I'm not your prozac

Caress has started blogging her experience with AVM over at "I'm not your prozac". She wrote a lot of those posts while she was going through her procedures, but since I hadn't gotten off my lazy ass and put up her blog site (and she was a tad too busy to do it herself) she's didn't get them online until more recently. Most of her posts are back-dated to when she actually wrote them.

I've avoided blogging about the experience mostly because I was waiting on her to blog about it first, and also because AVM is too damned scary for me to blog well.

Akamai MSDN Download Manager sucks!

 Richard's Braindump: Problems with the new MSDN Download Manager

I agree with Richard, the new MSDN download manager is worse than horrid. I've ran into every one of the problems reported but these in particular really chap my ass:

• Close IE and the download manager closes. It asks you if you really want to close it, but it doesn't matter what you say... it will close anyway. When you re-open it, your download will be corrupt and you'll have to start over again from the beginning.
    
• It'll just randomly tell you it can't download because of persistent network problems... and you can't resume because your file is corrupt.
   
• If you have pop-up blocking on in IE 7 (which is the default) you might never get the download manager installed. It pops up a new browser window, which IE blocks, then the main page refreshes so fast you never see the notification that there was a blocked pop-up.

I have additional complaints too.

• Adding additional files to the download manager sometimes (and by "sometimes" I mean "nearly always") closes the download manager... which as we discussed already, corrupts any files it was already downloading.
   
• Manually pausing a download also usually corrupts it.
    
• When it asks if you want to start the download all over again, and you say yes, it usually can't... so you have to remove the file from the manager, go back to the MSDN page then re-click the link.... which will close your download manger and corrupt the rest of your files!

And even if they fix these major technical problems, there are other issues I have with it:

• Files are either downloading, or paused. There isn't a way to put them in any particular order in the queue and download them sequentially... so if you want to pull in 5 files, but you want 1 file immediately, then the rest to finish up whenever you have to pause all the downloads except the one, wait on it to finish, then manually resume the others.
   
• There doesn't appear to be any mechanisms in place to allow you to throttle how much bandwidth it uses.
   
• It allocates the disk space before the download starts. I HATE that. If you only have 1gig downloaded so far, it should not be taking up 4gig on my hard drive. When I'm low on disk space I can't start the download and have it coming down while I go and clean up some drive space. I have to clean up the space before I can start downloading. Minor issue, but still annoying.

Seriously, this thing is a total piece of shit... Why can't you just give me a damned link?

I have a download manager than works really good. I can control what files come down, in what order, how much bandwidth to use, and how many files to work on at a time (I use ReGet for those of you that may be curious).

Come on, just give me a regular old hyperlink or put it up on an FTP or something.

Considering that an MSDN Premium Team Suite subscription costs $10,000 up-front and around $3500/year for renewal fees,  it isn't too much to ask for is it?

Microsoft Money... still sucking...

The world of personal finance software is one of my least favorite. Anyone developing in this market has a tough job. People are idiots, and personal finance itself is especially designed to cleverly imitate real accounting yet completely fail to make any logical sense at all.

So I am never surprised at the crazy junk I see in personal finance software. The system it targets is moronic in the extreme, and the target user is assumed to equal that standard. 

But I'm a special idiot... one that uses Microsoft Money. I have tried Quicken, but I find their junk just a tad more annoying than MS Money but for different reasons. I also detest Qicken's license terms and marketing strategies. In contrast, Microsoft's lack of strategy in the personal finance market is quite refreshing. So I keep using MS Money even though I hate it.

The most annoying thing about MS Money is that they somehow makes it mandatory to upgrade to the new version every year. Somehow the old version just ends up "breaking" over time until you eventually get pissed enough to upgrade. I have no idea how they manage this, but eventually my old copy just sorta stops working right. Last time it was the fact that it wouldn't work after a patch for IE came out (and no fix available for the old version naturally). This time it just stopped being able to talk to my bank one day.

Every time I upgrade, I end up being amazed at how little was actually improved, or even changed from the previous version and equally amazed at just how many annoying "features" are still exactly as annoying as before. There always seem to be a couple of things I really like that manage to disappear from each version, and one or two new features show up that I don't care about at all. So each time I curse myself for forking over yet another $50 instead of just taking the time to put together my own spreadsheet in Excel... but I still I upgrade anyway.

Among my biggest complaints is the default "basic" checking account register. It completely lacks seriously important features, features I'd consider quite "basic"...  like the fact that it is missing the entire right-click menu and has no obvious alternatives for useful things like creating a reoccurring bill from an entry in the register, or marking transaction as reconciled, etc. It is also not obvious that you are even in a "basic" mode, nor that there an "advanced" mode that you could be using instead. Sure, there is a "Basic Register" icon, complete with text label at the top of the page, but it blends in so well that I never even noticed it until someone pointed it out to me. The "basic" mode just make the application feel like a piece of crap that doesn't do much of anything.

Fortunately, I do know about advanced mode, despite not having noticed the icon. I know this because I had used older versions where the advanced features were enabled by default. When I first upgraded to a version with the "basic" register and saw that those features had gone missing, I located how to enable them again via the online help. But the "advanced" register isn't exactly "advanced".  It just adds a few minor details to the list of transactions, turns on the right-click menu, and that's about it. But getting advanced mode enabled sure does requires an hell of an advanced level of skill. That icon at the top of the page isn't even clickable to toggle the mode! Instead, enabling the advanced register remains something that I have to look up in the online "help" feature each time because it is cleverly hidden deep within the not-so-fun "options" section of the program. Fortunately the online "help" is one of the few really well done parts of the application, and provides clear instructions for how to enable the missing functionality.

Then MS Money has the "basic" bills tracking system as the default too. In a misguided fit of "simplification", the developers of the default bills tracker helpfully allow you to choose to pay a bill using automatic payment (a.k.a. Bill Pay), electronic payment (e-pay), or by writing a check... But they thought that a "direct draft" bill was just too fucking complicated for the "basic" user, so that option isn't available unless you turn on the advanced bill tracking system. It's almost like they missed the fact that nearly every utility company on the planet pushes direct draft payment options like it was high-grade cocaine... Even people like me that prefer a push payment system over a pull payment system often end up with one or two drafts each month. In my case, some of my utilities actually give a discount if you agree to let them draft your payment. But, according to the crack MS Money development team I now know that only "advanced" users would need direct draft as a bill payment option. Thanks guys.

Then you have odd shit. Like the fact that, even in basic mode, MS Money encourages you to track your gross pay, taxes, withholdings, etc. from your paycheck. Most average joe home-users are obviously people that need to track the exact amount of their 401K deductions, but they would never need anything as advanced as fucking direct draft!

Anyway..

I find this "basic" vs. "advanced" thing to be a very obvious sign of poor UI design. After-all, it isn't as if there are THAT many "advanced" things you can do. Seems to be there should be just one account register, and just one bill tracking system. Then, by using good UI design, the software can helpfully arrange commands in a way that isn't confusing. The saddest thing is, the "advanced" register and bill tracking systems are actually quite easy to use once you figure out how to enable them. But most average joe home-users will never even learn that there is an advanced mode at all, much less get it turned on. Instead, most people would just think MS Money sucks and would not bother to use it... and, after asking around, this seems to be exactly what most people really do think.

asp.net - Web Site vs. Web Application

For more info, see my follow-up article: ASP.NET: web site vs. web application project - Part 2 

A few years ago, when I first got a look at asp.net 2.0, it was clear to me that there must have been some serious changes inside the development team at Microsoft. ASP.NET 1.x was a huge leap forward in server side web application frameworks, but it was also geared to an object oriented audience. While it did support direct data access from web pages and everything-in-one-file styles, Visual Studio's use of asp.net encouraged a more tiered design with clean separation of presentation, business, and data access. It also encouraged OO  design by making inheritance, namespaces, and assemblies all obvious, simple, and the default way of things.

By the time asp.net 2.0 was coming out,  more agile languages were getting all the buzz. PHP was still relevant and Ruby on Rails was shaping up to be the next big contender. By that time Java's JSP, the only other heavy OO platform that still mattered, had fallen flat on its face. So it wasn't exactly a surprise that there was a focus within asp.net 2.0 towards the "less is more" philosophy of quick, dirty, do-what-I-mean design. Codeless databinding, master pages, skins, themes, and configuration driven providers for common stuff like membership, profiles, personalization, etc. were all expected.

But what make several of us step back was the new compilation model and the "project-less" web site... er... project. Aside from being one of the most impossible to name mechanisms, it was also a breaking change in how asp.net was done. The new compilation model threw out the visual studio project file itself, took asp.net back to the "compile-on-the-fly" concept, all but eliminated the use of namespaces within a web site, and radically altered the way UI template and the associated code-behind were arranged.

But for those of us doing serious web frameworks in large or complex environments, the web site model had some serious drawbacks. The biggest for me was having to manually deal with namespaces, which the UI and code designers would fight every step of the way (until you finally gave up and just let it pile up in one big default namespace). The loss of the visual studio project files was also painful, and it lead to an awkward "exclude from project" mechanism where the only way to get Visual Studio to ignore a file was to physically rename it. Large web sites with lots of code suffered horribly in performance because so many helpful visual studio features, like refactoring and the verification compiler had to sift through every file in the project with no guidance from project configuration.

Microsoft seemed to notice the problem, and resurrected the old project model in what they called the "Web Application" Project. This was essentially a retro-fitted clone of the old project model complete with designer generated code files (updated to take advantage of partial classes though). The new project type brought back namespaces, and once again encouraged clean OO design patterns. It also became apparent over a very short time that Microsoft itself would consider the web application model the new "enterprise" project type while the web site project type was more for the beginner and casual developers. For example, Team system's testing, build, and deployment work great with the web application project, but work poorly if at all with web site projects. But the new project type also brought with it the need to compile everything in advance, and used a different mechanism to associate UI and code-behind files that was incompatible with dynamic compilation.

With Visual Studio 2008 Microsoft is keeping both project types. But I think they are missing an opportunity. While the web application project and web site projects both have advantages and disadvantages, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for some of the features to be mutually exclusive.

I for one would love to see a hybrid project type. Keep the project file to organize the site and give us a place to put visual studio specific settings. But switch it use the dynamic compilation model from web site projects. Dynamic compilation and xcopy deployment were powerful ideas, and I can't see any reason they can't be used still. The verification compiler can be optimized quite a lot by having access to a project file... exclusions can be dealt with elegantly, and the whole thing can be sped up. For other code though, you could choose to continue to compile to an assembly in advance, or leverage the app_code folder for dynamic compilation, or a combination of both. And of course, keep the namespaces and configurable compiler options.

I'd love to see a web project type that keeps the best of web site and web application projects both. Give me control over the project's structure, namespaces, and compilation but also give me xcopy deployment, dynamic compilation (using my settings), and keep a consistent way of associating an asp.net UI file to its code-behind without requiring the designer generated code file and full compilation.

Oh well, maybe in the next release.

Weighted Obsolescence: Phone book season

Few things annoy me quite like having phone books delivered to my house. There was a time when the phone book was pretty important --a time when taking a decent sized ad out in the yellow pages was the difference between a successful small business and a fire-sale. But between the internet and 411, phone books are obsolete now.

There are still a small number of people, mostly older ones, that consider this whole internet thing to be a fad. They would still prefer a printed phone book... old habits. But for most people the phone book is just a huge waste of paper. And they must be terribly expensive. Someone has to spend large amounts of time composing the contents, doing the layouts, and overseeing a massive printing and distributing operation. The books have to be printed, and that's a LOT of printing. Then they have to be physically delivered, which must represent a truly staggering cost since each one is bulky, heavy, and has to be shipped individually to a different location. Massive costs, and massive waste. Wouldn't it be better to just charge a nominal fee to people that WANT a printed phone book, and just not bother the rest of us?

Despite the irrelevance of phone books though, there is an active war in the business between several different companies. Each of them has, for reasons that still elude me, decided that the phone company isn't qualified to maintain and distribute the directory of phone numbers. Instead, these motards decided that they could do a better job and that it is their moral imperative to bring competition to the phone book market!

So every year, I get two or three huge bricks of useless paper delivered to my door. Well, more precisely, delivered to some random part of my yard that I probably won't go into for at least four or five months after the phone book has been delivered to it... not actually delivered to the door you know. For reasons even more screwed up than the basic business plan, all of these companies decided that they had to deliver their brand of awesomeness at the same time of year.

So last week I got three massive, but irrelevant phone books littering my yard. Of course, by the time I noticed two of them, they had been sitting there collecting water and bugs for a few days making them even more massive. The water and bugs don't make the book any more useless though, that would be an impossibility given their very nature.

Its bad enough that I have to dispose of these relics of hate, but what REALLY chaps my ass is this... I don't have a phone line. In fact, there is not and NEVER has been a phone line at my address. So WHY do I get three damned phone directories that I wouldn't need even if I did have a phone?

You guys seriously need to talk to Maxxum. At least they put half-naked girls on the cover of the unsolicited, irrelevant crap they drop off at my house.

Review - BlogEngine 1.2

I’ve put off reviewing BlogEngine until their development team finished up the 1.2 release. Up until now, I've been using incremental versions between the 1.1 and 1.2 release, but those were unstable at best. But now that 1.2 is out, and I’ve deployed two sites on it, I think its time for that review.

BlogEngine is an asp.net 2.0 application. As the name suggests  it is for people that want a blog site.

As a blog, BlogEngine is quite good. It provides the expected features: content postings (duh), comments, RSS/ATOM feed(s), archives, tagging, categorization, etc. It has a slew of extras like “gravatars”, content ratings, support for coComment, DZone, KickIt, and del.icio.us. And of course, BlogEngine takes care of pingbacks, trackbacks, custom tracking, endorsement (bLink), etc too.  The new version also has multi-author support, comment moderation, and several other nice touches.

In short, it does what a blog should do, and it does most of that very well.

Despite the name though, this is not really an “engine” in the classic software definition of the word. Part of the application could be described as an “engine” but it isn’t well designed for use within other applications. There are two source assemblies, one for the web site itself and the other is a class library. But the class library has some tight coupling and a reliance on the hosting asp.net web context.

The class-library contains the HttpHandlers and HttpModules that the web site uses to process the incoming requests. These don’t seem to really belong in the class library since they have questionable value to other web applications that might want to use the class library and would have no value at all in a non-web application. The class library also contains server controls that provide UI for the web site. Again, these have limited usefulness to other apps that might use the class library, and no use if the app isn’t a web application.

The most useful part of the engine would be the actual blog providers. These are responsible for building entity classes that represent the content of the blog, and persisting the content within a permanent data store. BlogEngine ships with an XML provider and a SQL Server provider. The providers could be useful to a wide variety of applications, but unfortunately there is still a heavy assumption of a web site context within the providers and the entity classes.  So, if you wanted to write a windows application to manage content within your blog, these providers and the entity classes will probably not work out too well for you without re-architecting to eliminate the reliance on web context.

Architecturally, I always have reservations when I see the provider design pattern being applied to an entire tier like this. Providers work great when applied to a specific and narrowly defined “service”, but providers used as whole tiers don’t scale very well, they overcomplicate things, and they can make maintenance or later extension much too difficult and cumbersome. Fortnatly BlogEngine's DAL is fairly small, so it doesn't suffer too much from these problems yet.

Having criticized the code, please let me say that the programmers that wrote this code are VERY good. This is not the work of armatures or idiots. The code is clean, neat, and organized. While I dislike how the code was architected, I have to acknowledge the development team’s skill and professionalism too. The code is very well written.

As for the web site itself, it follows a simplistic approach to skinning. The UI code is a mix of asp.net pages, master pages, user controls, and server controls. Quite a lot of the content displayed on the UI is generated by direct method calls with the output directly injected into the HTML. You’ll see a LOT more <%= GetSomeHtmlOutputAndPutItHere() %> type things within the pages than is typical in most asp.net apps. This simplicity gives a lot of freedom in skinning the application, but it also tends to get a little chaotic. The skins resembles php or classic asp apps a little more than I personally like.  You’ll have to use existing skins as a guide to build your own skins, and you wont get as much use from Visual Studio designers either.

On the plus side, the skinning is usually a matter of just editing a master page and two user controls within the theme folder. I’ve implemented two sites on BlogEngine now, and with both I found several things that required editing code outside the theme though. And some of those changes were in code within server controls from the class library assembly too. While this is fine with me, it does mean that the site ends of being hard-coded to the one theme I created. This isn't a problem, but it does indicate that the skinning appraoch could still use some work.

Another issue that I’ve not investigated is performance and scalability, but I suspect that this app would have trouble with large amounts of content. I suspect that the XML provider would suffer performance issues much sooner and more severely than the SQL provider would. But performance will be great for most blogs since they don't tend to get that large.

The verdict:

• If you want a good personal blog, and want to host it on your own server or web hosting account, then BlogEngine is a good choice. It will provides all the functionality you’d need and a few good extras too. It will not be too difficult to create a custom theme for your site as long as you are good with HTML/CSS and are somewhat familiar with asp.net.
  
• If you want code that you can use in your own application to help you with blog or blog-like functionality, then move along. Also, if you need multiple blogs hosted within one web site or have a high-volume blog, then BlogEngine is probably not for you.

Stupid Crusade - Block Firefox to protect your revenue!

Seems someone out there really thinks that a browser that blocks ads is theft. So they've outright blocked all Mozilla Firefox browsers and are advocating others do the same.

Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers. Numerous web sites exist in order to provide quality content in exchange for displaying ads. Accessing the content while blocking the ads, therefore would be no less than stealing.

Their message gets richer too... so check out the entire thing:

http://whyfirefoxisblocked.com/

Never mind that ad-blocking is available for just about any browser, and most Mozilla users are savvy enough to work around being blocked... what boggles my mind is how these people think that blocking an entire browser will increase their ad revenue?

Of course, it seems clear that message is intended to drag the users into the politics of the issue, and is not an honest attempt to increase ad revenue. Sadly for them though, most users that see this message are going to be solidly on the other side of the argument... and pissed for being blocked!

Way to gain sympathy there guys!