked great locally, and I was like, okay, cool, I fixed the issue. And then, once I pushed my change, it turns out that it did not work on CI because CI was running on Ubuntu. And I guess the binary didn't work with the latest version of Ubuntu that was running on CI, so there was just so many incompatibilities there. And I was wanting to fix this bug. But the next step I took was looking into community-provided packages because there just simply weren't any, like, up-to-date binaries that would likely work with these new operating systems. And I kind of stopped at that point because I just wasn't really sure, like, how trustworthy were these community packages. That was an ecosystem I didn't know enough about. In particular, I was having to install some using apt from, you know, just, like, some Linux community. But yeah, I think I normally have a little bit more experience and confidence in terms of the Ruby package ecosystem and can tell, like, what gems are popular, which ones are trustworthy. There are different heuristics I have for evaluating what dependency to pull in. But here I ended up just kind of bailing out of that endeavor because I just didn't have enough time to go down that rabbit hole. JOËL: It is interesting that learning how to evaluate packages is a skill you have to learn that varies from package community to package community. I know that when I used to be very involved with Elm, we would often have people who would come to the Elm community from the JavaScript community who were used to evaluating NPM packages. And one of the metrics that was very popular in the JavaScript community is just stars on GitHub. That's a really important metric. And that wasn't really much of a thing in the Elm community. And so, people would come and be like, "Wait, how do I know which package is good? I don't see any stars on GitHub." And then, it turns out that there are other metrics that people would use. And similarly, you know, in Ruby, there are different ways that you might use to evaluate Ruby gems that may or may not involve stars on GitHub. It might be something entirely different. STEPHANIE: Yeah. Speaking of that, I wanted to plug a website that I have used before called the Ruby Toolbox, and that gives some suggestions for open-source Ruby libraries of various categories. So, if you're looking for, like, a JSON parser, it has some of the more popular ones. If you're looking for, you know, it stores them by category, and I think it is also based on things like stars and forks like that, so that's a good one to know. JOËL: You could probably also look at something like download numbers to see what's popular, although sometimes it's sort of, like, an emergent gem that's more popular. Some of that almost you just need to be a little bit in the community, like, hearing, you know, maybe listening to podcasts like this one, subscribing to Ruby newsletters, going to conferences, things like that, and to realize, okay, maybe, you know, we had sort of an old staple for JSON parsing, but there's a new thing that's twice as fast. And this is sort of becoming the new standard, and the community is shifting towards that. You might not know that just by looking at raw stats. So, there's a human component to it as well. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. I think an extension of knowing how to evaluate different package systems is this question of like, how much does an average developer need to know about package management? [laughs] JOËL: Yeah, a little bit to a medium amount, and then if you're writing your own packages, you probably need to know a little bit more. But there are some things that are really maybe best left to the maintainers of package managers. Package managers are actually pretty complex pieces of software in terms of all of the dependency management and making sure that when you say, "Oh, I've got Rails, and this other gem, and this other gem, and it's going to find the exact versions of all those gems that play nicely together," that's non-trivial. As a sort of working developer, you don't need to know all of the algorithms or the graph theory or any of that that underlies a package manager to be able to be productive in your career. And even as a package developer, you probably don't need to really know a whole lot of that. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that makes sense. I actually had referred to our internal at thoughtbot here, our kind of, like, expectations for skill levels for developers. And I would say for an average developer, we kind of just expect a basic understanding of these more complex parts of our toolchain, I think, specifically, like, command line tools and package management. And I think I'd mentioned earlier that, for me, it is a very need-to-know basis. And so, yeah, when I was going down that little bit of exploration around why wkhtmltopdf [chuckles] wasn't working [chuckles], it was a bit of a twisty and turning journey where I, you know, wasn't really sure where to go. I was getting very obtuse error messages, and, you know, I had to dive deep into all these forums [laughs] for all the various platforms [laughs] about why libraries weren't working. And I think what I did come away with was that like, oh, like, even though I'm mostly working on my local machine for development, there was some amount of knowledge I needed to have about the systems that my CI and, you know, production servers are running on. The project I was working on happened to have, like, a Docker file for those environments, and, you know, kind of knowing how to configure them to install the packages I needed to install and just knowing a little bit about the different ways of doing that on systems outside of my usual daily workflows. JOËL: And I think that gets back to some of the interesting distinctions between what we might call language packages versus system packages is that language packages more or less work the same across all operating systems. They might have a build step that's slightly different or something like that, but system packages might be pretty different between different operating systems. So, development, for me, is a Mac, and I'm probably installing system packages via something like Homebrew. If I then want that Rails app to run on CI or some Linux server somewhere, I can't use Homebrew to install things there. It's going to be a slightly different package ecosystem. And so, now I need to find something that will install Postgres for Linux, something that will install, I guess, wkhtmltopdf [laughs] for Linux. And so, when I'm building that Docker file, that might be a little bit different for Mac versus for...or I guess when you run a Docker file, you're running a containerized system. So, the goal there is to make this system the same everywhere for everyone. But when you're setting that up, typically, it's more of a Linux-like system. And so running inside the Docker container versus outside on the native Mac might involve a totally different set of packages and a different package tool. As opposed to something like Bundler, you've got your gem file; you bundle install. It doesn't matter if you're on Linux or macOS. STEPHANIE: Yes, I think you're right. I think we kind of answered our own question at the top of the show [laughs] about differences and what do you need to know about them. And I also like how you pointed out, oh yeah, like, Docker is supposed to [laughs], you know, make sure that we're all developing in the same system, essentially. But, you know, sometimes you have different use cases for it. And, yeah, when you were talking about installing an application on your native Mac and using Homebrew, but even, you know, not everyone even uses Homebrew, right? You can install manually [laughs] through whatever official installer that application might provide. So, there's just so many different ways of doing something. And I had the thought that it's too bad that we both [chuckles] develop on Mac because it could be really interesting to get a Linux user's perspective in here. JOËL: You mentioned not installing via Homebrew. A kind of glaring example of that in my personal setup is that I use Postgres.app to manage Postgres on my machine rather than using Homebrew. I've just...over the years, the Homebrew version every time I upgrade my operating system or something, it's just such a pain to update, and I've lost too many hours to it, and Postgres.app just works, and so I've switched to that. Most other things, I'll use the Homebrew version, but Postgres it's now Postgres.app. It's not even a command line install, and it works fine for me. STEPHANIE: Nice. Yeah. That's interesting. That's a good tip. I'll have to look into that next time because I have also certainly had to just install so many [laughs] various versions of Postgres and figure out what's going on with them every time I upgrade my OS. I'm with you, though, in terms of the packages world I'm looking for, it works [laughs]. JOËL: So, you'd mentioned earlier that packages is sort of an area that's a bit of a need-to-know basis for you. Are there, like, particular moments in your career that you remember like, oh, that's the moment where I needed to, like, take some time and learn a little bit of the next level of packages? STEPHANIE: That's a great question. I think the very beginnings of understanding how package versions work when you have multiple projects on your machine; I just remember that being really confusing for me. When I started out, like, you know, as soon as I cloned my second repo [laughs], and was very confused about, like, I'm sure I went through the process of not installing gems using Bundler, and then just having so much chaos [laughs] wrecked in my development environment and, you know, having to ask someone, "I don't understand how this works. Like, why is it saying I have multiple versions of this library or whatever?" JOËL: Have you ever sudo gem installed a gem? STEPHANIE: Oh yeah, I definitely have. I can't [laughs], like, even give a good reason for why I have done it, but I probably was just, like, pulling my hair out, and that's what Stack Overflow told me to do. I don't know if I can recommend that, but it is [chuckles] one thing to do when you just are kind of totally stuck. JOËL: There was a time where I think that that was in the READMEs for most projects. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's a really good point. JOËL: So, that's probably why a lot of people end up doing that, but then it tends to install it for your system Ruby rather than for...because if you're using something like Rbenv or RVM or ASDF to manage multiple Ruby versions, those end up being what's using or even Homebrew to manage your Ruby. It wouldn't be installing it for those versions of Ruby. It would be installing it for the one that shipped with your Mac. I actually...you know what? I don't even know if Mac still ships with Ruby. It used to. It used to ship with a really old version of Ruby, and so the advice was like, "Hey, every repo tells you to install it with sudo; don't do that. It will mess you up." STEPHANIE: Huh. I think Mac still does ship with Ruby, but don't quote me on that [laughter]. And I think that's really funny that, like, yeah, people were just writing those instructions in READMEs. And I'm glad that we've collectively [laughs] figured out that difference and want to, hopefully, not let other developers fall into that trap [laughs]. Do you have a particular memory or experience when you had to kind of level up your knowledge about the package ecosystem? JOËL: I think one sort of moment where I really had to level up is when I started really needing to understand how install paths worked, especially when you have, let's say, multiple versions of a gem installed because you have different projects. And you want to know, like, how does it know which one it's using? And then you see, oh, there are different paths that point to different directories with the installs. Or when you might have an executable you've installed via Homebrew, and it's like, oh yeah, so I've got this, like, command that I run on my shell, but actually that points to a very particular path, you know, in my Homebrew directory. But maybe it could also point to some, like, pre-installed system binaries or some other custom things I've done. So, there was a time where I had to really learn about how the path shell variable worked on a machine in order to really understand how the packages I installed were sometimes showing up when I invoked a binary and sometimes not. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is another really great example that I have memories of [laughs] being really frustrated by, especially if...because, you know, we had talked earlier about all the different ways that you can install applications on your system, and you don't always know where they end up [laughs]. JOËL: And this particular memory is tied to debugging Postgres because, you know, you're installing Postgres, and some paths aren't working. Or maybe you try to update Postgres and now it's like, oh, but, like, I'm still loading the wrong one. And why does PSQL not do the thing that I think it does? And so, that forced me to learn a little bit about, like, under the hood, what happens when I type brew install PostgreSQL? And how does that mesh with the way my shell interprets commands and things like that? So, it was maybe a little bit of a painful experience but eye-opening and definitely then led to me, I think, being able to debug my setup much more effectively in the future. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I like that you also pointed out how it was interacting with your shell because that's, like, another can of worms, right? [laughs] In terms of just the complexity of how these things are talking to each other. JOËL: And for those of our listeners who are not familiar with this, there is a shell command that you can use called which, W-H-I-C-H. And you can prefix that in front of another command, and it will tell you the path that it's using for that binary. So, in my case, if I'm looking like, why is this PSQL behaving weirdly or seems to be using the old version, I can type 'which space psql', and it'll say, "Oh, it's going to this path." And I can look at it and be like, oh, it's using my system install of Postgres. It's not using the Homebrew one. Or, oh, maybe it's using the Homebrew install, not my Postgres.app version. I need to, like, tinker with the paths a little bit. So, that has definitely helped me debug my package system more than once. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's a really good tip. I can recall just totally uninstalling everything [laughs] and reinstalling and fingers crossed it would figure out a route to the right thing [laughs]. JOËL: You know what? That works. It's not the, like, most precise solution but resetting your environment when all else fails it's not a bad solution. So, we've been talking a lot about what it's like to interact with a package ecosystem as developers, as users of packages, but what if you're a package developer? Sometimes, there's a very clear-cut place where to publish, and sometimes it's a little bit grayer. So, I could see, you know, I'm developing a database, and I want that to be on operating systems, probably should be a system-level package rather than a Ruby gem. But what if I'm building some kind of command line tool, and I write it in Ruby because I like writing Ruby? Should I publish that as a gem, or should I publish that as some kind of system package that's installed via Homebrew? Any opinions or heuristics that you would use to choose where to publish on one side or the other? STEPHANIE: As not a package developer [laughs], I can only answer from that point of view. That is interesting because if you publish on a, you know, like, a system repository, then yeah, like, you might get a lot more people using your tool out there because you're not just targeting a specific language's community. But I don't know if I have always enjoyed downloading various things to my system's OS. I think that actually, like, is a bit complicated for me or, like, I try to avoid it if I can because if something can be categorized or, like, containerized in a way that, like, feels right for my mental model, you know, if it's written in Ruby or something really related to things I use Ruby in, it could be nice to have that installed in my, like, systems RubyGems. But I would be really interested to hear if other people have opinions about where they might want to publish a package and what kind of developers they're hoping to find to use their tool. JOËL: I like the heuristic that you mentioned here, the idea of who the audience is because, yeah, as a Ruby developer who already has a Ruby setup, it might be easier for me to install something via a gem. But if I'm not a Ruby developer who wants to use the packages maybe a little bit more generic, you know, let's say, I don't know, it's some sort of command line tool for interacting with GitHub or something like that. And, like, it happens to be written in Ruby, but you don't particularly care about that as a user of this. Maybe you don't have Ruby installed and now you've got to, like, juggle, like, oh, what is RubyGems, and Bundler, and all this stuff? And I've definitely felt that occasionally downloading packages sort of like, oh, this is a Python package. And you're going to need to, like, set up all this stuff. And it's maybe designed for a Python audience. And so, it's like, oh, you're going to set up a virtual environment and all these things. I'm like, I just want your command line tools. I don't want to install a whole language. And so, sometimes there can be some frustration there. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is very true. Before you even said that, I was like, oh, I've definitely wanted to download a command line tool and be like, first install [laughs] Python. And I'm like, nope, I'm bailing out of this. JOËL: On the other hand, as a developer, it can be a lot harder to write something that's a bit more cross-platform and managing all that. And I've had to deal a little bit with this for thoughtbot's Parity tool, which is a command-line tool for working with Heroku. It allows you to basically run commands on either staging or production by giving you a staging command and a production command for common Heroku CLI tasks, which makes it really nice if you're working and you're having to do some local, some development, some staging, and some production things all from your command line. It initially started as a gem, and we thought, you know what? This is mostly command line, and it's not just Rubyists who use Heroku. Let's try to put this on Homebrew. But then it depends on Ruby because it's written in Ruby. And now we had to make sure that we marked Ruby as a dependency in Homebrew, which meant that Homebrew would then also pull in Ruby as a dependency. And that got a little bit messy. For a while, we even experimented with sort of briefly available technology called Traveling Ruby that allowed you to embed Ruby in your binary, and you could compile against that. That had some drawbacks. So, we ended up rolling that back as well. And eventually, just for maintenance ease, we went back to making this a Ruby gem and saying, "Look, you install it via RubyGems." It does mean that we're targeting more of the Ruby community. It's going to be a little bit harder for other people to install, but it is easier for us to maintain. STEPHANIE: That's really interesting. I didn't know that history about Parity. It's a tool that I have used recently and really enjoyed. But yeah, I think I remember someone having some issues between installing it as a gem and installing it via Homebrew and some conflicts there as well. So, I can also see how trying to decide or maybe going down one path and then realizing, oh, like, maybe we want to try something else is certainly not trivial. JOËL: I think, in me, I have a little bit of the idealist and the pragmatist that fight. The idealist says, "Hey, if it's not, like, aimed for Ruby developers as a, like, you can pull this into your codebase, if it's just command line tools and the fact that it's written in Ruby is an implementation detail, that should be a system package. Do not distribute binaries via RubyGems." That's the idealist in me. The pragmatist says, "Oh, that's a lot of work and not always worth it for both the maintainers and sometimes for the users, and so it's totally okay to ship binaries as RubyGems." STEPHANIE: I was totally thinking that I'm sure that you've been in that position of being a user and trying to download a system package and then seeing it start to download, like, another language. And you're like, wait, what? [laughter] That's not what I want. JOËL: So, you and I have shared some of our heuristics in the way we approach this problem. Now, I'm curious to hear from the audience. What are some heuristics that you use to decide whether your package is better shipped on RubyGems versus, let's say, Homebrew? Or maybe as a user, what do you prefer to consume? STEPHANIE: Yes. And speaking of getting listener feedback, we're also looking for some listener questions. We're hoping to do a bit of a grab-bag episode where we answer your questions. So, if you have anything that you're wanting to hear me and Joël's thoughts on, write us at hosts@bikeshed.fm. JOËL: On that note, shall we wrap up? STEPHANIE: Let's wrap up. Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeeee!!!!!!! AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at: tbot.io/referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions.

Hey everyone! The One Drink Book Club is usually a benefit for paid members, but I decided to open this one episode up to everyone because it was so fun and covered so much cool ground. The One-Drink Book Club is an informal, (almost) weekly series in which fellow author Emma Lee Jayne joins me and our other creative friends to talk about the life, business, and art of writing and making books … for the duration of one Friday-afternoon drink. Today, Emma drank a gin and tonic with a splash of cranberry, Mike (new to the ODBC, standing in for Bill) poured himself a vodka tonic without a twist, and I had a glass of Freakshow Zinfandel. Here's what we talked about in this episode: * Mike prompted Emma and I with a question: Do writers get creative when they want to decompress like non-writers?* I got a bunch of newly-printed hardback books in the mail and showed off the details that make them special and the excitement that makes me want to do more and more.* My further plans for “making beautiful books” going forward.* Emma's new “Writing and Taylor Swift” podcast is coming soon, following a hostel-chaos and illness incident. * My plans to form stronger bonds with my cherished readers … * … which rolled into me gushing about my True Fandom of Bob Schneider and his new audio waveform art …* … which led to a really cool discussion of our philosophies on what fans want most, and how we can best give them. * We ended by acknowledging the excellent noises of Mike's dog Freddy, who sounds like Chewbacca.If you liked this episode of the ODBC, you should absolutely become a member of this substack. You'll get new ODBC episodes [almost] every week in addition to the other subscriber benefits and will also be endorsing the arts like a champ and supporting the folks who make the things you enjoy, like me. Membership only costs a few bucks a month and is more soul-fulfilling and karmically rad than buying one more Starbucks quad-shot instead.Remember: Listening to podcasts on Substack is kind of balls. If you're going to listen to the ODBC and all other podcast episodes, you really should visit The Art of Noticing podcast on Apple Podcasts (ODBC episodes are on the Art of Noticing feed for members) or on other podcast directories. Subscribing and listening there, rather than here in your browser, is a far better — and far more mobile and multitasking-friendly — way to listen. (If you're a paid member, you'll receive your own private podcast feed that includes all the paid episodes as well as the free ones. Members should listen to YOUR feed, not the one I lined to above.) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnnybtruant.substack.com/subscribe

Stephanie is hosting a holiday cookie swap. Joël talks about participating in thoughtbot's end-of-the-year hackathon, Ralphapalooza. We had a great year on the show! The hosts wrap up the year and discuss their favorite episodes, the articles, books, and blog posts they've read and loved, and other highlights of 2023 (projects, conferences, etc). Olive Oil Sugar Cookies With Pistachios & Lemon Glaze (https://food52.com/recipes/82228-olive-oil-sugar-cookies-recipe-with-pistachios-lemon) thoughtbot's Blog (https://thoughtbot.com/blog) Episode 398: Developing Heuristics For Writing Software (https://www.bikeshed.fm/398) Episode 374: Discrete Math (https://www.bikeshed.fm/374) Episode 405: Sandi Metz's Rules (https://www.bikeshed.fm/405) Episode 391: Learn with APPL (https://www.bikeshed.fm/391) Engineering Management for the Rest of Us (https://www.engmanagement.dev/) Confident Ruby (https://pragprog.com/titles/agcr/confident-ruby/) Working with Maybe from Elm Europe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43eM4kNbb6c) Sustainable Rails Book (https://sustainable-rails.com/) Episode 368: Sustainable Web Development (https://www.bikeshed.fm/368) Domain Modeling Made Functional (https://pragprog.com/titles/swdddf/domain-modeling-made-functional/) Simplifying Tests by Extracting Side Effects (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/simplify-tests-by-extracting-side-effects) The Math Every Programmer Needs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzYYT40T8G8) Mermaid.js sequence diagrams (https://mermaid.js.org/syntax/sequenc) Sense of Belonging and Software Teams (https://www.drcathicks.com/post/sense-of-belonging-and-software-teams) Preemptive Pluralization is (Probably) Not Evil (https://www.swyx.io/preemptive-pluralization) Digging through the ashes (https://everythingchanges.us/blog/digging-through-the-ashes/) Transcript: JOËL: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Joël Quenneville. STEPHANIE: And I'm Stephanie Minn. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. JOËL: So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: I am so excited to talk about this. I'm, like, literally smiling [chuckles] because I'm so pumped. Sometimes, you know, we get on to record, and I'm like, oh, I got to think of something that's new, like, my life is so boring. I have nothing to share. But today, I am excited to tell you about [chuckles] the holiday cookie swap that I'm hosting this Sunday [laughs] that I haven't been able to stop thinking about or just thinking about all the cookies that I'm going to get to eat. It's going to be my first time throwing this kind of shindig, and I'm so pleased with myself because it's such a great idea. You know, it's like, you get to share cookies, and you get to have all different types of cookies, and then people get to take them home. And I get to see all my friends. And I'm really [chuckles] looking forward to it. JOËL: I don't think I've ever been to a cookie swap event. How does that work? Everybody shows up with cookies, and then you leave with what you want? STEPHANIE: That's kind of the plan. I think it's not really a...there's no rules [laughs]. You can make it whatever you want it to be. But I'm asking everyone to bring, like, two dozen cookies. And, you know, I'm hoping for a lot of fun variety. Myself I'm planning on making these pistachio olive oil cookies with a lemon glaze and also, maybe, like, a chewy ginger cookie. I haven't decided if I'm going to go so extra to make two types, but we'll see. And yeah, we'll, you know, probably have some drinks and be playing Christmas music, and yeah, we'll just hang out. And I'm hoping that everyone can kind of, like, take home a little goodie bag of cookies as well because I don't think we'll be going through all of them. JOËL: Hearing you talk about this gave me an absolutely terrible idea. STEPHANIE: Terrible or terribly awesome? [laughs] JOËL: So, imagine you have the equivalent of, let's say, a LAN party. You all show up with your laptops. STEPHANIE: [laughs] JOËL: You're on a network, and then you swap browser cookies randomly. STEPHANIE: [laughs] Oh no. That would be really funny. That's a developer's take on a cookie party [laughs] if I've ever heard one. JOËL: Slightly terrifying. Now I'm just browsing, and all of a sudden, I guess I'm logged into your Facebook or something. Maybe you only swap the tracking cookies. So, I'm not actually logged into your Facebook, but I just get to see the different ad networks it would typically show you, and you would see my ads. That's maybe kind of fun or maybe terrifying, depending on what kind of ads you normally see. STEPHANIE: That's really funny. I'm thinking about how it would just be probably very misleading and confusing for those [laughs] analytics spenders, but that's totally fine, too. Might I suggest also having real cookies to munch on as well while you are enjoying [laughs] this browser cookie-swapping party? JOËL: I 100% agree. STEPHANIE: [laughs] JOËL: I'm curious: where do you stand on raisins in oatmeal cookies? STEPHANIE: Ooh. JOËL: This is a divisive question. STEPHANIE: They're fine. I'll let other people eat them. And occasionally, I will also eat an oatmeal cookie with raisins, but I much prefer if the raisins are chocolate chips [chuckles]. JOËL: That is the correct answer. STEPHANIE: [laughs] Thank you. You know, I understand that people like them. They're not for me [laughs]. JOËL: It's okay. Fans can send us hate mail about why we're wrong about oatmeal cookies. STEPHANIE: Yeah, honestly, that's something that I'm okay with being wrong about on the internet [laughs]. So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: So, as of this recording, we've just recently done thoughtbot's end-of-the-year hackathon, what we call Ralphapalooza. And this is sort of a time where you kind of get to do pretty much any sort of company or programming-related activity that you want as long as...you have to pitch it and get at least two other colleagues to join you on the project, and then you've got two days to work on it. And then you can share back to the team what you've done. I was on a project where we were trying to write a lot of blog posts for the thoughtbot blog. And so, we're just kind of getting together and pitching ideas, reviewing each other's articles, writing things at a pretty intense rate for a couple of days, trying to flood the blog with articles for the next few weeks. So, if you're following the blog and as the time this episode gets released, you're like, "Wow, there's been a lot of articles from the thoughtbot blog recently," that's why. STEPHANIE: Yes, that's awesome. I love how much energy that the blog post-writing party garnered. Like, I was just kind of observing from afar, but it sounds like, you know, people who maybe had started posts, like, throughout the year had dedicated time and a good reason to revisit them, even if they had been, you know, kind of just, like, sitting in a draft for a while. And I think what also seemed really nice was people were just around to support, to review, and were able to make that a priority. And it was really cool to see all the blog posts that are queued up for December as a result. JOËL: People wrote some great stuff. So, I'm excited to see all of those come out. I think we've got pretty much a blog post every day coming out through almost the end of December. So, it's exciting to see that much content created. STEPHANIE: Yeah. If our listeners want more thoughtbot content, check out our blog. JOËL: So, as mentioned, we're recording this at the end of the year. And I thought it might be fun to do a bit of a retrospective on what this year has been like for you and I, Stephanie, both in terms of different work that we've done, the learnings we've had, but maybe also look back a little bit on 2023 for The Bike Shed and what that looked like. STEPHANIE: Yes. I really enjoyed thinking about my year and kind of just reveling and having been doing this podcast for over a year now. And yeah, I'm excited to look back a little bit on both things we have mentioned on the show before and things maybe we haven't. To start, I'm wondering if you want to talk a little bit about some of our favorite episodes. JOËL: Favorite episodes, yes. So, I've got a couple that are among my favorites. We did a lot of good episodes this year. I really liked them. But I really appreciated the episode we did on heuristics, that's Episode 398, where we got to talk a little bit about what goes into a good heuristic, how we tend to come up with them. A lot of those, like, guidelines and best practices that you hear people talk about in the software world and how to make your own but then also how to deal with the ones you hear from others in the software community. So, I think that was an episode that the idea, on the surface, seemed really basic, and then we went pretty deep with it. And that was really fun. I think a second one that I really enjoyed was also the one that I did with Sara Jackson as a guest, talking about discrete math and its relevance to the day-to-day work that we do. That's Episode 374. We just had a lot of fun with that. I think that's a topic that more developers, more web developers, would benefit from just getting a little bit more discrete math in their lives. And also, there's a clip in there where Sara reinterprets a classic marketing jingle with some discrete math terms in there instead. It was a lot of fun. So, we'd recommend people checking that one out. STEPHANIE: Nice. Yes. I also loved those episodes. The heuristics one was really great. I'm glad you mentioned it because one of my favorite episodes is kind of along a similar vein. It's one of the more recent ones that we did. It's Episode 405, where we did a bit of a retro on Sandi Metz' Rules For Developers. And those essentially are heuristics, right? And we got to kind of be like, hey, these are someone else's heuristics. How do we feel about them? Have we embodied them ourselves? Do we follow them? What parts do we take or leave? And I just remember having a really enjoyable conversation with you about that. You and I have kind of treated this podcast a little bit like our own two-person book club [laughs]. So, it felt a little bit like that, right? Where we were kind of responding to, you know, something that we both have read up on, or tried, or whatever. So, that was a good one. Another one of my favorite episodes was Episode 391: Learn with APPL [laughs], in which we basically developed our own learning framework, or actually, credit goes to former Bike Shed host, Steph Viccari, who came up with this fun, little acronym to talk about different things that we all kind of need in our work lives to be fulfilled. Our APPL stands for Adventure, Passion, Profit, and Low risk. And that one was really fun just because it was, like, the opposite of what I just described where we're not discussing someone else's work but discovered our own thing out of, you know, these conversations that we have on the show, conversations we have with our co-workers. And yeah, I'm trying to make it a thing, so I'm plugging it again [laughs]. JOËL: I did really like that episode. One, I think, you know, this APPL framework is a little bit playful, which makes it fun. But also, I think digging into it really gives some insight on the different aspects that are relevant when planning out further growth or where you want to invest your sort of professional development time. And so, breaking down those four elements led to some really insightful conversation around where do I want to invest time learning in the next year? STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. JOËL: By the way, we're mentioning a bunch of our favorite things, some past episodes, and we'll be talking about a lot of other types of resources. We will be linking all of these in the show notes. So, for any of our listeners who are like, "Oh, I wonder what is that thing they mentioned," there's going to be a giant list that you can check out. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I love whenever we are able to put out an episode with a long list of things [laughs]. JOËL: It's one of the fun things that we get to do is like, oh yeah, we referenced all these things. And there is this sort of, like, further reading, more threads to pull on for people who might be interested. So, you'd mentioned, Stephanie, that, you know, sometimes we kind of treat this as our own little mini, like, two-person book club. I know that you're a voracious reader, and you've mentioned so many books over the course of the year. Do you have maybe one or two books that have been kind of your favorites or that have stood out to you over 2023? STEPHANIE: I do. I went back through my reading list in preparation for this episode and wanted to call out the couple of books that I finished. And I think I have, you know, I mentioned I was reading them along the way. But now I get to kind of see how having read them influenced my work life this past year, which is pretty cool. So, one of them is Engineering Management for the Rest of Us by Sarah Drasner. And that's actually one that really stuck with me, even though I'm not a manager; I don't have any plans to become a manager. But one thing that she talks about early on is this idea of having a shared value system. And you can have that at the company level, right? You have your kind of corporate values. You can have that at the team level with this smaller group of people that you get to know better and kind of form relationships with. And then also, part of that is, like, knowing your individual values. And having alignment in all three of those tiers is really important in being a functioning and fulfilled team, I think. And that is something that I don't think was really spelled out very explicitly for me before, but it was helpful in framing, like, past work experiences, where maybe I, like, didn't have that alignment and now identify why. And it has helped me this year as I think about my client work, too, and kind of where I sit from that perspective and helps me realize like, oh, like, this is why I'm feeling this way, and this is why it's not quite working. And, like, what do I do about it now? So, I really enjoyed that. JOËL: Would you recommend this book to others who are maybe not considering a management path? STEPHANIE: Yeah. JOËL: So, even if you're staying in the IC track, at least for now, you think that's a really powerful book for other people. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I would say so. You know, maybe not, like, all of it, but there's definitely parts that, you know, she's writing for the rest of us, like, all of us maybe not necessarily natural born leaders who knew that that's kind of what we wanted. And so, I can see how people, you know, who are uncertain or maybe even, like, really clearly, like, "I don't think that's for me," being able to get something out of, like, either those lessons in leadership or just to feel a bit, like, validated [laughs] about the type of work that they aren't interested in. Another book that I want to plug real quick is Confident Ruby by Avdi Grimm. That one was one I referenced a lot this year, working with newer developers especially. And it actually provided a good heuristic [laughs] for me to talk about areas that we could improve code during code review. I think that wasn't really vocabulary that I'd used, you know, saying, like, "Hey, how confident is this code? How confident is this method and what it will receive and what it's returning?" And I remember, like, several conversations that I ended up having on my teams about, like, return types as a result and them having learned, like, a new way to view their code, and I thought that was really cool. JOËL: I mean, learning to deal with uncertainty and nil in Ruby or maybe even, like, error states is just such a core part of writing software. I feel like this is something that I almost wish everyone was sort of assigned maybe, like, a year into their programming career because, you know, I think the first year there's just so many things you've got to learn, right? Like basic programming and, like, all these things. But, like, you're looking maybe I can start going a little bit deeper into some topic. I think that some topic, like, pretty high up, would be building a mental model for how to deal with uncertainty because it's such a source of bugs. And Avdi Grimm's book, Confident Ruby, is...I would put that, yeah, definitely on a recommended reading list for everybody. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I agree. And I think that's why I found myself, you know, then recommending it to other people on my team and kind of having something I can point to. And that was really helpful in the kind of mentorship that I wanted to offer. JOËL: I did a deep dive into uncertainty and edge cases in programs several years back when I was getting into Elm. And I was giving a talk at Elm Europe about how Elm handles uncertainty, which is a little bit different than how Ruby does it. But a lot of the underlying concepts are very similar in terms of quarantining uncertainty and pushing it to the edges and things like that. Trying to write code that is more confident that is definitely a term that I used. And so Confident Ruby ended up being a little bit of an inspiration for my own journey there, and then, eventually, the talk that I gave that summarized my learnings there. STEPHANIE: Nice. Do you have any reading recommendations or books that stood out to you this year? JOËL: So, I've been reading two technical books kind of in tandem this year. I have not finished either of them, but I have been enjoying them. One is Sustainable Rails by David Bryant Copeland. We had an episode at the beginning of this year where we talked a little bit about our initial impressions from, I think, the first chapter of the book. But I really love that vocabulary of writing Ruby and Rails code, in particular, in a way that is sustainable for a team. And that premise, I think, just gives a really powerful mindset to approach structuring Rails apps. And the other book that I've been reading is Domain Modeling Made Functional, so kind of looking at some domain-driven design ideas. But most of the literature is typically written to an object-oriented audience, so taking a look at it from more of a functional programming perspective has been really interesting. And then I've been, weirdly enough, taking some of those ideas and translating back into the object-oriented world to apply to code I'm writing in Ruby. I think that has been a very useful exercise. STEPHANIE: That's awesome. And it's weird and cool how all those things end up converging, right? And exploring different paradigms really just lets you develop more insight into wherever you're working. JOËL: Sometimes the sort of conversion step that you have to do, that translation, can be a good tool for kind of solidifying learnings or better understanding. So, I'm doing this sort of deep learning thing where I'm taking notes as I go along. And those notes are typically around, what other concepts can I connect ideas in the book? So, I'll be reading and say, okay, on page 150, he mentioned this concept. This reminds me of this idea from TDD. I could see this applying in a different way in an object-oriented world. And interestingly, if you apply this, it sort of converges on maybe single responsibility or whatever other OO principle. And that's a really interesting connection. I always love it when you do see sort of two or three different angles converging together on the same idea. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. JOËL: I've written a blog post, I think, two years ago around how some theory from functional programming sort of OO best practices and then TDD all kind of converge on sort of the same approach to designing software. So, you can sort of go from either direction, and you kind of end in the same place or sort of end up rediscovering principles from the other two. We'll link that in the show notes. But that's something that I found was really exciting. It didn't directly come from this book because, again, I wrote this a couple of years ago. But it is always fun when you're exploring two or three different paradigms, and you find a convergence. It really deepens your understanding of what's happening. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. I like what you said about how this book is different because it is making that connection between things that maybe seem less related on the surface. Like you're saying, there's other literature written about how domain modeling and object-oriented programming make more sense a little bit more together. But it is that, like, bringing in of different schools of thought that can lead to a lot of really interesting discovery about those foundational concepts. JOËL: I feel like dabbling in other paradigms and in other languages has made me a better Ruby developer and a better OO programmer, a lot of the work I've done in Elm. This book that I'm reading is written in F#. And all these things I can kind of bring back, and I think, have made me a better Ruby developer. Have you had any experiences like that? STEPHANIE: Yeah. I think I've talked a little bit about it on the show before, but I can't exactly recall. There were times when my exploration in static typing ended up giving me that different mindset in terms of the next time I was coding in Ruby after being in TypeScript for a while, I was, like, thinking in types a lot more, and I think maybe swung a little bit towards, like, not wanting to metaprogram as much [laughs]. But I think that it was a useful, like you said, exercise sometimes, too, and just, like, doing that conversion or translating in your head to see more options available to you, and then deciding where to go from there. So, we've talked a bit about technical books that we've read. And now I kind of want to get into some in-person highlights for the year because you and I are both on the conference circuit and had some fun trips this year. JOËL: Yeah. So, I spoke at RailsConf this spring. I gave a talk on discrete math and how it is relevant in day-to-day work for developers, actually inspired by that Bike Shed episode that I mentioned earlier. So, that was kind of fun, turning a Bike Shed episode into a conference talk. And then just recently, I was at RubyConf in San Diego, and I gave a talk there around time. We often talk about time as a single quantity, but there's some subtle distinctions, so the difference between a moment in time versus a duration and some of the math that happens around that. And I gave a few sort of visual mental models to help people keep track of that. As of this recording, the talk is not out yet, so we're not going to be able to link to it. But if you're listening to this later in 2024, you can probably just Google RubyConf "Which Time Is It?" That's the name of the talk. And you'll be able to find it. STEPHANIE: Awesome. So, as someone who is giving talks and attending conferences every year, I'm wondering, was this year particularly different in any way? Was there something that you've, like, experienced or felt differently community-wise in 2023? JOËL: Conferences still feel a little bit smaller than they were pre-COVID. I think they are still bouncing back. But there's definitely an energy that's there that's nice to have on the conference scene. I don't know, have you experienced something similar? STEPHANIE: I think I know what you're talking about where, you know, there was that time when we weren't really meeting in person. And so, now we're still kind of riding that wave of, like, getting together again and being able to celebrate and have fun in that way. I, this year, got to speak at Blue Ridge Ruby in June. And that was a first-time regional conference. And so, that was, I think, something I had noticed, too, is the emergence of regional conferences as being more viable options after not having conferences for a few years. And as a regional conference, it was even smaller than the bigger national Ruby Central conferences. I really enjoyed the intimacy of that, where it was just a single track. So, everyone was watching talks together and then was on breaks together, so you could mingle. There was no FOMO of like, oh, like, I can't make this talk because I want to watch this other one. And that was kind of nice because I could, like, ask anyone, "What did you think of, like, X talk or like the one that we just kind of came out of and had that shared experience?" That was really great. And I got to go tubing for the first time [laughs] in Asheville. That's a memory, but I am still thinking about that as we get into winter. I'm like, oh yeah, the glorious days of summer [laughs] when I was getting to float down a lazy river. JOËL: Nice. I wasn't sure if this was floating down a lazy river on an inner tube or if this was someone takes you out on a lake with a speed boat, and you're getting pulled. STEPHANIE: [laughs] That's true. As a person who likes to relax [laughs], I definitely prefer that kind of tubing over a speed boat [laughs]. JOËL: What was the topic of your talk? STEPHANIE: So, I got to give my talk about nonviolent communication in pair programming for a second time. And that was also my first time giving a talk for a second time [laughs]. That was cool, too, because I got to revisit something and go deeper and kind of integrate even more experiences I had. I just kind of realized that even if you produce content once, like, there's always ways to deepen it or shape it a little better, kind of, you know, just continually improving it and as you learn more and as you get more experience and change. JOËL: Yeah. I've never given a talk twice, and now you've got me wondering if that's something I should do. Because making a bespoke talk for every conference is a lot of work, and it might be nice to be able to use it more than once. Especially I think for some of the regional conferences, there might be some value there in people who might not be able to go to a big national conference but would still like to see your talk live. Having a mix of maybe original content and then content that is sort of being reshared is probably a great combo for a regional conference. STEPHANIE: Yeah, definitely. That's actually a really good idea, yeah, to just be able to have more people see that content and access it. I like that a lot. And I think it could be really cool for you because we were just talking about all the ways that our mental models evolve the more stuff that we read and consume. And I think there's a lot of value there. One other conference that I went to this year that I just want to highlight because it was really cool that I got to do this: I went to RubyKaigi in Japan [laughs] back in the spring. And I had never gone to an international conference before, and now I'm itching to do more of that. So, it would be remiss not to mention it [laughs]. I'm definitely inspired to maybe check out some of the conferences outside of the U.S. in 2024. I think I had always been a little intimidated. I was like, oh, like, it's so far [laughs]. Do I really have, like, that good of a reason to make a trip out there? But being able to meet Rubyists from different countries and seeing how it's being used in other parts of the world, I think, made me realize that like, oh yeah, like, beyond my little bubble, there's so many cool things happening and people out there who, again, like, have that shared love of Ruby. And connecting with them was, yeah, just so new and something that I would want to do more of. So, another thing that we haven't yet gotten into is our actual work-work or our client work [laughs] that we do at thoughtbot for this year. Joël, I'm wondering, was there anything especially fun or anything that really stood out to you in terms of client work that you had to do this year? JOËL: So, two things come to mind that were novel for me. One is I did a Rails integration against Snowflake, the data warehouse, using an ODBC connection. We're not going through an API; we're going through this DB connection. And I never had to do that before. I also got to work with the new-ish Rails multi-database support, which actually worked quite nice. That was, I think, a great learning experience. Definitely ran into some weird edge cases, or some days, I was really frustrated. Some days, I was actually, like, digging into the source code of the C bindings of the ODBC gem. Those were not the best days. But definitely, I think, that kind of integration and then Snowflake as a technology was really interesting to explore. The other one that's been really interesting, I think, has been going much deeper into the single sign-on world. I've been doing an integration against a kind of enterprise SAML server that wants to initiate sign-in requests from their portal. And this is a bit of an alphabet soup, but the term here is IdP-initiated SSO. And so, I've been working with...it's a combination of this third-party kind of corporate SAML system, our application, which is a Rails app, and then Auth0 kind of sitting in the middle and getting all of them to talk to each other. There's a ridiculous number of redirects because we're talking SAML on one side and OIDC on the other and getting everything to line up correctly. But that's been a really fun, new set of things to learn. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that does sound complicated [laughs] just based on what you shared with me, but very cool. And I was excited to hear that you had had a good experience with the Rails multi-database part because that was another thing that I remember being...it had piqued my interest when it first came out. I hope I get to, you know, utilize that feature on a project soon because that sounds really fun. JOËL: One thing I've had to do for this SSO project is lean a lot on sequence diagrams, which are those diagrams that sort of show you, like, being redirected from different places, and, like, okay, server one talks to server two talks, to the browser. And so, when I've got so many different actors and sort of controllers being passed around everywhere, it's been hard to keep track of it in my head. And so, I've been doing a lot of these diagrams, both for myself to help understand it during development, and then also as documentation to share back with the team. And I found that Mermaid.js supports sequence diagrams as a diagram type. Long-term listeners of the show will know that I am a sucker for a good diagram. I love using Mermaid for a lot of things because it's supported. You can embed it in a lot of places, including in GitHub comments, pull requests. You can use it in various note systems like Notion or Obsidian. And you can also just generate your own on mermaid.live. And so, that's been really helpful to communicate with the rest of the team, like, "Hey, we've got this whole process where we've got 14 redirects across four different servers. Here's what it looks like. And here, like, we're getting a bug on, you know, redirect number 8 of 14. I wonder why," and then you can start a conversation around debugging that. STEPHANIE: Cool. I was just about to ask what tool you're using to generate your sequence diagrams. I didn't know that Mermaid supported them. So, that's really neat. JOËL: So, last year, when we kind of looked back over 2022, one thing that was really interesting that we did is we talked about what are articles that you find yourself linking to a lot that are just kind of things that maybe were on your mind or that were a big part of conversations that happened over the year? So, maybe for you, Stephanie, in 2023, what are one or two articles that you find yourself sort of constantly linking to other people? STEPHANIE: Yes. I'm excited you asked about this. One of them is an article by a person named Cat Hicks, who has a PhD in experimental psychology. She's a data scientist and social scientist. And lately, she's been doing a lot of research into the sense of belonging on software teams. And I think that's a theme that I am personally really interested in, and I think has kind of been something more people are talking about in the last few years. And she is kind of taking that maybe more squishy idea and getting numbers for it and getting statistics, and I think that's really cool. She points out belonging as, like, a different experience from just, like, happiness and fulfillment, and that really having an impact on how well a team is functioning. I got to share this with a few people who were, you know, just in that same boat of, like, trying to figure out, what are the behaviors kind of on my team that make me feel supported or not supported? And there were a lot of interesting discussions that came out of sharing this article and kind of talking about, especially in software, where we can be a little bit dogmatic. And we've kind of actually joked about it on the podcast [chuckles] before about, like, we TDD or don't TDD, or, you know, we use X tool, and that's just like what we have to do here. She writes a little bit about how that can end up, you know, not encouraging people offering, like, differing opinions and being able to feel like they have a say in kind of, like, the team's direction. And yeah, I just really enjoyed a different way of thinking about it. Joël, what about you? What are some articles you got bookmarked? [chuckles] JOËL: This year, I started using a bookmark manager, Raindrop.io. That's been nice because, for this episode, I could just look back on, what are some of my bookmarks this year? And be like, oh yeah, this is the thing that I have been using a lot. So, an article that I've been linking is an article called Preemptive Pluralization is (Probably) Not Evil. And it kind of talks a little bit about how going from code that works over a collection of two items to a collection of, you know, 20 items is very easy. But sometimes, going from one to two can be really challenging. And when are the times where you might want to preemptively make something more than one item? So, maybe using it has many association rather than it has one or making an attribute a collection rather than a single item. Controversial is not the word for it, but I think challenges a little bit of the way people typically like to write code. But across this year, I've run into multiple projects where they have been transitioning from one to many. That's been an interesting article to surface as part of those conversations. Whether your team wants to do this preemptively or whether they want to put it off and say in classic YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It) form, "We'll make it single for now, and then we'll go plural," that's a conversation for your team. But I think this article is a great way to maybe frame the conversation. STEPHANIE: Cool. Yeah, I really like that almost, like, a counterpoint to YAGNI [laughs], which I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that out loud [laughs] before. But as soon as you said preemptive pluralization is not evil, I thought about all the times that I've had to, like, write code, text in which a thing, a variable could be either one or many [laughs] things. And I was like, ooh, maybe this will solve that problem for me [laughs]. JOËL: Speaking of pluralization, I'm sure you've been linking to more than just one article this year. Do you have another one that you find yourself coming up in conversations where you've always kind of like, "Hey, dropping this link," where it's almost like your thing? STEPHANIE: Yes. And that is basically everything written by Mandy Brown [laughs], who is a work coach that I actually started working with this year. And one of the articles that really inspired me or really has been a topic of conversation among my friends and co-workers is she has a blog post called Digging Through the Ashes. And it's kind of a meditation on, like, post burnout or, like, what's next, and how we have used this word as kind of a catch-all to describe, you know, this collective sense of being just really tired or demoralized or just, like, in need of a break. And what she offers in that post is kind of, like, some suggestions about, like, how can we be more specific here and really, you know, identify what it is that you're needing so that you can change how you engage with work? Because burnout can mean just that you are bored. It can mean that you are overworked. It can mean a lot of things for different people, right? And so, I definitely don't think I'm alone [laughs] in kind of having to realize that, like, oh, these are the ways that my work is or isn't changing and, like, where do I want to go next so that I might feel more sustainable? I know that's, like, a keyword that we talked about earlier, too. And that, on one hand, is both personal but also technical, right? It, like, informs the kinds of decisions that we make around our codebase and what we are optimizing for. And yeah, it is both technical and cultural. And it's been a big theme for me this year [laughs]. JOËL: Yeah. Would you say it's safe to say that sustainability would be, if you want to, like, put a single word on your theme for the year? Would that be a fair word to put there? STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think so. Definitely discovering what that means for me and helping other people discover what that means for them, too. JOËL: I feel like we kicked off the year 2023 by having that discussion of Sustainable Rails and how different technical practices can make the work there feel sustainable. So, I think that seems to have really carried through as a theme through the year for you. So, that's really cool to have seen that. And I'm sure listeners throughout the year have heard you mention these different books and articles. Maybe you've also been able to pick up a little bit on that. So, I'm glad that we do this show because you get a little bit of, like, all the bits and pieces in the day-to-day, and then we aggregate it over a year, and you can look back. You can be like, "Oh yeah, I definitely see that theme in your work." STEPHANIE: Yeah, I'm glad you pointed that out. It is actually really interesting to see how something that we had talked about early, early on just had that thread throughout the year. And speaking of sustainability, we are taking a little break from the show to enjoy the holidays. We'll be off for a few weeks, and we will be back with a new Bike Shed in January. JOËL: Cheers to a new year. STEPHANIE: Yeah, cheers to a new year. Wrapping up 2023. And we will see you all in 2024. JOËL: On that note, shall we wrap up the whole year? STEPHANIE: Let's wrap up. Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeee!!!!!!! AD: Did you know thoughtbot has a referral program? If you introduce us to someone looking for a design or development partner, we will compensate you if they decide to work with us. More info on our website at tbot.io/ referral. Or you can email us at referrals@thoughtbot.com with any questions.

Joël shares he has been getting more into long-form reading. Stephanie talks about the challenges she faced in a new project that required integrating with another company's system. Together, they delve into the importance of search techniques for developers, covering various approaches to finding information online. Domain Modeling Made Functional (https://pragprog.com/titles/swdddf/domain-modeling-made-functional/) Episode on heuristics (https://www.bikeshed.fm/398) Episode on specialized vocabulary (https://www.bikeshed.fm/356) Episode on discrete math (https://www.bikeshed.fm/374) Joël's discrete math talk at RailsConf (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzYYT40T8G8) Dash (https://kapeli.com/dash) Alfred (https://www.alfredapp.com/) Indiana Jones and the Crypt of Cryptic Error Messages (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/indiana-jones-and-the-crypt-of-cryptic-error-messages) Browser History confessional by Kevin Murphy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7LkHjJdH9o) Transcript: STEPHANIE: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Stephanie Minn. JOËL: And I'm Joël Quenneville. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: Something I've been trying to do recently is get more into long-form reading. I read quite a bit of technical content, but most of it are short articles, blog posts, that kind of thing. And I've not read, like, an actual software-related book in a few years, or at least not completed a software-related book. I've started a few chapters in a few. So, something I've been trying to do recently is set aside some time. It's on my calendar. Every week, I've got an hour sit down, read a long-form book, and take notes. STEPHANIE: That's really cool. I actually really enjoy reading technical stuff in a long-form format. In fact, I was similarly kind of trying to do it, you know, once a week, spend a little bit of time in the mornings. And what was really nice about that is, especially if I had, like, a physical copy of the book, I could close my computer and just be completely focused on the content itself. I also love blog posts and articles. We are always talking on the show about, you know, stuff we've read on the internet. But I think there's something very comprehensive, and you can dig really deep and get a very deeper understanding of a topic through a book that kind of has that continuity. JOËL: Right. You can build up a larger idea have more depth. A larger idea can also cover more breadth. A good blog post, typically, is very focused on a single thing, the kind of thing that would really probably only be a single chapter in a book. STEPHANIE: Has your note-taking system differed when you're applying it to something longer than just an article? JOËL: So, what I try to do when I'm reading is I have just one giant note for the whole book. And I'm not trying to capture elements or, like, summarize a chapter necessarily. Instead, I'm trying to capture connections that I make. So, if there's a concept or an argument that reminds me of something perhaps similar in a different domain or a similar argument that I saw made by someone else in a different place, I'll capture notes on that. Or maybe it reminds me of a diagram that I drew the other day or of some work I did on a client six months ago. And so, it's capturing all those connections is what I'm trying to do in my notes. And then, later on, I can kind of go back and synthesize those and say, okay, is there anything interesting here that I might want to pull out as an actual kind of idea note in my larger note-taking system? STEPHANIE: Cool, yeah. I also do a similar thing where I have one big note for the whole book. And when I was doing this, I was even trying to summarize each chapter if I could or at least like jot down some takeaways or some insights or lines that I like felt were really compelling to me. And, like, something I would want to, in some ways, like, have created some, like, marker for me to remember, oh, I really liked something in this chapter. And then, from there, if I didn't capture the whole idea in my note, I knew where I could go to revisit the content. JOËL: And did you find that was helpful for you when you came back to the book? STEPHANIE: Yeah, it did. I usually can recall how, like, I felt reading something. You know, if something was really inspiring to me or really relatable, I can recall that, like, I had that experience or emotion. And it's just, like, trying to find where that was and that this is a system that has worked well for me. Though, I will say that summarizing each chapter did kind of remind me of, like, how we learned how to take notes in school. [laughs] And I think, you know, middle school, or whatever, I recall a particular note-taking format, where you, you know, split the page up into, like, an outline with all the chapters, and you tried to summarize it. And so, it did feel a little bit like homework [laughs]. But I can also see the value in why they taught me how to do that. JOËL: I was recently having a conversation with someone else about the idea of almost, like, assigning yourself the college-style essay question after finishing a book to try to synthesize what you learned. STEPHANIE: Whoa, that's really cool. I can see how that would really, like, push you to synthesize and process what you might have just consumed. And, also, I'm so glad I'm not in school anymore [laughs] so that I don't have to do that on a regular basis. [laughs] I'm curious, Joël, what book are you reading right now? JOËL: I've been reading Domain Modeling Made Functional, which is a really interesting intersection between functional programming, Domain-Driven Design (DDD), and a lot of interesting kind of type theory. And so, that sort of intersection of those three Venn diagrams leads to this really fascinating book that I've been going through. And I think it connects with a lot of other things that I've been thinking about. So, I'll be reading and be like, oh, this reminds me of this concept that we have in test-driven development. Or this reminds me of this idea that we do when we do a product design sprint. And this reminds me of this principle from object-oriented design. And now I'm starting to make all these really interesting connections. STEPHANIE: Awesome. Well, I hope to hear more about what you've learned or kind of what you're thinking about going through this book in future episodes. JOËL: This is not the last time we hear about this book, I'm pretty sure. So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: So, I have a little bit of a work update to share. So, lately, I've been brought in to work on a feature that is integrating with another company's system. And the way that I was brought into this work was honestly just being assigned a task. And I was picking up this work, and I was kind of going through the requirements that had been specked out for me, and I was trying to get started. And then, I realized that I actually had a lot of questions. It just wasn't quite fully fleshed out for the level of detail that I needed for implementing. And for the past couple of weeks, we've been chatting in Slack back and forth as I tried to get some of my questions answered. They are trying to help me, but also the things that I'm saying end up confusing them as well. And then, I end up having to try and figure out what they're looking for in order to properly respond to them. And I had not met these people before. These are folks from that other company. And, you know, I'd only just seen their little Slack profile pictures. So, I didn't know who they were. I didn't know what role they had and kind of, like, what perspective they were coming to these conversations from. And after a while, I was feeling a little stressed out because we just kept having this back and forth, and not a lot of answers were coming to fruition. And I really ended up needing the nudge of the manager on my client team to set up a meeting for us to all just talk synchronously. And I think I had...not that I had been avoiding it necessarily, but I guess I was under the impression that we were at the point where we could just, you know, shoot off a question in Slack and that there would be a clear path forward. But the more we kept pulling on that thread, the more I realized that, oh, like, we have a lot of ambiguity here. And it really helped to meet them finally, not in person but, like, over a video call. [laughs] So, this happened yesterday. And, you know, even just, like, going around doing introductions, like, sharing what their role was at the company helped me just understand, like, who I was talking to. You know, I realized, oh, like, the level of technical details that I had been providing was maybe too much for this group. And I was able to have a better understanding of what their needs were, like hearing kind of the problem that they had on their end. And I realized that, oh, like, they actually aren't going to provide me the details for implementation that I was looking for. That's up to me. But at least now I know what their higher-level needs are so that I can make the most informed decisions that I can. JOËL: Fascinating. So, you thought that this was going to be, like, the technical team you're going to work with. And it turns out that this was not who they were. STEPHANIE: In some ways. I think I thought by providing more technical details that would be helpful, but it ended up being more confusing for them. And I think I was similarly kind of frustrated because the ways that I was asking questions or communicating also wasn't getting me the answers that I needed as well. But I felt really great after the meeting because I'm like, wow, you know, it doesn't have to be as stressful. You know, when you start getting into that back and forth on Slack, at least I find it a bit stressful. And it turns out that the antidote to that was just getting together and getting to know each other and hashing out the ambiguity, which does seem to work better in a more synchronous format. JOËL: Do you have kind of a preference for synchronous versus asynchronous when it comes to communication? STEPHANIE: That's a good question. I think it's kind of a pendulum for me. I'm in my asynchronous communication is a bit better for me right now phase, but only because I am just so burnt out on meetings a lot of the time that I'm like, oh, like, I really don't want to add another meeting to my calendar, especially because...I amend my statement; I'm burned out of meetings that don't go well. [laughs] And this meeting, in particular, was different because, you know, I realized, like, oh, like, we are not on the same page, and so how can we get there? And kind of making sure that we were focused on that as an agenda. And I found that ultimately worked out better than the async situation that I was describing, which I'm thinking now, you know when things aren't clear, text-based communication certainly does not help with that. JOËL: So, meetings, sometimes they're actually good. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's my enlightened discovery this week. JOËL: So, this episode is kind of a special one. We've just hit 400 episodes of The Bike Shed. So, this is episode number 400. It's also my 50th Episode as a co-host. STEPHANIE: Right. That's a huge deal. 400 is a really big number. I don't know if I've ever done 400 of anything before [laughs]. JOËL: The Bike Shed has been going on for almost ten years now. The first episode up on the website is from October 31st, 2014, so just about nine years from that first episode. STEPHANIE: Wow. And it's still going strong. That's really awesome. I think it's really special to be a part of something that has been going on for this long. And, I don't know, maybe there are still listeners today from back in 2014. I would be really excited to hear if anyone out there has been listening to The Bike Shed throughout its whole lifespan. That's really cool. JOËL: Looking back over the last 50-ish episodes you and I have done, do you have a favorite episode that we've recorded? STEPHANIE: This may be a bit of recency bias. But the episode that we did about Software Heuristics I really enjoyed. Because I think we got to bring to the table some of the things we believe and the way we like to do things and kind of compare and contrast that with each other. And I always find people's processes very fascinating. Like, I want to know how you think and where your brain is at when you approach a problem. So, I really enjoyed that topic. What about you? Do you have any highlight episodes? JOËL: I think there's probably two for me. One is the episode that you and I did on Specialized Vocabulary. I think this really touched on a lot of really interesting aspects of writing software that's going to scale, software that works for a team, and also kind of personal growth and exploration. The second one that I think was really fun was the episode I did with Sara Jackson as a guest talking about Discrete Math because that's an episode that I got really excited about the topic. And right after recording the episode, it was the last day of the call for proposals for RailsConf. And I just took that raw excitement, put together a proposal, hit submit before the deadline. And it got accepted and got turned into a talk that I got to give on stage. So, that was, like, just a really fun journey from exciting episode with Sara and then, like, randomly turned into a conference talk. STEPHANIE: That's awesome. That makes me feel so happy. Because it just reminds me about how the stuff we talk about on the show can really resonate with people, you know, enough to become a conference talk that people want to attend. And I also really like that a lot of the topics we've gotten into in the past 50 episodes when we've taken over the show have been a bit more evergreen and just about, you know, the software development experience and a little bit less tied to specific news within the community. Speaking of evergreen topics, today, I wanted to discuss with you an evergreen software skill, and that is searching or Search-Driven Development, even if you will. JOËL: Gotta always get that three-letter acronym, something DD. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I am really curious about how we're going to approach this topic because a lot of folks might joke that a big part of writing software is knowing what to Google. Do you agree with that statement or not? JOËL: Yes and no. There's definitely value in knowing what to Google. It really depends on the kind of work that you're doing. I find that I don't Google that much these days. There are other tools that I use when I'm particularly, like, searching through documentation, but they tend to be less sort of open-ended questions and more where it's like, oh, let's get the actual documentation for this particular class or this particular method from the standard library. STEPHANIE: Oh, interesting. I like that you pointed out that there are different scopes of things you might want to search for. So, am I hearing correctly that when you have something specific in mind that you are just trying to recall or wanting to look up, you know, you're still using search that way, but less so if you are trying to figure out how to approach solving a problem? JOËL: So, oftentimes, if I'm working with a language that I already have familiarity with or a framework that I have familiarity with, I'm going to lean on something more specific. So, I'm going to say, okay, well, I don't exactly remember, like, the argument order for Enumerable's inject method. Is it memo then item, or item then memo? So, I'll just look it up. But I know that the inject method exists. I know what it does. I just don't remember the exact specifics of how to do that. Or maybe I want to write a file to disk, and I don't remember the exact method or syntax to do that. There are some ways that you can do it using a bunch of instance methods. But I think there's also a class method that allows you to kind of do it all at once. So, maybe I just want to look up the documentation for the file class in Ruby and read through that a little bit. That's the kind of thing where I suppose I could also Google, you know, how to save file Ruby, something like that. But for those sorts of things where I already roughly know what I want to do, I find it's often easier just to go directly to the docs. STEPHANIE: Yeah, yeah, that's a great tip. And I actually have a little shortcut to share. I started using DuckDuckGo as my search engine in the past year or so. And there's this really cool feature called Bangs for directly searching on specific sites. From my search bar, I can do, let's say, bang Rails and then my query. And it will search directly the Rails Guides website for me instead of, you know, just showing the normal other results that might come up in my regular search engine. And the same goes for bang Ruby doc. That one shows ruby-doc.org, which is my preferred [laughs] Ruby documentation website. I've really been enjoying it because, you know, it just takes that extra step out of having to either navigate to the site itself first or starting more broadly with my search engine and then just scrolling to find the site that I'm looking for. JOËL: Yeah. I think having some kind of dedicated flow helps a lot. I have a system that I use on my machine. It is Mac-specific. But I use a combination of the application Dash and the application Alfred. It allows me, with just a few keyboard shortcuts, to type out language names. So, I might say, you know, Ruby inject, and then it'll show me all the classes that have that method defined on it, hit Enter, and it pops up the documentation. It's downloaded on my machine, so it works offline. And it's just, you know, a few key presses. And that works really nicely for me. STEPHANIE: Oh, offline search. That's really nice. Because then if you're coding on a plane or something, then [laughs] you don't have to be blocked because you can't look up that little, small piece of information you need to move forward. That's very cool. JOËL: That is really cool. I don't know how often I've really leaned into the offline part of it. I don't know about you; I feel like I don't code on airplanes as much as I thought I would. STEPHANIE: That's fair. I also don't code on airplanes, but the idea that I could is very compelling to me. [laughs] JOËL: Absolutely. So, that's the kind of searches that I tend to do when I'm working in a language that I already know, kind of a day-to-day language that I'm using, or a framework that I'm already pretty familiar with. And this is just looking at all the things I haven't gotten to the point where I've fully memorized, but I have a good understanding of. What about situations where maybe you're a little bit less familiar with? So maybe it's a new framework, or even, like, a situation where you're not really sure how to proceed. How do you search when there's more uncertainty? STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's a good question. I do think I start a bit naively. The reason that we're able to be more specific and know exactly where to go is because we've built up this experience over time of scrolling through search results and clicking, you know, maybe all of them on the first page, even, and looking at them and being like, oh, like, this is not what I want. And then, seeing something else, it's like, oh, this is more helpful and kind of arrived at sources that we trust. And so, if it's something new, I don't really mind just going for a basic search, right? And starting more broadly might even be helpful in that process of building up the experience to figure out which places are reputable for the thing that I'm trying to figure out. JOËL: Yeah, especially when there's a whole new landscape, right? You don't really know what are the places that have good information and the ones that don't. For some things, there might be, like, an obvious first place to start. So, recently, I was on a project where I was trying to do an integration between a Rails app and a Snowflake data warehouse. And so, the first thing I did—I'm not randomly Googling—I went to the Snowflake website, their developer portal, and started reading through documentation for things. Unfortunately, a lot of the documentation is a bit more corporatey and not really helpful for Ruby-specific implementation. So, there's a few pieces that were useful. There were some links that they had that sent me to some good places. But beyond that, I did have to drop to Google search and try to find out what kinds of other things the community had done that could be helpful. Now, that first pass, though, did teach me some interesting things. It gave me some good keywords to search for. So, more than just Ruby plus Snowflake or something like that like, I knew that I likely was going to want to do some kind of connection via ODBC. So, now I could say, okay, Ruby plus ODBC integration, or Ruby plus ODBC driver and see what's happening there. And it turns out that one of the really common use cases for ODBC and Ruby is specifically to talk to Snowflake. And one of the top results was an article saying, "Hey, here's how you can use ODBC to get your Rails app to talk to Rails." And then I knew I struck gold. STEPHANIE: That's really cool. The thing that I was picking up on in what you were saying is the idea of finding what is most relevant to you. And maybe that is something that the algorithm serves you because, like, it's, like, what a lot of people are searching for, you know, a lot of people are engaging with, or matching with all these keywords that you're using. My little hack that I've been [chuckles] using is to use Slack and lean on other people who have maybe a little more, even just, like, a little more experience than me on the subject, and seeing, like, what things they're linking to, and what resources they're sharing. And I've found that to be really helpful as a place to start. Because, at that point like, my co-workers are narrowing down the really broad landscape for me. JOËL: I really like how you're sort of you're redefining the question a little bit here. And that, I think, when we talk about search, there's almost this implicit assumption that search is going to be searching the public internet through Google or some other alternative search engine. But you're talking about actually searching from my private corpus of data, in this case, either thoughtbot or maybe the client's Slack conversations, and pulling up information there that might be much more relevant or much more specific to the work that you're trying to do. STEPHANIE: Yeah. In some ways, I like to think of it as crowd-sourced but, like, a crowd that I trust and, you know, know is relevant to me and what I'm working on. I actually have a fun fact for you. Did you know that Slack is actually an acronym? JOËL: No, I did not know that. What does it stand for? STEPHANIE: It stands for Searchable Log of All Communication and Knowledge. JOËL: That is incredibly clever. I wonder, is this the thing where they came up with that when they made the original name? Or did someone go back later on, you know, a few years into Slack's life and was like, you know what? Our name could be a cool acronym; here's an idea. STEPHANIE: I'm pretty sure it was created in Slack's early days. And I think it might have even helped decide that Slack was going to be called Slack as opposed to some of the other contenders for the name of the software. But I think it's very accurate. And that could just be how I use Slack. I'm a very heavy search power user in Slack. [laughs]. So, I find it very apt. You know, obviously, I use it a lot for finding conversations that happened. But I really do enjoy it as a source of discovery for a specific topic, or, you know, technical question or idea that I'm wanting to just, like, filter down a little bit beyond, like you said, the public internet. In fact, I have found it really useful for when you encounter errors that actually are specific to your domain or your app. Obviously like, you will probably be less successful searching in your search engine for that because it includes, you know, context from your app that other people in the world don't have. But once you are narrowing it down to people at your company, I've been able to get over a lot of troubleshooting humps that way by searching in Slack because likely someone within my team has encountered it before. JOËL: So, you mentioned searching for error messages in particular. And I feel like that is, like, its own, like, very specific searching skill separate from more general, like, how do I X-style questions. Does that distinction kind of line up with your mental map of the searching landscape? STEPHANIE: Yeah. I guess the way that I just talked about it now was potentially a bit confusing because I was saying instead of how you might search for errors normally, but I did not talk about how you might search for errors normally. [laughs] But specifically, you know, if I'm popping error messages into my search engine, I am removing the parts of the stack trace that are specific to my app, right? Because I know that that will only kind of, like, clutter up my query and not be getting me towards a more helpful answer as to the source of my issue, especially if the issue is not my application code. JOËL: Right. I want to give a shout-out to an article on the thoughtbot Blog with a wonderful name: Indiana Jones and the Crypt of Cryptic Error Messages by Louis Antonopoulos. All about how to take an error message that you get from some process in your console and how to make that give you results when you paste it into a search engine. STEPHANIE: I love that name. Very cool. JOËL: So, you've talked a little bit about the idea of searching some things that are not on the public internet. How do you feel about kind of internet knowledge bases, private wikis, that kind of thing? Have you had good success searching through those kinds of things? STEPHANIE: Hmm, I would say mixed success, to be honest. But that's because of maybe more so the way that a team or a company documents information. The reason I say mixed results is because, a lot of the time, the results are outdated, and they're no longer relevant to me. And it doesn't take that much time to pass for something to become outdated, right? Because, like, the code is always changing. And if, you know, someone didn't go and update the documentation about the way that a system has changed, then I usually have to take the stuff that I'm kind of seeing in private wikis with a bit more skepticism, I would say. JOËL: Yeah, I think my experience mirrors yours as well. Also, some private wikis have just become absolutely huge. And so, searches just return a lot of results that are not really relevant to what I'm searching for. The searching algorithms that these systems use are often much less powerful than something like Google. So, they often don't sort results in a way that are bringing relevant things up to the top. So, it's more work to kind of sift through all of the things I don't care about. STEPHANIE: Yeah, bringing up the size of a wiki and, like, all of the pages, that is a good point because I see a lot of duplicate stuff, but that's just, like, slightly different. So, I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to believe. One really funny encounter that I had with a private wiki, or actually it was, like, a knowledge base article that was for the internal team...it was documenting actually a code process. So, it was documenting in more human-readable terms, like the steps an algorithm took to determine some result. But the whole document was prefaced by, "This information came from an email that was sent way long ago." [laughs] JOËL: That's an epic start to a Wiki article. STEPHANIE: Yeah. And there was another really funny line that said, "The reason for this logic is because of a decision made by (This person's name.)," like a business decision that (some random person name). No last name either, so I have no idea [laughs] who they could be referring to and any of the, like, historical context of why that happened. But I thought it was really funny as just a piece of, like, an artifact, of, at the time, when this was written, that meant something to someone, and that knowledge kind of has been diluted [laughs] over the years. JOËL: Yeah, internal wikis, I feel like, are full of that, especially if they've had a few years to grow and the company has changed and evolved. So, now it's time for hot takes. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I'm ready for them. JOËL: We are now in the fancy, new age of AI. Is ChatGPT going to make all of this episode obsolete? STEPHANIE: I'm going to say no, but I'm also biased, and I'm not a ChatGPT enthusiast. I've said it on air. [laughs] I can't even say that I've used it. So, that's kind of where I'm coming from with all this. But I have heard from folks that, convenient as it may be, it is not always 100% accurate or successful. And I think that one of the things I really like about kind of having agency over my search is that I can verify, as a human, the information that I'm seeing. So, you know, when you're, like, browsing a bunch of Stack Overflow questions and you see, you know, all these answers, at least you can, like, do a little bit of, like, investigation using context clues about who is answering the question, you know, like, what experience might they have? If you encounter something on a blog post, for example, you can go to the about page on this person's blog and be like, who are you? [chuckles] And, like, what qualifies you to give this information? And I think that is really valuable for me in terms of evaluating whether I want to go down a path based on what I'm seeing. JOËL: So, I've played with it a tiny, little bit, so not enough to have a good sample size. And I think it can be interesting for some of those less constrained kind of how do I style questions. I'm not necessarily looking for, like, an exact code sample. But even if it just points me towards, oh, I need to be looking at this particular class in this standard library and read through that documentation to build the thing that I want. Or maybe it links me to kind of the classic blog posts that people refer to when talking about this thing. It's a good way sometimes to just narrow down when you're kind of faced with, you know, the infinity of the internet, and you're kind of like, oh, I don't even know where to start. It gives you some keywords or some threads to follow up on that I think can be really interesting. STEPHANIE: The infinity of the internet. I love that phrase. I don't think I've heard it before, but it's very evocative for me [laughs]. And I like what you said about it helping you give a direction and to kind of surface those keywords. In fact, it almost kind of sounds like what I was mentioning earlier about using Slack for, right? And, in that case, the hive mind that I'm pulling from is my co-workers. But also, I can see how powerful it would be to leverage a tool that is guiding you based on the software community at large. JOËL: Something I'd be curious to maybe lean into a little bit more are some of those slightly more specified questions where it does give you a code snippet, so something like writing a file to disk where, right now, it's, you know, five characters. I just pop up Alfred and type up Ruby F, and it gives you the file docs, and it's, you know, right there. There's usually an example at the top of the file. I copy-paste that and get working. But maybe this would be a situation where some AI-assisted tools would be better. It could be searching through something like ChatGPT. It could be maybe even something like Co-pilot, where, you know, you just start typing a little bit, and it just fills out that skeleton of, like, oh, you want to write a file to disk in Ruby. Here's how it's typically done. STEPHANIE: Yeah, you bring up a good point that, in some ways, even the approaches to searching we were talking about originally is still just building off of algorithms helping us to find what we're looking for, right? Though, I did really want to recommend an awesome talk from Kevin Murphy, from a RailsConf a couple of years ago, that's called Browser History Confessional: Searching My Recent Searches. The main message that I really enjoyed from this talk was the idea of thinking about what you're searching for and why because that will, I think, help add a bit of, like, intentionality into that process. You know, it can be very overwhelming, but let that guide you a little bit. One of the things that he mentions is the idea of revisiting your own assumptions with search. So, even if you think you know how to do something, or you might even know, like, how you might want to do it, just going to search to see if there's any other implementations that you haven't thought of that other people are doing that might inform how you approach a problem, or at least, like, make you feel even more confident about your original approach in the first place. I thought that was really cool. That's not something that I do now, but definitely, something that I want to try is to be, like, I think I know how to do this, but let me see what other people are doing because that might spark something new. JOËL: We'll put a link in the show notes to this talk. But I was lucky enough to see it in person. And also would like to second that recommendation. It is worth watching. From this conversation that you and I have had, I'm having, like, two main takeaways. One is kind of what you just said, the idea of being a little bit more cognizant of, what kind of search am I doing? Is this a sort of broad how do I X, where I don't even really know where to start? Is this, like, something really specific where you just don't know what kind of syntax you want to use? Is it an error message where you just want to see what other people have done when they've encountered this? Or any other, like, more specific subcategories. And how being aware of that can help you search more effectively. And secondly, don't limit yourself to the public internet. There's a lot of great information in your company's Slack or other instant messaging service, maybe some kind of documentation system internal, some kind of wiki. And those can be a great place to search as well. STEPHANIE: If we missed any other cool searching tips or tricks or ways that we might be able to improve our processes for searching as developers, I would really love to hear about them. So, if any listeners out there want to write in with their thoughts, that would be super awesome. On that note, shall we wrap up? JOËL: Let's wrap up. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeee!!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

Joël has been fighting a frustrating bug where he's integrating with a third-party database, and some queries just crash. Stephanie shares her own debugging story about a leaky stub that caused flaky tests. Additionally, they discuss the build vs. buy decision when integrating with third-party systems. They consider the time and cost implications of building their own integration versus using off-the-shelf components and conclude that the decision often depends on the specific needs and priorities of the project, including how quickly a solution is needed and whether the integration is core to the business's value proposition. Ruby class instance variables (https://www.codegram.com/blog/understanding-class-instance-variables-in-ruby/) Build vs Buy by Josh Clayton (https://thoughtbot.com/blog/build-vs-buy-considerations-for-new-products) Sustainable Rails (https://sustainable-rails.com/) Transcript: STEPHANIE: Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Stephanie Minn. JOËL: And I'm Joël Quenneville. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: My world has been kind of frustrating recently. I've been fighting a really frustrating bug where I'm integrating with a third-party database. And there are queries that just straight-up crash. Any query that instantiates an instance of an ActiveRecord object will just straight-up fail. And that's because before, we make the actual query, almost like a preflight query that fetches the schema of the database, particularly the list of tables that the database has, and there's something in this schema that the code doesn't like, and everything just crashes. Specifically, I'm using an ODBC connection. I forget exactly what the acronym stands for, Open Database connection, maybe? Which is a standard put up by Microsoft. The way I'm integrating it via Ruby is there's a gem that's a C extension. And somewhere deep in the C extension, this whole thing is crashing. So, I've had to sort of dust off some C a little bit to look through. And it's not super clear exactly why things are crashing. So, I've spent several days trying to figure out what's going on there. And it's been really cryptic. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that does sound frustrating. And it seems like maybe you are a little bit out of your depth in terms of your usual tools for figuring out a bug are not so helpful here. JOËL: Yeah, yeah. It's a lot harder to just go through and put in a print or a debug statement because now I have to recompile some C. And, you know, you can mess around with some things by passing different flags. But it is a lot more difficult than just doing, like, a bundle open and binding to RB in the code. My ultimate solution was asking for help. So, I got another thoughtboter to help me, and we paired on it. We got to a solution that worked. And then, right before I went to deploy this change, because this was breaking on the staging website, I refreshed the website just to make sure that everything was breaking before I pushed the fix to see that everything is working. This is a habit I've picked up from test-driven development. You always want to see your test break before you see it succeed. And this is a situation where this habit paid off because the website was just working. My changes were not deployed. It just started working again. Now it's gotten me just completely questioning whether my solution fixes anything. The difficulty is because I am integrating [inaudible 03:20] third-party database; it's non-deterministic. The schema on there is changing rather frequently. I think the reason things are crashing is because there's some kind of bad data or data that the ODBC adapter doesn't like in this third-party system. But it just got introduced one day; everything started breaking, and then somehow it got removed, and everything is working again without any input or code changes on my end. So, now I don't trust my fix. STEPHANIE: Oh no. Yeah, I would struggle with that because your reality has come crashing down, [laughs] or how you understood reality. That's tough. Where do you think you'll go from here? If it's no longer really an issue in this current state of the schema, is it worth pursuing further at this time? JOËL: So, that's interesting because it turns into a prioritization problem. And for this particular project, with the deadlines that we have, we've decided it's not worth it. I've opened up a PR with my fix, with some pretty in-depth documentation for why I thought that was the fix and what I think the underlying problem is. If this shows up again in the next few days, I'll have that PR that I can pull in and see if it fixes things, and if it doesn't, I'll probably just close that PR, but it'll be available for us if we ever run into this again. I've also looked at a few potential mitigating situations. Part of the problem is that this is a, like, massive system. The Rails app that I'm using really doesn't need to deal with this massive database. I think there's, you know, almost 1,000 tables, and I really only care about a subset of tables in, like, one underlying schema. And so, I think by reducing the permissions of my database user to only those tables that I care about, there's a lower chance of me triggering something like this. STEPHANIE: Interesting. What you mentioned about, you know, having that PR continue to exist will be really helpful for future folks who might come across the same problem, right? Because then they can see, like, all of the research and investigation you've already done. And you may have already done this, but if you do think it's a schema issue, I'm curious about whether the snapshot of the schema could be captured from when it was failing to when it has magically gotten fixed. And I wonder if there may be some clues there for some future investigator. JOËL: Yeah. I'm not sure what our backup situation is because this is a third-party system, so I'd have to figure out what things are like in the admin interface there. But yeah, if there is some kind of auditing, or snapshots, or backups, or something there, and I have rough, you know, if I know it's within a 24-hour period, maybe there's something there that would tell me what's happening. My best guess is that there's some string that is longer than expected or maybe being marked as a CHAR when it should be a VARCHAR, or maybe something that's not a non-UTF-8 encoded character, or something weird like that. So, I never know exactly what was wrong in the schema. There's some weird string thing happening that's causing the Ruby adapter to blow up. STEPHANIE: That also feels so unsatisfying [laughs] for you. I could imagine. JOËL: Yeah, there's no, like, clean resolution, right? It's a, well, the bug is gone for now. We're trying to make it less likely for it to pop up again in the future. I'm trying to leave some documentation for the next person who's going to come along, and I'm moving forward, fingers crossed. Is that something you've ever had to do on one of your projects? STEPHANIE: Given up? Yes. [laughter] I think I have definitely had to learn how to timebox debugging and have some action items for when I just can't figure it out. And, you know, like we mentioned, leaving some documentation for the next person to pick up, adding some additional logging so that maybe we can get more clues next time. But, you know, realizing that I do have to move on and that's the best that I can do is really challenging. JOËL: So, you used two words here to describe the situation: one was giving up, and the other one was timebox. I think I really like the idea of describing this as timeboxing. Giving up feels kind of like, defeatist. You know, there's so many things that we can do with our time, and we really have to be strategic with how we prioritize. So, I like the idea of describing this as a timeboxing situation. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I agree. Maybe I should celebrate every time that I successfully timebox something [laughs] according to how I planned to. [laughs] JOËL: There's always room to extend the timebox, right? STEPHANIE: [laughs] It's funny you bring up a debugging mystery because I have one of my own to share today. And I do have to say that it ended up being resolved, [chuckles] so it was a win in my book. But I will call this the case of the leaky stub. JOËL: That sounds slightly scary. STEPHANIE: It really was. The premise of what we were trying to figure out here was that we were having some flaky tests that were failing with a runtime error, so that was already kind of interesting. But it was quickly determined it was flaky because of the tests running in a certain order, so-- JOËL: Classic. STEPHANIE: Right. So, I knew something was happening, and any tests that came after it were running into this error. And I was taking a look, and I figured out how to recreate it. And we even isolated to the test itself that was running before everything else, that would then cause some problems. And so, looking into this test, I saw that it was stubbing the find method on an ActiveRecord model. JOËL: Interesting. STEPHANIE: Yeah. And the stubbed value that we were choosing to return ended up being referenced in the tests that followed. So, that was really strange to me because it went against everything I understood about how RSpec cleans up stubs between tests, right? JOËL: Yeah, that is really strange. STEPHANIE: Yeah, and I knew that it was referencing the stub value because we had set a really custom, like, ID value to it. So, when I was seeing this exact ID value showing up in a test that seemed totally unrelated, that was kind of a clue that there was some leakage happening. JOËL: So, what did you do next? STEPHANIE: The next discovery was that the error was actually raised in the factory setup for the failing tests and not even getting to running the examples at all. So, that was really strange. And digging into the factories was also its own adventure because there was a lot of complexity in the factories. A lot of them used hooks as well that then called some application code. And it was a wild goose chase. But ultimately, I realized that in the factory setup, we were calling some application code for that model where we had stubbed the find, and it had used the find method to memoize a class instance variable. JOËL: Oh no. I can see where this is going. STEPHANIE: Yeah. So, at some point, our model.find() returned our, you know, stub value that we had wanted in the previous test. And it got cached and just continued to leak into everything else that eventually would try to call that memoized method when it really should have tried to do that look-up for a separate record. JOËL: And class instance variables will persist between tests as long as they're on the same thread, right? STEPHANIE: Yeah, as far as I understand it. JOËL: That sounds like a really frustrating journey. And then that moment when you see the class instance variable, and you're like, oh no, I can't believe this is happening. STEPHANIE: Right? It was a real recipe for disaster, I think, where we had some, you know, really complicated factories. We had some sneaky caching issues, and this, you know, totally seemingly random runtime error that was being raised. And it was a real wild goose chase because there was not a lot of directness in going down the debugging path. I feel like I went around all over the codebase to get to the root of it. And, in the end, you know, we were trying to come up with some takeaways. And what was unfortunate was that you know, like, normally, stubbing find can be okay if you are, you know, really wanting to make sure that you are returning your mocked value that you may have, like, stubbed some other stuff on in your test. But because of all this, we were like, well, should we just not stub find on this really particular model? And that didn't seem particularly sustainable to make as a takeaway for other developers who want to avoid this problem. So, in the end, I think we scoped the stub to be a little more specific with the arguments that we wanted to target. And that was the way that we went forward with the particular flaky test at hand. JOËL: It sounds like the root cause of the problem was not so much the stub as it was the fact that this value is getting cached at the class level. Is that right? STEPHANIE: Yes and no. It seems like a real pain for running the tests. But I'm assuming that it was done for a good reason in production, maybe, maybe not. To be fair, I think we didn't need to cache it at all because it's calling a find, which is, you know, should be pretty quick and doesn't need to be cached. But who knows? It's hard to tell. It was really old code. And I think we were feeling also a little nervous to adjust something that we weren't sure what the impact would be. JOËL: I'm always really skeptical of caching. Caching has its place. But I think a lot of developers are a little too happy to introduce one, especially doing it preemptively that, oh well, we might need a cache here, so why not? Let's add that. Or even sometimes, just as a blind solution to any kind of slowness, oh, the site is slow; let's throw a cache here and hope for the best. And the, like, bedrock, like, rule zero of any kind of performance tuning is you've got to measure before and after and make sure that the change that you introduce actually makes things better. And then, also, is it better enough speed-wise that you're willing to pay any kind of costs associated to maintaining the code now that it's more complex? And a lot of caches can have some higher carrying costs. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's a great point. This debugging mystery an example of one of them. JOËL: How long did it take you to figure out the solution here? STEPHANIE: So, like you, I actually was on a bit of the incorrect path for a little while. And it was only because this issue affected a different flaky test that someone else was investigating that they were able to connect the dots and be like, I think these, you know, two issues are related. And they were the ones who ultimately were able to point us out to the offending test if you will. So, you know, it took me a few days. And I imagine it took the other developer a few days. So, our combined effort was, like, over a week. JOËL: Yep. So, for all our listeners out there, you just heard that Stephanie and I [laughs] both went on multi-day debugging journeys. That happens to everyone. Just because we've been doing this job for years doesn't mean that every bug is, like, a thing that we figure out immediately. So, separately from this bug that I've been working on, a big issue that's been front of mind for me on this project has been the classic build versus buy decision. Because we're integrating with a third-party system, we have to look at either building our own integration or trying to use some off-the-shelf components. And there's a few different levels of this. There are some parts where you can actually, like, literally buy an integration and think through some of the decisions there. And then there's some situations where maybe there's an open-source component that we can use. And there's always trade-offs with both the commercial and the open-source situation. And we have to decide, are we willing to use this, or do we want to build our own? And those have been some really interesting discussions to have. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I think you actually expanded this decision-making problem into a build versus buy versus open source because they are kind of, you know, really different solutions with different outcomes in terms of, you know, maintenance and dependencies, right? And that all have, like, a little bit of a different way to engage with them. JOËL: Interesting. I think I tend to think of the buy category, including both like commercial off-the-shelf software and also open-source off-the-shelf software, things that we wouldn't build custom for ourselves but that are third-party components that we can pull in. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's interesting because I had a bit of a different mental model because, in my head, when you're buying a commercial solution, you, you know, are maybe losing out on some opportunities for customization or even, like, forking it on your own. So, with an open-source solution, there could be an aspect of making it work for you. Whereas for a commercial solution, you really become dependent on that other company and whether they are willing to cater [laughs] to your needs or not. JOËL: That's fair. For something that's closed-source where you don't actually have access to the code, say it's more of a software as a service situation, then, yeah, you're kind of locked in and hoping that they can provide the needs that you have. On the flip side, you are generally paying for some level of support. The quality of that varies sometimes from one vendor to another. But if something goes wrong, usually, there's someone you can email, someone you can call, and they will tell you how to fix the problem, or they will fix it on their end. STEPHANIE: For the purposes of this conversation, should we talk about the differences, you know, building yourself or leaning on an existing built-out solution for you? JOËL: The project I'm working on is integrating with a Snowflake data warehouse, which is an external place that stores data accessible through something SQL-like. And one of the things that's attractive about this is that you can pull in data from a variety of different sources, transform it, and have it all stored in a kind of standardized structure that you can then integrate with. So, for pulling data in, you can build your own sort of ingestion pipeline, if you want, with code, and their APIs, and things. But there are also third-party vendors that will give you kind of off-the-shelf components that you can use for a lot of popular other data sources that you might want to pull. So, you're saying; I want to pull from this external service. They've probably got a pre-built connector for it. They can also do things like pull from an arbitrary Postgres database on some other server if that's something you have access to. It becomes really attractive because all you need to do is create an account on this website, plug in a few, like, API keys and URLs. And, all of a sudden, data is just flowing from one third-party system into your Snowflake data Warehouse, and it all just kind of works. And you don't have to bother with APIs, or ODBC, or any of that kind of stuff. STEPHANIE: Got it. Yeah, that does sound convenient. As you were talking about this, I was thinking about how if I were in the position of trying to decide how to make that integration happen, the idea of building it would seem kind of scary, especially if it's something that I don't have a lot of expertise in. JOËL: Yeah, so this was really interesting. In the beginning of the project, I looked into a little bit of what goes into building these, and it's fairly simple in terms of the architecture. You just need something that writes data files to typically something like an S3 bucket. And then you can point Snowflake to periodically pull from that bucket, and you write an import script to, you know, parse the columns and write them to the right tables in the structure that you want inside Snowflake. Where things get tricky is the actual integration on the other end. So, you have some sort of third-party service. And now, how do you sort of, on a timer maybe, pull data from that? And if there are data changes that you're synchronizing, is it just all append-only data? Or are you allowing the third-party service to say, "Hey, I deleted this record, and you should reflect that in Snowflake?" Or maybe dealing with an update. So, all of these things you have to think about, as well as synchronization. What you end up having to do is you probably boot up some kind of small service and, you know, maybe this is a small Ruby app that you have on Heroku, maybe this is, like, an AWS Lambda kind of thing. And you probably end up running this every so many seconds or so many minutes, do some work, potentially write some files to S3. And there's a lot of edge cases you have to think about to do it properly. And so, not having to think about all of those edge cases becomes really enticing when you're looking to potentially pay a third party to do this for you. STEPHANIE: Yeah, when you used the words new service, I bristled a little bit [laughs] because I've definitely seen this happen maybe on a bit of a bigger scale for a tool or solution for some need, right? Where some team is formed, or maybe we kind of add some more responsibilities to an existing team to spin up a new service with a new repo with its own pipeline, and it becomes yet another thing to maintain. And I have definitely seen issues with the longevity of that kind of approach. JOËL: The idea of maintaining a fleet of little services for each of our integrations seemed very unappealing to me, especially given that setting something like this up using the commercial approach probably takes 30 minutes per third-party service. There's no way I'm standing up an app and doing this whole querying every so many minutes, and getting data, and transforming it, and writing it to S3, and addressing all the edge cases in 30 minutes. And it's building something that's robust. And, you know, maybe if I want to go, like, really low tech, there's something fun I could do with, like, a Zapier hook and just, like, duct tape a few services together and make this, like, a no-code solution. I still don't know that it would have the robustness of the vendor. And I don't think that I could do it in the same amount of time. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I like the keyword robustness here because, at first, you were saying, like, you know, this looked relatively small in scope, right? The code that you had to write. But introducing all of the variables of things that could go wrong [laughs] beyond the custom part that you actually care about seemed quite cumbersome. JOËL: I think there's also, at this point, a lot of really interesting prioritization questions. There are money questions, but there are also time questions you have to think about. So, how much dev time do we want to devote upfront to building out these integrations? And if you're trying to move fast and get a proof of concept out, or even get, like, an MVP out in front of customers, it might be worth paying more money upfront to a third-party vendor because it allows you to ship something this week rather than next month. STEPHANIE: Yeah. The "How soon do you need it?" is a very good question to ask. Another one that I have learned to include in my arsenal of, you know, evaluating this kind of stuff comes from a thoughtbot blog by Josh Clayton, where he, you know, talks about the build versus buy problem. And his takeaway is that you should buy when your business is not dependent on it. JOËL: When it's not part of, like, the core, like, value-add that your business is doing. Why spend developer time on something that's not, like, the core thing that your product is when you can pay someone else to do it for you? And like we said earlier, a lot of that time ends up being sunk into edge cases and robustness and things like that to the point where now you have to build an expertise in a, like, secondary thing that your business doesn't really care about. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. I think this is also perhaps where very clear business goals or a vision would come in handy as well. Because if you're considering building something that doesn't quite support that vision, then it will likely end up continuing to be deprioritized over the long term until it becomes this thing that no one is accountable for maintaining and caring for. And just causes a lot of, honestly, morale issues is what I've seen when some service that was spun up to try to solve a particular problem is kind of on its last legs and has been really neglected, and no one wants to work on it. But it ends up causing issues for the rest of the development team. But then they're also really focused on initiatives that actually do provide the business value. That is a really hard balancing act that I've seen teams struggle with. JOËL: Earlier this year, we were talking about the book Sustainable Rails. And it really hammers home the idea of a carrying cost for the code, and I think that's exactly what we're talking about here. And that carrying cost can be time and money. But I like that you also mentioned the morale effects. You know, that's a carrying cost that just sort of depresses the productivity of your team when morale is low. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. I'm curious if we could discuss some of the carrying costs of buying a solution and where you've seen that become tricky. JOËL: The first thing to look at is the literal cost, the money aspect of things. And I think it's a really interesting situation for the business models for these types of Snowflake connectors because they typically charge by the amount of data that you're transmitting, so per row of data that you're transmitting. And so, that cost will fluctuate depending on whether the third-party service you're integrating with is, like, really chatty or not. When you contrast that to building, building typically has a relatively fixed cost. It's a big upfront cost, and then there's some maintenance cost to go with it. So, if I'm building some kind of integration for, let's say, Shopify, then there's the cost I need to build up front to integrate that. And if that takes me, I don't know, a week or two weeks, or however long it is, you know, that's a pretty big chunk of time. And my time is money. And so, you can actually do the math and say, "Well, if we know that we're getting so many rows per day at this rate from the commercial vendor, how many weeks do we have to pay for the commercial one before we break even and it becomes more expensive than building it upfront, just in terms of my time?" And sometimes you do that math, and you're like, wow, you know, we could be going on this commercial thing for, like, two years before we break even. In that case, from a purely financial point of view, it's probably worth paying for that connector. And so, now it becomes really interesting. You say, okay, well, which are the connectors that we have that are low volume, and which are the ones that are high volume? Because each of them is going to have a different break-even point. The ones that you break even after, you know, three or four weeks might be the ones that become more interesting to have a conversation about building. Whereas some of the others, it's clearly not worth our time to build it ourselves. STEPHANIE: The way you described this problem was really interesting to me because it almost sounds like you found the solution somewhere in the middle, potentially, where, you know, you may try building the ones that are highest priority, and you end up learning a lot from that experience, right? That could make it easier or at least, like, set you up to consider doing that moving forward in the future if you find, like, that is what is valuable. But it's interesting to me that you kind of have the best of both worlds of, like, getting the commercial solutions now for the things that are lower value and then doing what you can to get the most out of building a solution. JOËL: Yeah. So, my final recommendation ended up being, let's go all commercial for now. And then, once we've built out something, and because speed is also an issue here, once we've built out something and it's out with customers, and we're starting to see value from this, then we can start looking at how much are we paying per week for each of these connectors? And is it worth maybe going back and building our own for some of these higher-volume connectors? But starting with the commercial one for everything. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I actually think that's generally a pretty good path forward because then you are also learning about how you use the commercial solution and, you know, which features of it are critical so that if you do eventually find yourselves, like, maybe considering a shift to building in-house, like, you could start with a more clear MVP, right? Because you know how your team is using an existing product and can focus on the parts that your business are dependent on. JOËL: Yeah, it's that classic iterative development style. I think here it's also kind of inspired by a strategy I typically use for performance, which is make it work before you try to make it fast. And, actually, make it work, then profile, then measure, find the hotspots, and then focus on making those things fast. So, in this case, instead of speed, we're talking about money. So, it's make it work, then profile, find the parts that are expensive, and make the trade-off of, like, okay, is it worth investing into making that part less expensive in terms of resources? STEPHANIE: I like that as a framework a lot. JOËL: A lot of what we do as programmers is optimization, right? And sometimes, we're optimizing for execution time. Sometimes we're optimizing for memory cost, and sometimes we're optimizing for dollars. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's really interesting because, with the buy solution, you know very clearly, like, how much the thing will cost. Whereas I've definitely seen teams go down the building route, and it always takes longer than expected [laughs], and that is money, right? In terms of the developer's time, for sure. JOËL: Yeah, definitely, like, add some kind of multiplier when you're budgeting out that build alternative because, quite likely, there are some edge cases that you haven't thought about that the commercial partner has, and you will have to spend more time on that than you expected. STEPHANIE: Yeah, in addition to whatever opportunity cost of not working on something that is driving revenue for the business right now. JOËL: Exactly. STEPHANIE: So, the direction of this conversation ended up going kind of towards, like, what is best for the team at, like, a product and company level. But I think that we make these decisions a lot more frequently, even when it comes to whether we pull in a gem or, you know, use an open-source tool or not. And I would be really interested in discussing more of that in another episode. JOËL: Yeah. That gets into some controversial takes, right? It's the evergreen topic of: do we build it ourselves, or do we pull in some kind of third-party package? STEPHANIE: Something for the future to look forward to. On that note, shall we wrap up? JOËL: Let's wrap up. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeeeee!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

Stephanie had a small consulting win: saying no to a client. GeoGuessr is all the rage for thoughtbot's remote working culture, which leads to today's topic of forming human connections in a virtual (work) environment. GeoGuessr (https://www.geoguessr.com/) Strategies for saying no by Elle Meredith (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2zWwwjnuUA) NYT Let's Ignore Each Other in the Same Room (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/well/live/parallel-play-for-adults.html) Random question generator (https://standup-questions.vercel.app/) Transcript: JOËL: And this is just where it ends. [laughter] Hello and welcome to another episode of The Bike Shed, a weekly podcast from your friends at thoughtbot about developing great software. I'm Joël Quenneville. STEPHANIE: And I'm Stephanie Minn. And together, we're here to share a bit of what we've learned along the way. JOËL: So, Stephanie, what's new in your world? STEPHANIE: So, I have a small consulting win, or even just a small, like, win as a human being [laughs] that I want to share, which is that I feel good about a way that I handled saying no to a stakeholder recently. And, you know, I really got to take them where I can get it because that is so challenging for me. But I feel really glad because we ended up kind of coming out the other side of it having a better understanding of each other's goals and needs. And so, basically, what happened was I was working on a task, and our product owner on our team asked me if it could be done by next week. And immediately, I wanted to say, "Absolutely not." [laughs] But, you know, I took a second and, you know, I had the wherewithal to ask why. You know, I was kind of curious, like, where was this deadline coming from? Like, what was on her radar that, like, wasn't on mine? And she had shared that, oh, you know, if we were able to get it out before this big launch, she was thinking that it actually might make our customer support team's lives easier because we were kind of taking away access to something before some new features rolled out. And, you know, there might be some customers who would complain. And with that information, you know, that was really helpful in helping me understand. And I'm like, yeah, like, that seems like a helpful thing to know, so I could try to strive for it. Because I also, like, want to make that process go easier as well. But I told her that I'd let her know because I honestly wasn't sure if it was possible to do by next week. And after a little bit of, you know, more digging, kind of seeing how my progress was going, in the end, I had to say that I didn't feel confident that we could finish it in time for that deadline because of the other risks, right? Like, I didn't want to just release this thing without feeling good about the plan that we had. And so, that was my small, little win in saying no, and I feel very proud of myself for it. JOËL: I'm proud of you too. That's not easy to just do in the first place, and then to do it well is a whole other level. It sounds, though, that you came out of the other side with the client with almost, like, a better relationship. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think so. In general, you know, I really struggle when people do end up getting into that debate of, like, "Well, I need this." And someone else says, "Well, I need this other thing." And, you know, at some point, it kind of gets a bit unproductive, right? But I think this was a very helpful way for me to see a path forward when maybe we, like, have different priorities. But, like, can we better understand each other and the impact of them to ultimately, like, make the best decision? The other thing that I wanted to share that I learned recently was there was a recent RailsConf talk by Elle Meredith, and it was about strategies to say no, and I watched it. And one really cool thing that I learned was that the word priority, you know, when it was first created, it actually didn't really have, like, a plural form. There was really only ever, like, a singular priority. And it wasn't until, I think, you know, the recent century or something like that, that people started to use it in a plural form. And that was really enlightening to me. I think it made me rethink the word and how I use it, and it made a lot of sense, too. Because at any given moment, you know, really, you can't be doing more than one thing; I mean, you can try. I know that I have been guilty of multitasking. But that, you know, doesn't always serve me. I never end up doing all of the things that I'm trying to do well. And I would be really curious to kind of, you know, when I do feel that urge, like, think a little bit about, like, what is the one thing that I should be doing right now that is the highest priority? JOËL: I would definitely second that recommendation for this talk. I actually got to see it live at RailsConf, and it was excellent. STEPHANIE: So, Joël, what's new in your world? JOËL: I got to participate in a really fun event at thoughtbot today. We got together with some other people on the Boost Team and played a few rounds of GeoGuessr. And for those who are not familiar with this game, it drops you randomly somewhere in the world in Google Street View. You can move around. And there's a timer, and you have to drop a pin on a map where you think you are. So, you're walking through the streets, and you're like, okay, well, I don't know this language. I'm not sure where we're going. You know, with the vibes going here, I'll bet, you know, this looks like maybe southern China, and then you drop a pin. And oh no, turns out it was actually Singapore. And there's all these little hints and things. People who are really into it have learned all these tricks, and they can be really good. Sara Jackson, who is our resident GeoGuessr expert, is excellent at this. But it was a good time. STEPHANIE: Yeah, it was really fun. I liked that we played a cooperative mode where we were all kind of helping each other out. And so, maybe someone is, like, exploring on the map and sees a street sign and is like, "Oh, like, that looks like this language." And someone else is like, "Oh yeah, like, that is that." Or like, "No, I think it's actually this other language," and sharing all of the different, like, pieces of information that we're finding to get closer and closer to what it might be. And then we celebrate whoever ends up getting the closest because, at some point, it's kind of just, like, just a luck of the pin, right? Where maybe you happen to click on, like, the right place. But it's always really exciting when we're like, wow, like, Sara was only 500 kilometers away in finding the exact place that we were served. So, I had a good time as well. JOËL: So, speaking of cooperative events, this was a work event that we did. We just got together and played a game. And, for me, that was a really fun way to connect with some of my colleagues. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on things that you've seen done well in companies that are remote-first that really foster a sense of connection and community among a team? STEPHANIE: I think this worked especially well today because it was kind of scheduled in regular time that we have as a team to me. And sometimes, you know, the meeting topics are a bit more work-focused. But what I really like is that anyone on the team can host one of these meetings. We have them biweekly, and we just call them Boost biweeklies. Boost is the team that Joël and I are on. JOËL: Naming is the hardest problem in computer science. STEPHANIE: It really is. But I really like that people can bring, you know, a little bit of their own flavor to this meeting. So, whoever is host just kind of comes up with something to do. And sometimes it's like show and tell. You know, other times it is more of like, you know, what's the update on some of the projects that we're doing? Other times, it's the Spicy Takes Lightning Talks that we've kind of mentioned on the podcast before. And yeah, it is just a really nice, like, time for us to get together. And I also feel like I learn something about my co-workers every time that we meet, whether it's the person who is hosting the meeting and kind of where their interests are. I think someone even did, like, chair yoga once and guided the team in doing that. Or because they are more casual, right? Sometimes we just play a game, and I really enjoy that nice break in my day. JOËL: Do you find that the particular style of these meetings makes you feel more connected to your colleagues? Would you prefer just kind of game day one, like we had today, versus maybe, like, lightning talks or a presentation on security or something like that? STEPHANIE: I actually think the diversity is what makes it special. I get to see, you know, a bunch of different sides of my co-workers and, you know, some days, the topic is a little more serious, and that can be really connecting. Another Boost Team member had hosted a biweekly where we kind of shared the challenges of, like, consulting work and, like, onboarding onto a new project and sharing what might be difficult and, like, how we might be feeling when we do join a new project. And I think that was really helpful because it was very validating for something that I thought, like, maybe I felt a little bit more alone in. And the tone was a little bit more, like, earnest and serious. But I came away with it feeling very supported by my team, right? And other times, it is just silliness and fun [laughs], which, you know, is also important. Like, we need to have fun every once in a while. JOËL: That's awesome. Do you feel like when you go to these meetings, you're looking more for knowledge or looking more for connection? STEPHANIE: I think both because knowledge sharing is also, you know, can be really helpful. Like, I have enjoyed learning that, you know, so and so is, like, a GeoGuessr expert, Sara, right? And so, if I ever, like, find myself needing [chuckles] someone to go to about my Google Street View or world geography questions, I know that I can go to her. And, like, knowing that about her, like, makes me feel more connected to her. So, I think both are true. So, we have been talking about a meeting style form of connecting in a remote workplace, but I'm really curious about your thoughts on asynchronous versus synchronous communication and how you find connection with a format that is more asynchronous, not just, you know, being in a meeting together. JOËL: That's really challenging. I think I personally find that something that's mostly synchronous with maybe a little bit of a lag works pretty well for me, so something like Slack, where it's not exactly real-time because someone could take some time to come back to me. But for working hours overlap, there's likely some close-to-synchronous conversation happening. But, you know, I can still get up and, you know, refill my cup of coffee, or it's not quite like I'm sitting in front of a camera. So, I think that, for many things, hits the sweet spot for myself. But there's definitely some things where I think you want a higher, like, information density. And that's, I think, where the synchronous face-to-face meeting really shines. STEPHANIE: Information density. I haven't heard that phrase before, but I like it. JOËL: The idea being, you know, how much information or how many words are you sharing back and forth, you know, per minute or something like that. And when you're talking on a call, you can do a lot more of that than you can going back and forth over Slack or writing an email. STEPHANIE: So, I would say that at thoughtbot, we have a pretty asynchronous Slack culture, which I think can be quite different from other, you know, places I've worked at before or other Slack spaces that I've seen. And I actually find it a little bit harder to engage in that way. We have a dev channel where, you know, people chat about different technical topics. And sometimes, you know, those threads go, like, 40 replies long. And I think you tend to engage a lot more in those. And I'm curious, like, does that scratch the itch for you in terms of that perfect, like, async, kind of some amount of lag for you to be doing other things, kind of doing your work, but then being able to come back and pick up the conversation where I left off? JOËL: Yes, that is really nice because, you know, maybe I have a meeting or something, and I'm not there when the conversation starts, but I don't miss out. And I get to join in, you know, maybe 30 minutes after everyone else. You know, sometimes you don't want to just, like, restart a conversation that's happened and is done. But some of these things will kind of be going on and off all day. And those can be really fun, especially sometimes, like, a new person joins the thread and brings in a totally new perspective or a new angle that kind of, like, breathes new life into it and kind of gives everyone a new perspective. STEPHANIE: Nice. I also think there's something to the idea of seeing more people engage with something that then invites other people to engage with it. JOËL: I would agree with that. It's definitely exciting to see a thread, and it's not like, oh, it's empty, and I'm the only one who's put a response in here. When there is a lot of back and forth, you can almost feel the excitement. And that gets me hyped to, like, keep it going. STEPHANIE: At a previous workplace in our Slack, we had a, like, virtual Jeopardy channel. JOËL: Ooh. STEPHANIE: And so, there was a little Jeopardy bot. And I guess whenever someone, you know, had a low on what they were doing, they would just start, you know, tagging the bot to pose a question. And anyone can answer, right? But once you kind of got the ball rolling, you would see other people start playing as well. And it would get really active for segments of 30 minutes or so. And I always really enjoyed that because, yeah, it was a way for me to remember like, oh yeah, there's, like, other people also, like, typing away on their little keyboards, and we're all here together. But it was really interesting to see, like, when someone got it rolling, like, oh, other people, like, joined in. JOËL: Yeah, being able to see small things like that can really build a sense of connection, even if you're not yourself directly participating. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I think another thing I've been trying out lately is letting people know that I'm in a meeting space and offering to virtually co-work. So, you know, during the early days of when thoughtbot went remote, we had a lounge virtual meeting space for people to hang out with and, you know, get that face time that they weren't getting anymore since we weren't in the office. And, you know, I think that has kind of decreased in terms of engagement over, you know, several years now. And obviously, people have a lot of meeting fatigue and stuff like that. But I was kind of in a mood to revive it a little bit because, yeah, I kind of got over the meeting fatigue and was wanting more face time with people. And the unfortunate thing, though, is that, like, no one was showing up to this room anymore. So, you know, even if someone wanted to hang out in it, you know, they go in. They see no one's there, you know, maybe they stay for a few minutes, but then they're like, okay, well, I'm just going to leave now. And a couple of thoughtboters and I have been trying to revive it where we'll post in our general channel, like, "Hey, like, I'm in this meeting room. Like, come hang out for the next hour if you would like." And that's been working well for me. I have had a few, like, really nice lounge, virtual co-working hangout sessions. Even if one person shows up, honestly, like, that fulfills my want to just, like, speak to another human. [laughs] JOËL: What does virtual co-working look like? Are you just kind of each doing work, but you've got a video camera on, and you're just aware of the presence of someone else? Do you kind of have, like, random breaks where you talk? What is that experience like? STEPHANIE: Oh yeah, that's a good question. I have to say; for me, I'm just talking to the other [laughs] person at that point. I'm not really doing a whole lot of work. And, you know, in some ways, I almost think that, like, in those moments, I am really wanting to chat with someone and, like, that's okay, right? JOËL: It's like a virtual water cooler for you. STEPHANIE: Yeah, exactly. Like, that would be the moment if I were working in office that I would wander into the kitchen looking for a snack but also an unsuspecting victim to start [laughs] a conversation with. JOËL: I feel you. I feel you. I have absolutely done that. STEPHANIE: Yeah. And that's actually what makes me feel a little less guilty about it. Because, you know, when I was working in the office, like, that was such a big part of my day, and it's kind of what kept me motivated. And at home, I do find myself, like, a lot more productive. In fact, like, I think I am because I'm, you know, not spending that time wandering into the kitchen. But at what cost? [laughs] At the cost of, like, me feeling very, like, lonely and, like, kind of burnt out at the end of the day. So, injecting my day with some of these moments, I think, is important to me. And also, again, like, I know that I'm being really productive in my, like, heads-down-time that I want to, you know, allow myself to just like, get that dose of connection. JOËL: I know, for me, when we were doing things like this in person as well, those conversations that happen, yes, there's some random, frivolous stuff, but sometimes, it is a conversation related to work that I'm doing. Because, you know, someone who's not on my project is like, "Hey, how's your project going?" Or whatever. I'm like, "Oh, well, I'm, you know, doing this ODBC connection, and I'm kind of stuck." And, you know, we kind of talk about a few things. It's like, "Oh, did you know about this gem?" And it's like, "Wait, why didn't I talk to you earlier? Because this totally solves my problem." STEPHANIE: Yeah, I think that being a sounding board is so valuable as well. So, I guess I enjoy virtual co-working, not necessarily, you know, us, like, sitting together and doing our work separately. Though I know that there's value in that, especially in real life. Like, I remember reading an article. I'll try to find it and link it. But the idea of just, like, sharing space with someone can be, like, a form of bonding. But I do really enjoy just hearing about what other people are working on and just kind of, like, asking questions about it, right? And maybe we do take away, like, a new perspective or, like, have some insights about, like, the work itself. And, yeah, we don't really get that when we're working remotely by ourselves because there's no one to turn to and be like, "Hey, what do you think about this problem?" JOËL: I love how no matter what the topic is that we're discussing on this show, you always have a book or an article or something that you've read that you can reference. And I think that's amazing. STEPHANIE: Thank you. JOËL: So, you're talking about things that have really helped you feel a deeper sense of connection. I had a realization recently about the power of physical items. In particular, as consultants, sometimes we work with clients who, for security reasons, want us to work on a dedicated laptop for this particular client. And so, we'll have clients maybe—well, now that we're remote—ship us a laptop, and we work on that laptop when we're doing client stuff, and then on our thoughtbot laptops when we're doing thoughtbot things. And when I've been on clients like that, I have felt much more isolated from the thoughtbot team. And just, like, physically switching over to the thoughtbot laptop, all of a sudden, gives me that feeling of connection. And there's something I can't quite explain about the power of the physical item. And, say, I'm working on the thoughtbot laptop today with, you know, thoughtbot Slack in the background or whatever, and I feel more connected to my colleagues. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that is really curious. Did you also have thoughtbot communication channels open in your client laptop during that time? JOËL: I did, and yet still felt more separation. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's really interesting. The way you're describing it, it was almost like, you know, the main laptop that you work with, with your, like, all of the settings that you like, all of your little shortcuts, you know, the autocomplete to the whatever, like, channels of communication that you are used to seeing. In some ways, that almost feels like home a little bit. And I wonder if working on a client laptop almost kind of feels like, you know, being in a stranger's house, right? JOËL: There's definitely an element of that. Yeah, all the little things I've fine-tuned, some of the productivity software I have on there that are just, you know, I can one by one set them up on the client laptop, depending on permissions. But yeah, it's never quite the same. STEPHANIE: So, when you are in a situation where you're mostly working from a client laptop and maybe embedded in their Slack workspace, embedded in their team, how do you go about investing in connection with your client team? JOËL: So, you know what's kind of weird? Is that when I'm on a client laptop, I feel less connected to my colleagues at thoughtbot, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I don't feel more connected to colleagues on a client team on a client laptop than I would on my thoughtbot laptop. So, I'm not exactly sure what the psychology is going on there. But I feel kind of most connected to both when I'm working on my thoughtbot laptop, which is perhaps a bit strange. STEPHANIE: Oh, yeah, that is interesting. I think, in general, there's an aspect of joining a new client team and trying to figure out the culture there and how you might engage with it, right? And how what you bring to the table kind of fits in with how they do things, and how they talk about things, and how they behave. In some ways, it's kind of, like, you know, an outsider joining this, like, in-group, right? So, I've definitely realized that the ways that I engage and feel connected at thoughtbot, like, may or may not work for the client team that I'm joining. JOËL: Yeah. And onboarding onto a client team is not just a technical exercise, right? It's also a social process where you want to get to know the other people on your team, get to sort of integrate into the way they work, their processes, hopefully, build a little bit of, like, personal connection with individuals because all of those are going to help me do my job better tomorrow, and the day after, and the week after that. STEPHANIE: Yeah. I had mentioned previously that one thing that I've been enjoying on my client team is our daily sync question. So, a random question will be generated, you know, like, "What are you eating for dinner today?" Or, like, "What are you looking forward to this weekend?" And folks are able to share. And the fun thing is that sometimes the answer to the question is longer than their work update itself. JOËL: Nice. STEPHANIE: But that is actually the, you know, the beauty of it because we all just, like, get to laugh and get to, you know, chime in. And I'm like, "Oh yeah, like, that sounds delicious, like, what you're eating for dinner tonight." But, like, that would not work for our Boost Team's sync because, you know, it's a much bigger meeting with sometimes up to, you know, 20 to almost 30 people and, like, we can't quite have as much time spent talking about the fun question of the day. So, I definitely think that, you know, it depends your team size, and makeup, and whatnot. JOËL: Are those questions kind of preset, or do you all get to contribute questions to the list? STEPHANIE: We brainstormed the questions one retro when we were realizing that we were kind of getting a little bored of the existing question that we had. And we came up with a handful that is plugged into, like, a website, or, like, an app that randomly, you know, picks the question of the day. And so, I think, again, when we get a little bored of the ones that we have in rotation, we'll throw in some curveballs in there. JOËL: Have you ever considered adding "What's new in your world?" to this rotation? STEPHANIE: It's funny you mentioned that because it's actually the question that we got a little bit stale on. [laughs] JOËL: Really? STEPHANIE: And we needed to inject some new life into, yeah. It's a classic, you know. But I think the variety is nice, especially since we're meeting almost every day. And before we started recording, you and I were just talking about how even sometimes it's tough to think of something that's new in our world [laughs] because we don't always live the most interesting and, you know, new lives. And sometimes, we kind of just have to dig deep to come up with something, and we only meet weekly. [laughs] JOËL: I can definitely see how doing this daily might be more challenging. I think there's also value in questions that are a little bit more focused. Part of what's fun for this podcast is that "What's new in your world?" is so kind of broad. But maybe for something daily, having something really specific, like, what did you eat for dinner tonight? Means that you aren't just kind of drawing blanks in your mind, like, uh, uh, what is new in my world? What have I done? I don't know; I have a boring life. I don't do anything. Kind of panic mode that you can sometimes get when you hit a meeting. And so, I do know that when I've been sometimes in situations with people where you have questions like that, I've tended to really appreciate the more targeted ones. STEPHANIE: Yeah, that's so interesting you mentioned that because I think in social situations, there's usually maybe, like, someone who is really good at asking those, like, specific questions to get the group talking and, like, you know, engaged in a fun conversation, and that specificity helps. One thing that I was just wondering about is the value of meeting every day in a sync kind of format, and I'm curious if you think that is important to you. If you have been on other teams that don't meet every day, maybe they have, like, a virtual check-in, right? Like, a virtual reminder to share what they're working on as opposed to meeting synchronously. JOËL: I think I've seen sort of different purposes for sync meetings. Sometimes it's very kind of project-heavy, right? You're talking about the tickets you're working on for today. The reason you're having that is specifically for status updates or because you are blocked, and you want somebody else to help unblock you. So, it's very process-focused. I think that varies team to team, but it can be really helpful. Even I've been on projects where it's maybe me and one other person, and we'll have kind of an informal just call each other up every morning and say, "Hey, here's what I'm working on today. Here's kind of roughly the strategy I plan to take on it. And we'll go back and forth." And for something like that, it inevitably also somewhat turns into a bit of a social call, so that's planning and social. And I think that can be really strong. STEPHANIE: Yeah, I like that a lot. JOËL: That's not necessarily going to be the case for every team, every project, especially with larger teams. And I feel like for something like the Boost Team at thoughtbot, we have a daily sync. We're not all working on the same project. So, I don't want to know about the specific details of the ticket you're working on. I'm more interested in getting just a little bit of face time with the whole of our team to feel a connection. And, you know, maybe if you've got something cool that you want to share, and that can be a win. It can even be a struggle. And we can all kind of empathize, right? That, like, "Oh, I dropped production database this morning, and I'm kind of freaking out," is a totally fine thing to share. But "I am working on ticket 1, 2, 3, 4 to add some text to a part of the page," that's not particularly useful to me in the kind of sync that we have for the thoughtbot Boost Team. STEPHANIE: Yeah, absolutely. I think knowing, like, who the audience is of the meeting and, like, how they might be able to support you or be there for you is helpful in making them feel a little more relevant and personal. And I had mentioned that our Boost daily meetings or daily syncs, you know, are a little too big for people to really get into, you know, sharing a fun, personal anecdote, or whatever. But one thing that I really enjoy is that whoever goes last in giving their update gets to choose the sign-off for everyone. So maybe that's like, okay, we'll just go out on a wave, and we all wave. Or maybe it's, you know, like, making a little heart with your hands. And then there's some folks on the team who go really wild and, you know, come up with something totally unexpected. And I think, you know, that spontaneity is so fun. And we all share it in this collective act of...I'm trying to think of a funny one lately, maybe, like, sinking down into your chair until you disappear from the view [laughs]. That's a good one. JOËL: Sometimes it's those, like, small social rituals that can be really meaningful. STEPHANIE: Absolutely. Do you have a favorite sign-off that you have either requested or have done? JOËL: So, I typically just go for the wave if I'm last because I've not thought about it. But I generally think it's fun to have everybody try to mimic an emoji. So, it might be like, oh, everybody do the, you know, See-No-Evil emoji, or everybody do the party parrot. Those are pretty fun to sign off on. STEPHANIE: Oh yeah, [inaudible 29:15] pausing is good. I think another one I like is, "Everyone do your best impression of a tree." [laughs] JOËL: Sometimes, too, it's fun to do something that's relevant to the particular day. If there's something special happening that day, you get something relevant. I've done before, if it's on a Friday, say, "Everybody do your best Rebecca Black impression." STEPHANIE: Yeah, also excellent. JOËL: Because, you know, it's Friday. STEPHANIE: Yeah, like, a little moment of collective celebration for the weekend. On that note, it's a Friday we're recording this episode. Shall we wrap up and look forward to the weekend? JOËL: [laughter] Fun, fun, fun, fun. STEPHANIE: Show notes for this episode can be found at bikeshed.fm. JOËL: This show has been produced and edited by Mandy Moore. STEPHANIE: If you enjoyed listening, one really easy way to support the show is to leave us a quick rating or even a review in iTunes. It really helps other folks find the show. JOËL: If you have any feedback for this or any of our other episodes, you can reach us @_bikeshed, or you can reach me @joelquen on Twitter. STEPHANIE: Or reach both of us at hosts@bikeshed.fm via email. JOËL: Thanks so much for listening to The Bike Shed, and we'll see you next week. ALL: Byeeeeeee!!!!!! ANNOUNCER: This podcast is brought to you by thoughtbot, your expert strategy, design, development, and product management partner. We bring digital products from idea to success and teach you how because we care. Learn more at thoughtbot.com.

Welcome to the newest episode of The Cloud Pod podcast! Justin, Ryan and Jonathan are your hosts this week as we discuss all the latest news and announcements in the world of the cloud and AI - including Amazon's new AI, Bedrock, as well as new AI tools from other developers. We also address the new updates to AWS's CodeWhisperer, and return to our Cloud Journey Series where we discuss *insert dramatic music* - Kubernetes!  Titles we almost went with this week: ⭐I'm always Whispering to My Code as an Individual

On this week's episode of the podcast, I talk about Citrix DaaS for AWS, some Citrix SSO concerns, a Windows Update breaking ODBC Connections and much more! Reference Links: https://www.rorymon.com/blog/windows-update-breaks-odbc-connections-aad-and-msa-account-linking-epson-leaving-laserjet-printer-game/

In this episode of the Futurum Tech Webcast, principal analyst Shelly Kramer is joined by Allan Pym, Chief Operating Officer at APOS, for a conversation on the challenges making the most of business data presents for organizations, and how APOS Live Data Gateway is helping solve those challenges — and in real time. We all know that data is crucial for today's organizations. From sales and marketing to manufacturing and maintenance, smart organizations need data to make decisions in real time. However, with so much data being gathered in so many different places, it can often feel impossible, overwhelming, or both to wrangle it intelligently. So, what can organizations do to make the most of their data? Are there other technology solutions that can help? Why does real-time matter when it comes to accessing and utilizing data? That's exactly what Allan and I covered today, and if you're wrestling with data challenges, it's a conversation you'll very much enjoy. We covered the following: We know that data is important, that's not a secret. In fact, some 94 percent of organizations report needing access to multiple data sources to support their decision-making — but not every organization knows what to do with their data. Allan shared some of the challenges he and the team at APOS are seeing as organizations wrestle with data connectivity. That's not at all difficult to understand, as research shows that on average companies are drawing from more than 400 different data sources. To compound that massive amount of data coming from myriad sources, one-third of companies report experiencing trouble simply connecting those sources together, let alone pulling accurate or meaningful insights from them. We discussed live connectivity: what it is and why it's so important for organizations today. Allan walked us through the APOS Live Data Gateway, its purpose and the key benefits organizations can experience using its three layers of functionality (Data Connection, Data Preparation, and Data Consumption) and three types of data views that can be utilized within the Data Preparation Layer. We explored APOS Live Data Gateway's Data Connection layer, where the solution makes the connection to data, and we talked about some of the data sources that APOS Live Data Gateway provides connectivity with. We explored both the Data Preparation layer and the Data Consumption layer, including how APOS Live Data Gateway works with SAP Solutions and how live connectivity versus import connectivity works with SAP Analytics Cloud. Allan shared that APOS Live Gateway works with analytics solutions beyond just SAP Analytics Cloud, including live connectivity from Power BI to SAP Analytics Cloud, as well as the expanded consumption options that include Odata, ODBC, and JDBC, in the unified semantic layer. Lastly, Allan shared some stories from customers who are currently using APOS Live Data Gateway which, as always, was one of my favorite parts of the conversation. If you're thinking about getting arms around your data and know that live, real-time data is what you need, this is a conversation you should make time for. Find more information about APOS Live Data Gateway on SAP Store.

The Context Podcast: Expanding the Possibilities of Modular & Decoupled Development with ODataFeaturing: Martha Zink, The Context Podcast Host & Proof+Geist Director of Marketing Todd Geist, Proof+Geist Co-Founder/CTO John Renfrew, Independent Developer & Owner Episode Summary: The recent release of FileMaker 19.5 introduced a new feature for those with FileMaker Server for Mac and Windows: OData (Open Data Protocol). Originally created by Microsoft, OData is an open protocol that allows for the creation and consumption of queryable and interoperable REST APIs in a simple and standard way.Description:The recent release of FileMaker 19.5 introduced a new feature for those with FileMaker Server for Mac and Windows: OData (Open Data Protocol). Originally created by Microsoft, OData is an open protocol that allows for the creation and consumption of queryable and interoperable REST APIs in a simple and standard way.In this episode, join Martha, Todd, and John as they explore OData and its many wide-ranging impacts: What benefits – efficiency gains, programming ergonomics, and scalability – does OData offer? How does OData compare to and improve upon other methodologies like the Data API, ODBC, and PSOS? Before diving into OData, what are some tradeoffs and cautions we should consider? And perhaps most centrally, how does OData open a door to new ways of modular and decoupled development in modern FileMaker?You can also view this Podcast on Youtube.Links:OData DocumentationFileMaker 19.5 ReleaseThe Context Podcast: New Features in FileMaker 19.5

Source: the Analytics Engineering Podcast: https://roundup.getdbt.com/p/aaron-katz-clickhouse (2mins in)Feedback/Discuss on Twitter: https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1552835669373894656Survey Fill out our 2022 Survey! https://forms.gle/g2s1Np9wS5qmrKSRA! Survey context: https://mixtape.swyx.io/episodes/swyx-mixtape-survey-refactor-and-deadpool-swyx More on ClickhouseOur previous episode on Clickhouse: https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1502129209111576577HN comments on Clickhouse: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28595419I'd like to thank the creators of ClickHouse as i hope they are reading here. We've been using it since 2019 in a single server setup with billions of rows. No problems at all. And query speeds that seem unreal compared to MySQL and pg.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26316401 Also wanted to share my overall positive experience with Clickhouse.UPSIDES* started a 3-node cluster using the official Docker images super quickly* ingested billions of rows super fast* great compression (of course, depends on your data's characteristics)* features like https://clickhouse.tech/docs/en/engines/table-engines/merget... are amazing to see* ODBC support. I initially said "Who uses that??", but we used it to connect PostgreSQL and so we can keep the non-timeseries data in PostgreSQL but still access PostgreSQL tables in Clickhouse (!)* you can go the other way too: read Clickhouse from PostgreSQL (see https://github.com/Percona-Lab/clickhousedb_fdw, although we didn't try this)* PRs welcome, and quickly reviewed. (We improved the ODBC UUID support)* code quality is pretty high.DOWNSIDES* limited JOIN capabilities, which is expected from a timeseries-oriented database like Clickhouse. It's almost impossible to implement JOINs at this kind of scale. The philosophy is "If it won't be fast as scale, we don't support it"* not-quite-standard SQL syntax, but they've been improving it* limited DELETE support, which is also expected from this kind of database, but rarely used in the kinds of environments that CH usually runs in (how often do people delete data from ElasticSearch?)It's really an impressive piece of engineering. Hats off to the Yandex crew.moreI'd like to add an upside which is:Totally great and simple on a single node.I looked at a bunch of analytical databases and had a lot that started with "so here's a basic 10 node cluster". Clickhouse installed and worked instantly with decent but not "big" data with no hassle. A hundred million rows with lots of heavy text blobs and a lot of columns, that kind of thing. Happily dealt with triple nested joins over that, and with billions of entries in arrays on those columns didn't bat an eye.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29098637 This has been my experience with ClickHouse as well...that is, you can basically close your eyes while writing the schema and still maintain to get extremely impressive performance.That being said, ClickHouse also has a ton of clever levers you can pull to squeeze out better performance and compression which aren't used by default, such as using Delta/DoubleDelta CODECs with LZ4/ZSTD compression, etc. Not to mention, MATERIALIZED VIEWs and/or the relatively newer feature MergeTree Projections[1]

DuckDB est une base de données OLAP in-process et très légère : très utile pour la préparation de données en SQL Surtout quand cette base est compilée en C++, très performante, dotée de nombreuses fonctions, capable de lire et écrire des fichiers csv ou parquet et utilisable via ODBC,JDBC, API python ou C++ ou tout simplement via CLI. Apache Arrow est un format pour la représentation colonnaire données analytiques et permet d'éviter la serialisation et la perte de temps associée.

This week in the AppSec News: SynLapse shows shell injection via ODBC, Java deserialization example, MFA for Ruby Gems ecosystem, simple flaws in firmware, the decade-long journey of a Safari vuln, & more!   IE has gone to 11 and is no more. There's some notable history related to IE11 and bug bounty programs. In 2008, Katie Moussouris and others from Microsoft announced their vulnerability disclosure program. In 2013 this evolved into a bug bounty program piloted with IE11, with award ranges from $500 to $11,000. Ten years later, that bounty range is still common across the industry. The technical goals of the program remain similar as well -- RCEs, universal XSS, and sandbox escapes are all vulns that can easily gain $10,000+ (or an order of magnitude greater) in modern browser bounty programs. So, even if we've finally moved on from a browser with an outdated security architecture, we're still dealing with critical patches in modern browsers. Fortunately, the concept of bounty programs continues. References: - https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-08/Reavey/MSRC.pdf - https://media.blackhat.com/bh-usa-08/video/bh-us-08-Reavey/black-hat-usa-08-reavey-securetheplanet-hires.m4v - https://web.archive.org/web/20130719064943/http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/report/IE11.aspx - https://web.archive.org/web/20190507215514/https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/bluehat/2013/07/03/new-bounty-programs-one-week-in/   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/secweekly Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/secweekly   Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw201

This week in the AppSec News: SynLapse shows shell injection via ODBC, Java deserialization example, MFA for Ruby Gems ecosystem, simple flaws in firmware, the decade-long journey of a Safari vuln, & more!   IE has gone to 11 and is no more. There's some notable history related to IE11 and bug bounty programs. In 2008, Katie Moussouris and others from Microsoft announced their vulnerability disclosure program. In 2013 this evolved into a bug bounty program piloted with IE11, with award ranges from $500 to $11,000. Ten years later, that bounty range is still common across the industry. The technical goals of the program remain similar as well -- RCEs, universal XSS, and sandbox escapes are all vulns that can easily gain $10,000+ (or an order of magnitude greater) in modern browser bounty programs. So, even if we've finally moved on from a browser with an outdated security architecture, we're still dealing with critical patches in modern browsers. Fortunately, the concept of bounty programs continues. References: - https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-08/Reavey/MSRC.pdf - https://media.blackhat.com/bh-usa-08/video/bh-us-08-Reavey/black-hat-usa-08-reavey-securetheplanet-hires.m4v - https://web.archive.org/web/20130719064943/http://www.microsoft.com/security/msrc/report/IE11.aspx - https://web.archive.org/web/20190507215514/https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/bluehat/2013/07/03/new-bounty-programs-one-week-in/   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/secweekly Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/secweekly   Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw201

This week in the AppSec News: SynLapse shows shell injection via ODBC, Java deserialization example, MFA for Ruby Gems ecosystem, simple flaws in firmware, the decade-long journey of a Safari vuln, & more!   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw201

This week in the AppSec News: SynLapse shows shell injection via ODBC, Java deserialization example, MFA for Ruby Gems ecosystem, simple flaws in firmware, the decade-long journey of a Safari vuln, & more!   Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/asw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/asw201

A daily look at the relevant information security news from overnight.Episode 235 - 07 May 2022Putin pwned - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/hackers-display-blood-is-on-your-hands-on-russian-tv-take-down-rutube/EU Points finger - https://www.securityweek.com/eu-blames-russia-satellite-hack-ahead-ukraine-invasionChemical phish - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ukraine-warns-of-chemical-attack-phishing-pushing-stealer-malware/Azure RCE - https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-releases-fixes-for-azure-flaw-allowing-rce-attacks/NCF counter attack- https://www.zdnet.com/article/government-hackers-made-hundreds-of-thousands-of-stolen-credit-cards-worthless-to-crooks/Hi, I'm Paul Torgersen. It's Tuesday May 10th, 2022, and this is a look at the information security news from overnight. From BleepingComputer.com:While Russian President Vladimir Putin was giving his "Victory Day" speech, pro-Ukrainian hacking groups defaced the online Russian TV schedule page to display anti-war messages. The name of every programme was changed to "On your hands is the blood of thousands of Ukrainians and their hundreds of murdered children. TV and the authorities are lying. No to war” At the same time, a cyberattack took down the Russian video sharing site RuTube. More details in the link. From SecurityWeek.com:The European Union this week accused Russian authorities of carrying out a cyberattack against a satellite network an hour before they invaded Ukraine. The target was the KA-SAT network operated by Viasat. This is significant as it marks the first time the EU has ever formally accused Russia of carrying out a cyber attack. From BleepingComputer.com:Ukraine's Computer Emergency Response Team is warning of the mass phishing campaign distributing the Jester Stealer malware. The emails warn of impending chemical attacks to scare recipients into opening the XLS attachments, which are of course laced with malicious macros. Additional details in the article. Also from BleepingComputer.com:Microsoft has released updates to address a security flaw affecting Azure Synapse and Azure Data Factory pipelines that could allow remote code execution across the Integration Runtime infrastructure. The vulnerability was found in the third-party ODBC data connector used to connect to Amazon Redshift, in Integration Runtime, in Azure Synapse Pipelines, and Azure Data Factory. Details and a link to the security advisory in the article. And last today, from ZDNet.com:From the One for the Good Guys file. Britain's National Cyber Force, which is a joint effort using the combined resources of the GCHQ and the Ministry of Defence, took direct action against computer networks used by cyber criminals, and made hundreds of thousands of stolen credit cards, worthless to the crooks that stole them. Well done you. That's all for me today. Remember to LIKE and SUBSCRIBE. And as always, until next time, be safe out there.

Array Cast - February 19, 2022 Show NotesMany thanks to Bob Therriault for collecting these links.[01] 00:01:43 TryAPL.org https://tryapl.org/[02] 00:02:20 J promotional video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV936cVrN0I[03] 00:04:30 BASIC computer language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC[04] 00:05:04 Commodore Pet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_PET[05] 00:05:50 Nascom One https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascom_(computer_kit)[06] 00:06:44 I.P. Sharpe Associates https://aplwiki.com/wiki/I.P._Sharp_Associates[07] 00:11:26 Gitte Christensen Episode 12 ArrayCast https://www.arraycast.com/episodes/episode12-gitte-christensen[08] 00:13:20 Futhark Computer Language https://futhark-lang.org/[09] 00:19:50 Smalltalk Computer Language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk[10] 00:20:13 Romilly Cocking Presentation Dyalog '08 https://dyalog.tv/Dyalog08/?v=thr-7QfQWJw[11] 00:20:52 OS/2 operating system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS/2[12] 00:21:37 ODBC https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/odbc/microsoft-open-database-connectivity-odbc?view=sql-server-ver15[13] 00:21:45 AS400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AS/400[14] 00:23:45 Adaytum Software https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Adaytum_Software[15] 00:25:22 Cognos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognos[16] 00:26:45 Simcorp APL Italiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCorp[17] 00:33:49 John Scholes https://aplwiki.com/wiki/John_Scholes[18] 00:34:00 Geoff Streeter https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Geoff_Streeter[19] 00:34:00 Pete Donnely https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Pete_Donnelly[20] 00:34:31 "Mastering Dyalog APL" 1st edition PDF: https://dyalog.com/mastering-dyalog-apl.htm[21] 00:34:50 Rodrigo Girão Serrão Episode 20 ArrayCast https://www.arraycast.com/episodes/episode20-rodrigo-girao-serrao[22] 00:35:30 John Daintree https://aplwiki.com/wiki/John_Daintree[23] 00:35:50 ASP.NET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASP.NET[24] 00:38:08 Dyalog Problem solving competition https://aplwiki.com/wiki/APL_Problem_Solving_Competition[25] 00:59:32 Roger Hui Episode 13 ArrayCast https://www.arraycast.com/episodes/episode13-roger-hui[26] 00:41:50 Functional Conf https://functionalconf.com/[27] 00:41:55 LambdaConf https://lambdaconf.us/[28] 01:00:43 Aaron Hsu Codfns https://www.sacrideo.us/projects/[29] 01:03:06 APL2000 https://aplwiki.com/wiki/APL2000[30] 01:06:00 MicroAPL documentation https://microapl.com/apl_help/[31] 01:11:25 Link presentation https://dyalog.tv/Dyalog21/?v=K_-E1tnH06k[32] 01:14:31 Nick Nickolov https://aplwiki.com/wiki/Nick_Nickolov[33] 01:16:38 Dyalog Careers https://www.dyalog.com/careers.htm

In this episode, Silvia Brunet-Jones, Technical Program Director of the K-12 Technology portfolio at the Michael & Susan Dell Foundation, gives us the origin story of Ed-Fi, which goes all the way back to Hurricane Katrina and student relocations from Louisiana to Texas. She highlights the early focus in the development of Ed-Fi of providing value both for state accountability reporting and for local district operational data use for teaching, learning, intervention, research allocation, and other purposes. In discussing current needs and priorities, Silvia speaks about humanizing the data, providing agency and empowerment for data owners and users, and the need for cross-sectional teams and empathy among different stakeholders. Listen to the end to enjoy a brief blooper reel. Correction: The number of students displaced by Hurricane Katrina and relocated to Texas is cited as at least 46,000 (exact number unknown due to record keeping). https://www.edweek.org/leadership/post-katrina-some-students-gave-up-home-for-a-better-school/2015/08 Show notes and resources: Silvia Brunet-Jones: https://www.dell.org/employee/silvia-brunet-jones/ The Ed-Fi Academy: https://academy.ed-fi.org/ Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223-235. Acronyms: XML (6:12): https://www.howtogeek.com/357092/what-is-an-xml-file-and-how-do-i-open-one/ ODBC (13:59): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/odbc/microsoft-open-database-connectivity-odbc?view=sql-server-ver15 SQL (14:26): https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming/sql CSV (22:19) and comma delimited files: https://kb.blackbaud.com/knowledgebase/Article/75155 FTP (23:06): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol API (23:35): https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/api SIS (38:44): Student Information System (student information databases within school districts) Music: Exploring The World by Vlad Gluschenko is licensed under a Creative Commons License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... https://soundcloud.com/vgl9Support by RFM - NCM: https://bit.ly/2xGHypM

In this episode we speak with Matt Topol, Vice President, Principal Software Architect @ FactSet and dive deep into how they are taking advantage of Apache Arrow for faster processing and data access. Below are the top 3 value bombs:Apache Arrow is an open-source in-memory columnar format that creates a standard way to share and process data structures.Apache Arrow Flight eliminates serialization and deserialization which enables faster access to query results compared to traditional JDBC and ODBC interfaces.Don't put all your eggs in one basket, whether you're using commercial products or open source, make sure you design a modular architecture that does not tie you down to any one piece of technology.

About SamA 25-year veteran of the Silicon Valley and Seattle technology scenes, Sam Ramji led Kubernetes and DevOps product management for Google Cloud, founded the Cloud Foundry foundation, has helped build two multi-billion dollar markets (API Management at Apigee and Enterprise Service Bus at BEA Systems) and redefined Microsoft's open source and Linux strategy from “extinguish” to “embrace”.He is nerdy about open source, platform economics, middleware, and cloud computing with emphasis on developer experience and enterprise software. He is an advisor to multiple companies including Dell Technologies, Accenture, Observable, Fletch, Orbit, OSS Capital, and the Linux Foundation.Sam received his B.S. in Cognitive Science from UC San Diego, the home of transdisciplinary innovation, in 1994 and is still excited about artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology.Links: DataStax: https://www.datastax.com Sam Ramji Twitter: https://twitter.com/sramji Open||Source||Data: https://www.datastax.com/resources/podcast/open-source-data Screaming in the Cloud Episode 243 with Craig McLuckie: https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/screaming-in-the-cloud/innovating-in-the-cloud-with-craig-mcluckie/ Screaming in the Cloud Episode 261 with Jason Warner: https://www.lastweekinaws.com/podcast/screaming-in-the-cloud/what-github-can-give-to-microsoft-with-jason-warner/ TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by our friends at Redis, the company behind the incredibly popular open source database that is not the bind DNS server. If you're tired of managing open source Redis on your own, or you're using one of the vanilla cloud caching services, these folks have you covered with the go to manage Redis service for global caching and primary database capabilities; Redis Enterprise. Set up a meeting with a Redis expert during re:Invent, and you'll not only learn how you can become a Redis hero, but also have a chance to win some fun and exciting prizes. To learn more and deploy not only a cache but a single operational data platform for one Redis experience, visit redis.com/hero. Thats r-e-d-i-s.com/hero. And my thanks to my friends at Redis for sponsoring my ridiculous non-sense.  Corey: Are you building cloud applications with a distributed team? Check out Teleport, an open source identity-aware access proxy for cloud resources. Teleport provides secure access to anything running somewhere behind NAT: SSH servers, Kubernetes clusters, internal web apps and databases. Teleport gives engineers superpowers! Get access to everything via single sign-on with multi-factor. List and see all SSH servers, kubernetes clusters or databases available to you. Get instant access to them all using tools you already have. Teleport ensures best security practices like role-based access, preventing data exfiltration, providing visibility and ensuring compliance. And best of all, Teleport is open source and a pleasure to use.Download Teleport at https://goteleport.com. That's goteleport.com.Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud, I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and recurring effort that this show goes to is to showcase people in their best light. Today's guest has done an awful lot: he led Kubernetes and DevOps Product Management for Google Cloud; he founded the Cloud Foundry Foundation; he set open-source strategy for Microsoft in the naughts; he advises companies including Dell, Accenture, the Linux Foundation; and tying all of that together, it's hard to present a lot of that in a great light because given my own proclivities, that sounds an awful lot like a personal attack. Sam Ramji is the Chief Strategy Officer at DataStax. Sam, thank you for joining me, and it's weird when your resume starts to read like, “Oh, I hate all of these things.”Sam: [laugh]. It's weird, but it's true. And it's the only life I could have lived apparently because here I am. Corey, it's a thrill to meet you. I've been an admirer of your public speaking, and public tweeting, and your writing for a long time.Corey: Well, thank you. The hard part is getting over the voice saying don't do it because it turns out that there's no real other side of public shutting up, which is something that I was never good at anyway, so I figured I'd lean into it. And again, I mean, that the sense of where you have been historically in terms of your career not, “Look what you've done,” which is a subtext that I could be accused of throwing in sometimes.Sam: I used to hear that a lot from my parents, actually.Corey: Oh, yeah. That was my name growing up. But you've done a lot of things, and you've transitioned from notable company making significant impact on the industry, to the next one, to the next one. And you've been in high-flying roles, doing lots of really interesting stuff. What's the common thread between all those things?Sam: I'm an intensely curious person, and the thing that I'm most curious about is distributed cognition. And that might not be obvious from what you see is kind of the… Lego blocks of my career, but I studied cognitive science in college when that was not really something that was super well known. So, I graduated from UC San Diego in '94 doing neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and psychology. And because I just couldn't stop thinking about thinking; I was just fascinated with how it worked.So, then I wanted to build software systems that would help people learn. And then I wanted to build distributed software systems. And then I wanted to learn how to work with people who were thinking about building the distributed software systems. So, you end up kind of going up this curve of, like, complexity about how do we think? How do we think alone? How do we learn to think? How do we think together?And that's the directed path through my software engineering career, into management, into middleware at BEA, into open-source at Microsoft because that's an amazing demonstration of distributed cognition, how, you know, at the time in 2007, I think, Sourceforge had 100,000 open-source projects, which was, like, mind boggling. Some of them even worked together, but all of them represented these groups of people, flung around the world, collaborating on something that was just fundamentally useful, that they were curious about. Kind of did the same thing into APIs because APIs are an even better way to reuse for some cases than having the source code—at Apigee. And kept growing up through that into, how are we building larger-scale thinking systems like Cloud Foundry, which took me into Google and Kubernetes, and then some applications of that in Autodesk and now DataStax. So, I love building companies. I love helping people build companies because I think business is distributed cognition. So, those businesses that build distributed systems, for me, are the most fascinating.Corey: You were basically handed a heck of a challenge as far as, “Well, help set open-source strategy,” back at Microsoft, in the days where that was a punchline. And credit where due, I have to look at Microsoft of today, and it's not a joke, you can have your arguments about them, but again in those days, a lot of us built our entire personality on hating Microsoft. Some folks never quite evolved beyond that, but it's a new ballgame and it's very clear that the Microsoft of yesteryear and the Microsoft of today are not completely congruent. What was it like at that point understanding that as you're working with open-source communities, you're doing that from a place of employment with a company that was widely reviled in the space.Sam: It was not lost on me. The irony, of course, was that—Corey: Well, thank God because otherwise the question where you would have been, “What do you mean they didn't like us?”Sam: [laugh].Corey: Which, on some levels, like, yeah, that's about the level of awareness I would have expected in that era, but contrary to popular opinion, execs at these companies are not generally oblivious.Sam: Yeah, well, if I'd been clever as a creative humorist, I would have given you that answer instead of my serious answer, but for some reason, my role in life is always to be the straight guy. I used to have Slashdot as my homepage, right? I love when I'd see some conspiracy theory about, you know, Bill Gates dressed up as the Borg, taking over the world. My first startup, actually in '97, was crushed by Microsoft. They copied our product, copied the marketing, and bundled it into Office, so I had lots of reasons to dislike Microsoft.But in 2004, I was recruited into their venture capital team, which I couldn't believe. It was really a place that they were like, “Hey, we could do better at helping startups succeed, so we're going to evangelize their success—if they're building with Microsoft technologies—to VCs, to enterprises, we'll help you get your first big enterprise deal.” I was like, “Man, if I had this a few years ago, I might not be working.” So, let's go try to pay it forward.I ended up in open-source by accident. I started going to these conferences on Software as a Service. This is back in 2005 when people were just starting to light up, like, Silicon Valley Forum with, you know, the CEO of Demandware would talk, right? We'd hear all these different ways of building a new business, and they all kept talking about their tech stack was Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP. I went to one eight-hour conference, and Microsoft technologies were mentioned for about 12 seconds in two separate chunks. So, six seconds, he was like, “Oh, and also we really like Microsoft SQL Server for our data layer.”Corey: Oh, Microsoft SQL Server was fantastic. And I know that's a weird thing for people to hear me say, just because I've been renowned recently for using Route 53 as the primary data store for everything that I can. But there was nothing quite like that as far as having multiple write nodes, being able to handle sharding effectively. It was expensive, and you would take a bath on the price come audit time, but people were not rolling it out unaware of those things. This was a trade off that they were making.Oracle has a similar story with databases. It's yeah, people love to talk smack about Oracle and its business practices for a variety of excellent reasons, at least in the database space that hasn't quite made it to cloud yet—knock on wood—but people weren't deploying it because they thought Oracle was warm and cuddly as a vendor; they did it because they can tolerate the rest of it because their stuff works.Sam: That's so well said, and people don't give them the credit that's due. Like, when they built hypergrowth in their business, like… they had a great product; it really worked. They made it expensive, and they made a lot of money on it, and I think that was why you saw MySQL so successful and why, if you were looking for a spec that worked, that you could talk through through an open driver like ODBC or JDBC or whatever, you could swap to Microsoft SQL Server. But I walked out of that and came back to the VC team and said, “Microsoft has a huge problem. This is a massive market wave that's coming. We're not doing anything in it. They use a little bit of SQL Server, but there's nothing else in your tech stack that they want, or like, or can afford because they don't know if their businesses are going to succeed or not. And they're going to go out of business trying to figure out how much licensing costs they would pay to you in order to consider using your software. They can't even start there. They have to start with open-source. So, if you're going to deal with SaaS, you're going to have to have open-source, and get it right.”So, I worked with some folks in the industry, wrote a ten-page paper, sent it up to Bill Gates for Think Week. Didn't hear much back. Bought a new strategy to the head of developer platform evangelism, Sanjay Parthasarathy who suggested that the idea of discounting software to zero for startups, with the hope that they would end up doing really well with it in the future as a Software as a Service company; it was dead on arrival. Dumb idea; bring it back; that actually became BizSpark, the most popular program in Microsoft partner history.And then about three months later, I got a call from this guy, Bill Hilf. And he said, “Hey, this is Bill Hilf. I do open-source at Microsoft. I work with Bill Gates. He sent me your paper. I really like it. Would you consider coming up and having conversation with me because I want you to think about running open-source technology strategy for the company.” And at this time I'm, like, 33 or 34. And I'm like, “Who me? You've got to be joking.” And he goes, “Oh, and also, you'll be responsible for doing quarterly deep technical briefings with Bill… Gates.” I was like, “You must be kidding.” And so of course I had to check it out. One thing led to another and all of a sudden, with not a lot of history in the open-source community but coming in it with a strategist's eye and with a technologist's eye, saying, “This is a problem we got to solve. How do we get after this pragmatically?” And the rest is history, as they say.Corey: I have to say that you are the Chief Strategy Officer at DataStax, and I pull up your website quickly here and a lot of what I tell earlier stage companies is effectively more or less what you have already done. You haven't named yourself after the open-source project that underlies the bones of what you have built so you're not going to wind up in the same glorious challenges that, for example, Elastic or MongoDB have in some ways. You have a pricing page that speaks both to the reality of, “It's two in the morning. I'm trying to get something up and running and I want you the hell out of my way. Just give me something that I can work with a reasonable free tier and don't make me talk to a salesperson.” But also, your enterprise tier is, “Click here to talk to a human being,” which is speaking enterprise slash procurement slash, oh, there will be contract negotiation on these things.It's being able to serve different ends of your market depending upon who it is that encounters you without being off-putting to any of those. And it's deceptively challenging for companies to pull off or get right. So clearly, you've learned lessons by doing this. That was the big problem with Microsoft for the longest time. It's, if I want to use some Microsoft stuff, once you were able to download things from the internet, it changed slightly, but even then it was one of those, “What exactly am I committing to here as far as signing up for this? And am I giving them audit rights into my environment? Is the BSA about to come out of nowhere and hit me with a surprise audit and find out that various folks throughout the company have installed this somewhere and now I owe more than the company's worth?” That was always the haunting fear that companies had back then.These days, I like the approach that companies are taking with the SaaS offering: you pay for usage. On some level, I'd prefer it slightly differently in a pay-per-seat model because at least then you can predict the pricing, but no one is getting surprise submarined with this type of thing on an audit basis, and then they owe damages and payment in arrears and someone has them over a barrel. It's just, “Oh. The bill this month was higher than we expected.” I like that model I think the industry does, too.Sam: I think that's super well said. As I used to joke at BEA Systems, nothing says ‘I love you' to a customer like an audit, right? That's kind of a one-time use strategy. If you're going to go audit licenses to get your revenue in place, you might be inducing some churn there. It's a huge fix for the structural problem in pricing that I think package software had, right?When we looked at Microsoft software versus open-source software, and particularly Windows versus Linux, you would have a structure where sales reps were really compensated to sell as much as possible upfront so they could get the best possible commission on what might be used perpetually. But then if you think about it, like, the boxes in a curve, right, if you do that calculus approximation of a smooth curve, a perpetual software license is a huge box and there's an enormous amount of waste in there. And customers figured out so as soon as you can go to a pay-per-use or pay-as-you-go, you start to smooth that curve, and now what you get is what you deserve, right, as opposed to getting filled with way more cost than you expect. So, I think this model is really super well understood now. Kind of the long run the high point of open-source meets, cloud, meets Software as a Service, you look at what companies like MongoDB, and Confluent, and Elastic, and Databricks are doing. And they've really established a very good path through the jungle of how to succeed as a software company. So, it's still difficult to implement, but there are really world-class guides right now.Corey: Moving beyond where Microsoft was back in the naughts, you were then hired as a VP over at Google. And in that era, the fact that you were hired as a VP at Google is fascinating. They preferred to grow those internally, generally from engineering. So, first question, when you were being hired as a VP in the product org, did they make you solve algorithms on a whiteboard to get there?Sam: [laugh]. They did not. I did have somewhat of an advantage [because they 00:13:36] could see me working pretty closely as the CEO of the Cloud Foundry Foundation. I'd worked closely with Craig McLuckie who notably brought Kubernetes to the world along with Joe Beda, and with Eric Brewer, and a number of others.And he was my champion at Google. He was like, “Look, you know, we need him doing Kubernetes. Let's bring Sam in to do that.” So, that was helpful. I also wrote a [laugh] 2000-word strategy document, just to get some thoughts out of my head. And I said, “Hey, if you like this, great. If you don't throw it away.” So, the interviews were actually very much not solving problems in a whiteboard. There were super collaborative, really excellent conversations. It was slow—Corey: Let's be clear, Craig McLuckie's most notable achievement was being a guest on this podcast back in Episode 243. But I'll say that this is a close second.Sam: [laugh]. You're not wrong. And of course now with Heptio and their acquisition by VMware.Corey: Ehh, they're making money beyond the wildest dreams of avarice, that's all well and good, but an invite to this podcast, that's where it's at.Sam: Well, he should really come on again, he can double down and beat everybody. That can be his landmark achievement, a two-timer on Screaming in [the] Cloud.Corey: You were at Google; you were at Microsoft. These are the big titans of their era, in some respect—not to imply that there has beens; they're bigger than ever—but it's also a more crowded field in some ways. I guess completing the trifecta would be Amazon, but you've had the good judgment never to work there, directly of course. Now they're clearly in your market. You're at DataStax, which is among other things, built on Apache Cassandra, and they launched their own Cassandra service named Keyspaces because no one really knows why or how they name things.And of course, looking under the hood at the pricing model, it's pretty clear that it really is just DynamoDB wearing some Groucho Marx classes with a slight upcharge for API level compatibility. Great. So, I don't see it a lot in the real world and that's fine, but I'm curious as to your take on looking at all three of those companies at different eras. There was always the threat in the open-source world that they are going to come in and crush you. You said earlier that Microsoft crushed your first startup.Google is an interesting competitor in some respects; people don't really have that concern about them. And your job as a Chief Strategy Officer at Amazon is taken over by a Post-it Note that simply says ‘yes' on it because there's nothing they're not going to do, or try, and experiment with. So, from your perspective, if you look at the titans, who is it that you see as the largest competitive threat these days, if that's even a thing?Sam: If you think about Sun Tzu and the Art of War, right—a lot of strategy comes from what we've learned from military environments—fighting a symmetric war, right, using the same weapons and the same army against a symmetric opponent, but having 1/100th of the personnel and 1/100th of the money is not a good plan.Corey: “We're going to lose money, going to be outcompeted; we'll make it up in volume. Oh, by the way, we're also slower than they are.”Sam: [laugh]. So, you know, trying to come after AWS, or Microsoft, or Google as an independent software company, pound-for-pound, face-to-face, right, full-frontal assault is psychotic. What you have to do, I think, at this point is to understand that these are each companies that are much like we thought about Linux, and you know, Macintosh, and Windows as operating systems. They're now the operating systems of the planet. So, that creates some economies of scale, some efficiencies for them. And for us. Look at how cheap object storage is now, right? So, there's never been a better time in human history to create a database company because we can take the storage out of the database and hand it over to Amazon, or Google, or Microsoft to handle it with 13 nines of durability on a constantly falling cost basis.So, that's super interesting. So, you have to prosecute the structure of the world as it is, based on where the giants are and where they'll be in the future. Then you have to turn around and say, like, “What can they never sell?”So, Amazon can never sell something that is standalone, right? They're a parts factory and if you buy into the Amazon-first strategy of cloud computing—which we did at Autodesk when I was VP of cloud platform there—everything is a primitive that works inside Amazon, but they're not going to build things that don't work outside of the Amazon primitives. So, your company has to be built on the idea that there's a set of people who value something that is purpose-built for a particular use case that you can start to broaden out, it's really helpful if they would like it to be something that can help them escape a really valuable asset away from the center of gravity that is a cloud. And that's why data is super interesting. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, “Boy, I had such a great conversation with Oracle over the last 20 years beating me up on licensing. Let me go find a cloud vendor and dump all of my data in that so they can beat me up for the next 20 years.” Nobody says that.Corey: It's the idea of data portability that drives decision-making, which makes people, of course, feel better about not actually moving in anywhere. But the fact that they're not locked in strategically, in a way that requires a full software re-architecture and data model rewrite is compelling. I'm a big believer in convincing people to make decisions that look a lot like that.Sam: Right. And so that's the key, right? So, when I was at Autodesk, we went from our 100 million dollar, you know, committed spend with 19% discount on the big three services to, like—we started realize when we're going to burn through that, we were spending $60 million or so a year on 20% annual growth as the cloud part of the business grew. Thought, “Okay, let's renegotiate. Let's go and do a $250 million deal. I'm sure they'll give us a much better discount than 19%.” Short story is they came back and said, “You know, we're going to take you from an already generous 19% to an outstanding 22%.” We thought, “Wait a minute, we already talked to Intuit. They're getting a 40% discount on a $400 million spend.”So, you know, math is hard, but, like, 40% minus 22% is 18% times $250 million is a lot of money. So, we thought, “What is going on here?” And we realized we just had no credible threat of leaving, and Intuit did because they had built a cross-cloud capable architecture. And we had not. So, now stepping back into the kind of the world that we're living in 2021, if you're an independent software company, especially if you have the unreasonable advantage of being an open-source software company, you have got to be doing your customers good by giving them cross-cloud capability. It could be simply like the Amdahl coffee cup that Amdahl reps used to put as landmines for the IBM reps, later—I can tell you that story if you want—even if it's only a way to save money for your customer by using your software, when it gets up to tens and hundreds of million dollars, that's a really big deal.But they also know that data is super important, so the option value of being able to move if they have to, that they have to be able to pull that stick, instead of saying, “Nice doggy,” we have to be on their side, right? So, there's almost a detente that we have to create now, as cloud vendors, working in a world that's invented and operated by the giants.Corey: This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle HeatWave is a new high-performance accelerator for the Oracle MySQL Database Service. Although I insist on calling it “my squirrel.” While MySQL has long been the worlds most popular open source database, shifting from transacting to analytics required way too much overhead and, ya know, work. With HeatWave you can run your OLTP and OLAP, don't ask me to ever say those acronyms again, workloads directly from your MySQL database and eliminate the time consuming data movement and integration work, while also performing 1100X faster than Amazon Aurora, and 2.5X faster than Amazon Redshift, at a third of the cost. My thanks again to Oracle Cloud for sponsoring this ridiculous nonsense.Corey: When we look across the, I guess, the ecosystem as it's currently unfolding, a recurring challenge that I have to the existing incumbent cloud providers is they're great at offering the bricks that you can use to build things, but if I'm starting a company today, I'm not going to look at building it myself out of, “Ooh, I'm going to take a bunch of EC2 instances, or Lambda functions, or popsicles and string and turn it into this thing.” I'm going to want to tie together things that are way higher level. In my own case, now I wind up paying for Retool, which is, effectively, yeah, it runs on some containers somewhere, presumably, I think in Azure, but don't quote me on that. And that's great. Could I build my own thing like that?Absolutely not. I would rather pay someone to tie it together. Same story. Instead of building my own CRM by running some open-source software on an EC2 instance, I wind up paying for Salesforce or Pipedrive or something in that space. And so on, and so forth.And a lot of these companies that I'm doing business with aren't themselves running on top of AWS. But for web hosting, for example; if I look at the reference architecture for a WordPress site, AWS's diagram looks like a punchline. It is incredibly overcomplicated. And I say this as someone who ran large WordPress installations at Media Temple many years ago. Now, I have the good sense to pay WP Engine. And on a monthly basis, I give them money and they make the website work.Sure, under the hood, it's running on top of GCP or AWS somewhere. But I don't have to think about it; I don't have to build this stuff together and think about the backups and the failover strategy and the rest. The website just works. And that is increasingly the direction that business is going; things commoditize over time. And AWS in particular has done a terrible job, in my experience, of differentiating what it is they're doing in the language that their customers speak.They're great at selling things to existing infrastructure engineers, but folks who are building something from scratch aren't usually in that cohort. It's a longer story with time and, “Well, we're great at being able to sell EC2 instances by the gallon.” Great. Are you capable of going to a small doctor's office somewhere in the American Midwest and offering them an end-to-end solution for managing patient data? Of course not. You can offer them a bunch of things they can tie together to something that will suffice if they all happen to be software engineers, but that's not the opportunity.So instead, other companies are building those solutions on top of AWS, capturing the margin. And if there's one thing guaranteed to keep Amazon execs awake at night, it's the idea of someone who isn't them making money somehow somewhere, so I know that's got to rankle them, but they do not speak that language. At all. Longer-term, I only see that as a more and more significant crutch. A long enough timeframe here, we're talking about them becoming the Centurylinks of the world, the tier one backbone provider that everyone uses, but no one really thinks about because they're not a household name.Sam: That is a really thoughtful perspective. I think the diseconomies of scale that you're pointing to start to creep in, right? Because when you have to sell compute units by the gallon, right, you can't care if it's a gallon of milk, [laugh] or a gallon of oil, or you know, a gallon of poison. You just have to keep moving it through. So, the shift that I think they're going to end up having to make pragmatically, and you start to see some signs of it, like, you know, they hired but could not retain Matt [Acey 00:23:48]. He did an amazing job of bringing them to some pragmatic realization that they need to partner with open-source, but more broadly, when I think about Microsoft in the 2000s as they were starting to learn their open-source lessons, we were also being able to pull on Microsoft's deep competency and partners. So, most people didn't do the math on this. I was part of the field governance council so I understood exactly how the Microsoft business worked to the level that I was capable. When they had $65 billion in revenue, they produced $24 billion in profit through an ecosystem that generated $450 billion in revenue. So, for every dollar Microsoft made, it was $8 to partners. It was a fundamentally platform-shaped business, and that was how they're able to get into doctors offices in the Midwest, and kind of fit the curve that you're describing of all of those longtail opportunities that require so much care and that are complex to prosecute. These solved for their diseconomies of scale by having 1.2 million partner companies. So, will Amazon figure that out and will they hire, right, enough people who've done this before from Microsoft to become world-class in partnering, that's kind of an exercise left to the [laugh] reader, right? Where will that go over time? But I don't see another better mathematical model for dealing with the diseconomies of scale you have when you're one of the very largest providers on the planet.Corey: The hardest problem as I look at this is, at some point, you hit a point of scale where smaller things look a lot less interesting. I get that all the time when people say, “Oh, you fix AWS bills, aren't you missing out by not targeting Google bills and Azure bills as well?” And it's, yeah. I'm not VC-backed. It turns out that if I limit the customer base that I can effectively service to only AWS customers, yeah turns out, I'm not going to starve anytime soon. Who knew? I don't need to conquer the world and that feels increasingly antiquated, at least going by the stories everyone loves to tell.Sam: Yeah, it's interesting to see how cloud makes strange bedfellows, right? We started seeing this in, like, 2014, 2015, weird partnerships that you're like, “There's no way this would happen.” But the cloud economics which go back to utilization, rather than what it used to be, which was software lock-in, just changed who people were willing to hang out with. And now you see companies like Databricks going, you know, we do an amazing amount of business, effectively competing with Amazon, selling Spark services on top of predominantly Amazon infrastructure, and everybody seems happy with it. So, there's some hint of a new sensibility of what the future of partnering will be. We used to call it coopetition a long time ago, which is kind of a terrible word, but at least it shows that there's some nuance in you can't compete with everybody because it's just too hard.Corey: I wish there were better ways of articulating these things because it seems from the all the outside world, you have companies like Amazon and Microsoft and Google who go and build out partner networks because they need that external accessibility into various customer profiles that they can't speak to super well themselves, but they're also coming out with things that wind up competing directly or indirectly, with all of those partners at the same time. And I don't get it. I wish that there were smarter ways to do it.Sam: It is hard to even talk about it, right? One of the things that I think we've learned from philosophy is if we don't have a word for it, we can't be intelligent about it. So, there's a missing semantics here for being able to describe the complexity of where are you partnering? Where are you competing? Where are you differentiating? In an ecosystem, which is moving and changing.I tend to look at the tools of game theory for this, which is to look at things as either, you know, nonzero-sum games or zero-sum games. And if it's a nonzero-sum game, which I think are the most interesting ones, can you make it a positive sum game? And who can you play positive-sum games with? An organization as big as Amazon, or as big as Microsoft, or even as big as Google isn't ever completely coherent with itself. So, thinking about this as an independent software company, it doesn't matter if part of one of these hyperscalers has a part of their business that competes with your entire business because your business probably drives utilization of a completely different resource in their company that you can partner within them against them, effectively. Right?For example, Cassandra is an amazingly powerful but demanding workload on Kubernetes. So, there's a lot of Cassandra on EKS. You grow a lot of workload, and EKS business does super well. Does that prevent us from working with Amazon because they have Dynamo or because they have Keyspaces? Absolutely not, right?So, this is when those companies get so big that they are almost their own forest, right, of complexity, you can kind of get in, hang out, do well, and pretty much never see the competitive product, unless you're explicitly looking for it, which I think is a huge danger for us as independent software companies. And I would say this to anybody doing strategy for an organization like this, which is, don't obsess over the tiny part of their business that competes with yours, and do not pay attention to any of the marketing that they put out that looks competitive with what you have. Because if you can't figure out how to make a better product and sell it better to your customers as a single purpose corporation, you have bigger problems.Corey: I want to change gears slightly to something that's probably a fair bit more insulting, but that's okay. We're going to roll with it. That seems to be the theme of this episode. You have been, in effect, a CIO a number of times at different companies. And if we take a look at the typical CIO tenure, industry-wide, it's not long; it approaches the territory from an executive perspective of, “Be sure not to buy green bananas. You might not be here by the time they ripen.” And I'm wondering what it is that drives that and how you make a mark in a relatively short time frame when you're providing inputs and deciding on strategy, and those decisions may not bear fruit for years.Sam: CIO used to—we used say it stood for ‘Career Is Over' because the tenure is so short. I think there's a couple of reasons why it's so short. And I think there's a way I believe you can have impact in a short amount of time. I think the reason that it's been short is because people aren't sure what they want the CIO role to be.Do they want it to be a glorified finance person who's got a lot of data processing experience, but now really has got, you know, maybe even an MBA in finance, but is not focusing on value creation? Do they want it to be somebody who's all-singing, all-dancing Chief Data Officer with a CTO background who did something amazing and solved a really hard problem? The definition of success is difficult. Often CIOs now also have security under them, which is literally a job I would never ever want to have. Do security for a public corporation? Good Lord, that's a way to lose most of your life. You're the only executive other than the CEO that the board wants to hear from. Every sing—Corey: You don't sleep; you wait, in those scenarios. And oh, yeah, people joke about ablative CSOs in those scenarios. Yeah, after SolarWinds, you try and get an ablative intern instead, but those don't work as well. It's a matter of waiting for an inevitability. One of the things I think is misunderstood about management broadly, is that you are delegating work, but not the responsibility. The responsibility rests with you.So, when companies have these statements blaming some third-party contractor, it's no, no, no. I'm dealing with you. You were the one that gave my data to some sketchy randos. It is your responsibility that data has now been compromised. And people don't want to hear that, but it's true.Sam: I think that's absolutely right. So, you have this high risk, medium reward, very fungible job definition, right? If you ask all of the CIO's peers what their job is, they'll probably all tell you something different that represents their wish list. The thing that I learned at Autodesk, I was only there for 15 months, but we established a fundamental transformation of the work of how cloud platform is done at the company that's still in place a couple years later.You have to realize that you're a change agent, right? You're actually being hired to bring in the bulk of all the different biases and experiences you have to solve a problem that is not working, right? So, when I got to Autodesk, they didn't even know what their uptime was. It took three months to teach the team how to measure the uptime. Turned out the uptime was 97.7% for the cloud, for the world's largest engineering software company.That is 200 hours a year of unplanned downtime, right? That is not good. So, a complete overhaul [laugh] was needed. Understanding that as a change agent, your half-life is 12 to 18 months, you have to measure success not on tenure, but on your ability to take good care of the patient, right? It's going to be a lot of pain, you're going to work super hard, you're going to have to build trust with everyone, and then people are still going to hate you at the end. That is something you just have to kind of take on.As a friend of mine, Jason Warner joined Redpoint Ventures recently, he said this when he was the CTO of GitHub: “No one is a villain in their own story.” So, you realize, going into a big organization, people are going to make you a villain, but you still have to do incredibly thoughtful, careful work, that's going to take care of them for a long time to come. And those are the kinds of CIOs that I can relate to very well.Corey: Jason is great. You're name-dropping all the guests we've had. My God, keep going. It's a hard thing to rationalize and wrap heads around. It's one of those areas where you will not be measured during your tenure in the role, in some respects. And, of course, that leads to the cynical perspective as well, where well, someone's not going to be here long and if they say, “Yeah, we're just going to keep being stewards of the change that's already underway,” well, that doesn't look great, so quick, time to do a cloud migration, or a cloud repatriation, or time to roll something else out. A bit of a different story.Sam: One of the biggest challenges is how do you get the hearts and the minds of the people who are in the organization when they are no fools, and their expectation is like, “Hey, this company's been around for decades, and we go through cloud leaders or CIOs, like Wendy's goes through hamburgers.” They could just cloud-wash, right, or change-wash all their language. They could use the new language to describe the old thing because all they have to do is get through the performance review and outwait you. So, there's always going to be a level of defection because it's hard to change; it's hard to think about new things.So, the most important thing is how do you get into people's hearts and minds and enable them to believe that the best thing they could do for their career is to come along with the change? And I think that was what we ended up getting right in the Autodesk cloud transformation. And that requires endless optimism, and there's no room for cynicism because the cynicism is going to creep in around the edges. So, what I found on the job is, you just have to get up every morning and believe everything is possible and transmit that belief to everybody.So, if it seems naive or ingenuous, I think that doesn't matter as long as you can move people's hearts in each conversation towards, like, “Oh, this person cares about me. They care about a good outcome from me. I should listen a little bit more and maybe make a 1% change in what I'm doing.” Because 1% compounded daily for a year, you can actually get something done in the lifetime of a CIO.Corey: And I think that's probably a great place to leave it. If people want to learn more about what you're up to, how you think about these things, how you view the world, where can they find you?Sam: You can find me on Twitter, I'm @sramji, S-R-A-M-J-I, and I have a podcast that I host called Open||Source||Datawhere I invite innovators, data nerds, computational networking nerds to hang out and explain to me, a software programmer, what is the big world of open-source data all about, what's happening with machine learning, and what would it be like if you could put data in a container, just like you could put code in a container, and how might the world change? So, that's Open||Source||Data podcast.Corey: And we'll of course include links to that in the [show notes 00:35:58]. Thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.Sam: Corey, it's been a privilege. Thank you so much for having me.Corey: Likewise. Sam Ramji, Chief Strategy Officer at DataStax. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn, and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with a comment telling me exactly which item in Sam's background that I made fun of is the place that you work at.Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Odile Decq nasce a Laval, in Francia, il 18 luglio 1955; studia architettura all'Università di Rennes e a La Villette, la scuola nazionale superiore di architettura di Parigi. Nel 1980 con il marito Benoît Cornette fonda lo studio ODBC e i due ottengono presto un discreto successo vincendo il concorso per la realizzazione della sede della Banque Populaire de L'Ouest e d'Armorique a Rennes, in collaborazione con il famoso ingegnere Peter Rice. Nel 1998 la coppia ha un grave incidente stradale e Benoît, 45 anni, muore. "Come farà una donna, da sola, a guidare uno studio di architettura?", tutti al tempo se lo chiedono ... ma la "dame noire" dell'architettura non se ne cura, progetterà dal cucchiaio alla città aggiungendo al suo amato nero una punta di rosso ... e riceverà una serie pressoché infinita di premi e riconoscimenti! Fra i suoi progetti più celebri: il MACRO di via Nizza Roma, il FRAC Bretagne a Rennes, il Ristorante Phantom all'Opéra Garnier di Parigi, lo Study Hall a Lione, Le Cargo a Parigi, la Résidence Saint-Ange a Seyssins, il Museo Geologico di Tangshan a Nanjing, l'Art Hôtel a Beijing e la Sede centrale di GL Events a Lione.Foto in copertina by Columbia GSAPP via Wikimedia Commons

This is episode 208 recorded on October 14th, 2021 where John & Jason go over the October 2021 Power BI updates including Heat map layer – Azure Maps Visual, improvements to Metamodels, ODBC support for Paginated Reports, and a call back to the September 2021 service update hidden feature. For show notes please visit www.bifocal.show

This is episode 185 recorded on March 26th, 2021 where John & Jason about the news from March including VNet Connectivity for PBI Datasets, ODBC support available for Paginated Reports in public preview, and Power BI as a superset of Azure Analysis Services. For show notes please visit www.bifocal.show

INTTEGRA SISTEMAS -Cómo Instalar un Conector ODBC a Firebird para ver tus Sistemas Aspel desde Excel (13) ...

Ever wonder what your iPhone knows about you? How about that smart bulb you just purchased? And of course everyone is talking about what Alexa is or isn't listening to. On this episode of The Geek With Muscles Podcast, special guest Deejay George Jett, geeks out with Mike as the discuss what's going on behind the scenes of your mobile phone, favorite social app and even the car you drive. Turns out there's lots of information being collected about you and sometimes in the most unusual of places.

The twentyninth (and first episode of 2018!) episode is up, a.k.a the "on the ball" episode!This time we talk shenanigans with PowerBI and ODBC connections, WANem for WAN emulation, Meltdown and Spectre, yet another insider build and what's in store for 2018.We are now on iTunes! Much easier to subscribe, and we've also switched over to Pippa.io for file hosting. Expect some small technical glitches while we get settled in :)As always we gladly accept tips and criticism, as well as ideas for content for us to cover. Just tweet me (@arcticdba) or Simon (@bindertech)Show links:https://www.red-gate.com/simple-talk/blogs/simulating-bad-networks-test-sql-server-replication/https://www.popsci.com/meltdown-spectre-what-to-dohttps://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/configurationmgr/2018/01/08/additional-guidance-to-mitigate-speculative-execution-side-channel-vulnerabilities/http://sqlblog.com/blogs/joe_chang/archive/2018/01/11/quick-performance-check-with-latest-patches.aspxhttp://www.onevinn.se/articles/imported-articles/use-powershell-to-see-if-you-are-mitigating-meltdown-and-spectre/https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/configmgr_geek_speak/2018/01/09/configmgr-speculation-control-baseline-ftw/https://www.brentozar.com/archive/2018/01/sql-server-patches-meltdown-spectre-attacks/https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/01/11/windows-10-fall-creators-update-1709-fully-available/ https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2018/01/11/announcing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-17074-pc/#Yy1jhHxztrzsC31c.97https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2017/12/19/announcing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-17063-pc/#qAj0ArraY8h7AKi5.97https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/filecab/2018/01/08/work-folders-on-demand-file-access-feature-for-windows-10/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Paul talks with Craig Boyd about Xojo, databases, Oracle, IBM, ODBC, Linux, Raspberry Pi and more.Continue readingXojoTalk 016: Magical Toolkit

Join Tim Huckaby, Founder of InterKnowlogy and Actus Interactive Software, and Jason Zander, Corporate Vice-President for Visual Studio, as they discuss Visual Studio 11. Jason talks about Application Lifecycle Management ( ALM), and shares tips/tricks he is most excited about.Tune in and find out more about page inspector, Visual Studio Metro Style UI element selector and Express Blend interactive mode. This informative and fun interview is one you will want to share with your peers.About JasonJason Zander is the corporate vice president of the Visual Studio Team in the Developer Division at Microsoft. Zander's responsibilities include the Visual Studio family of products, which covers a range of technologies: programming languages; JavaScript runtime and tools; integrated development environment and ecosystem; Microsoft Office, SharePoint and cloud tooling integration; source control and work item tracking; and advanced architecture, developer, and testing tools.As one of the original developers of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), Zander's primary technical areas of contribution include file formats, metadata, compilers, debugging and profiling, and integration of the system into key platforms such as operating systems and databases. Before joining the Visual Studio Team, Zander was the general manager for the .NET Framework Team. He has worked on numerous products at Microsoft, including the first several releases of the CLR and .NET Framework, Silverlight, SourceSafe, and ODBC. Before joining Microsoft in 1992, Zander worked at IBM Corp. on distributed SQL and SQL/400 at the Rochester lab.Zander holds a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science from Minnesota State University. In his spare time, he enjoys playing with his three children and making furniture in his shop. About TimTim Huckaby is focused on the Natural User Interface (NUI) in Rich Client and Rich Internet Application (RIA) Technologies like Silverlight & WPF on the computer, the Surface, and Windows Phone 7. He has been called a "Pioneer of the Smart Client Revolution" by the press.Tim has been awarded multiple times for the highest rated Keynote and technical presentations for Microsoft and numerous other technology conferences around the world by Microsoft Corporation. Tim has done presentations on Microsoft technologies at technology events like Microsoft Tech Ed, Product Launch events, Dev Days, MEC, World Wide Partner Conference, MGB, MGX, and the PDC, along with 3rd party technology conferences all over the world is consistently rated in the top 10% of all speakers at these events. Tim was selected by Microsoft as a speaker for the International .NET Association and speaks at events world-wide on Microsoft's behalf. Tim has done keynote demos at big Microsoft events and product launches for numerous Microsoft executives including Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.Tim founded InterKnowlogy, experts in Microsoft .NET and Microsoft Platforms, and Actus Interactive Software, and has 25+ years experience including serving on a Microsoft product team as a development lead on an architecture team. Tim is a Microsoft Regional Director, an MVP and serves on multiple Microsoft councils and boards like the Microsoft .NET Partner Advisory Council. Jason Zander and Tim Huckaby recommend you check outDownload Visual Studio 2012 RC Jason Zander's blog Follow Jason on Twitter Tim Huckaby's blog Follow Tim on Twitter

Dan Stein of Digital software Solutions discusses utilizing Microsoft's ODBC technology with FileMaker Server Advanced, and also the WiTango middleware development and server environment.