Just the facts ma’am:

• Rank on Inc. 500: #350
• Three-year revenue growth: 840%
• Rank on Top 100 DC-area companies: #27
• DC area ranked #1 for most companies on the Inc. 500 list; #2 for most companies on the Inc. 5000 list (behind NYC)
• 2^nd fastest-growing software company in the DC area (Note: we got categorized as IT Services but of course we really fall under “Software”. They never seem to have a “Technology Appliances” category…)

Read the full press release here.

We’re loving it because of the awards we’ve applied for over the last few years and haven’t won. (Or maybe only I care about this since I had to fill out all those applications. Hmmm, I’m sensing a pattern here…) But in this case, it’s all about the numbers.

We love this part of our story because it comes down to customers actually believing in you and your product enough to plunk down the money – and keep coming back for more once you prove yourself the first time. It’s not about the hype or the latest flash in the pan or “sponsorship” or how much money some VC gives you. It comes down to you, your product and your happy customers.

Here’s an interesting post on High Earth Orbit about the usage and promotion of open source software for defense contracts. As a developer of open source tools, Andrew Turner of course brings up some “pros” for the government to push open source, but it’s the “cons” that are really interesting. A big “con” – the US government having something called “sovereign immunity” which apparently means something like it can’t be sued unless it consents to be sued. Hunh – the Republic of ScienceLogic-Land? Closing the loop here, a federal appeals court just boosted open-source software licenses by saying that any infringements can now get more severe remedies under copyright law (instead of contract law); here’s the case, Jacobsen v Katzer. But apparently not if it’s the US government?? Who knows more?

Does Linus Torvalds hate everyone except for developers? You have to check out this article on an email exchange he had with Network World this week, talking about how fed up he is with the “security circus”. Over the course of the exchange and some other comments from last month, he manages to blast security folk, OpenBSD (on security) in particular, vendors and PR people (of course). In the midst of the barrage of colorful language, it’s difficult to really get his point – which if you can dig it out, ends up being surprisingly sensible.

Sharon Taylor, Chief Architect of ITIL V3, recently wrote that with the release of the latest version of ITIL, BSM is now an ‘ITIL best practice.’ You say potato… “The distinction between IT and the business has blurred, and the language of IT has been replaced with the language of the business.”

I’ve heard the buzzwords but wasn’t exactly sure what they meant–luckily, when there’s media hype, there are definitions, too. According to this article, cloud computing is exemplified by Software as a Service — outsourced, hosted platforms and software that perform services for companies.

Another article puts it slightly differently:

OK, let us look at what form of computing in being provided via the cloud. In this model, all IT applications and facilities (i.e. compute, storage and network) are provided as a service rather than dedicated infrastructure. This is intended to allow any user, independent of client platform, to access IT services without knowledge or concern of their location or form. Sound familiar — it’s a service-oriented architecture (SOA)!

In addition, cloud computing incorporates almost every computing manifestation within the IT world: distributed, grid, utility, on-demand, open-source, Web services, P2P, Web 2.0 and, last but not least, software as a service.

It also accommodates thin, thick and mobile clients and allows integration of corporate, commercial and service provider cloud-accessed resources. As an example, in this model, storage is a service resource that is accessed via the cloud, not a dedicated user resource.

Honestly I read that last one first and found the definition a bit dense. It sounds like a summation of everything that makes up our Internet infrastructure already, so how is that different than the Internet itself? Well, cloud computing isn’t about what service or devices are being supported — it’s more about how it’s being provided– it is a location-independent style of computing. The first article calls it “platform as a service.”

Have you heard better definitions of what cloud computing is and does? Share them in the comments below. Thanks!

The Bottom Line

While there has been much consternation and alarm-raising over the potential for widespread proliferation of biological weapons and the possible use of such weapons on a massive scale, there are significant constraints on such designs. The current dearth of substantial biological weapons programs and arsenals by governments worldwide, and the even smaller number of cases in which systems were actually used, seems to belie -- or at least bring into question -- the intense concern about such programs.

While we would like to believe that countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia have halted their biological warfare programs for some noble ideological or humanitarian reason, we simply can’t. If biological weapons were in practice as effective as some would lead us to believe, these states would surely maintain stockpiles of them, just as they have maintained their nuclear weapons programs. Biological weapons programs were abandoned because they proved to be not as effective as advertised and because conventional munitions proved to provide more bang for the buck.

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.
2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent’s actual intentions.
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person’s arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking the simplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

For example, there has been some lively discussions recently around the notion that CEP is overhyped.

Debate:      “CEP is Overhyped.”

Person A:   “CEP has been overhyped.”

Person B:     “CEP is just hype.”

The point of the discussion by person A was to point out that CEP has been overhyped.  Person B has exaggerated this to a harder to defend position, “CEP is mere hype.” or “CEP is just hype.”

From the customer perspective, I don’t think that fallacies and red-herring arguments are good for CEP.   Believe me, if we could take an “out of the box” stream processing rules-engine and bolt it on to a network and insure a client it would detect complex fraud, or diagnose network faults accurately, and not put my entire professional reputation on the line, I would do it in a heartbeat.

It is not the speed of the an engine which makes a good CEP engine, it is the capability of the analytics to deliver high-quality, high-confidence complex event detection in real-time.

“Actually, it is fair to say that some of CEP can be found in other disciplines. Event processing has been going on in one form or another, for the past 50 years. Simulation, Networking, Active DBs, Middleware.

{ …. }

CEP has only just begun. The foundations are unexplored. Its an open field of research issues.”

Actually, on slide 12 of this presentation from 2006 Processing Patterns for PredictiveBusiness, we show that the foundations for complex event processing have been in place for many years and in many disciplines such as multisensor data fusion, control theory, sensor management, planning, correlation, estimation, tracking, information fusion, data fusion, data mining and more.

One obvious problem (or at least obvious to many of us) with the current group think marketing CEP is that many have ignored the established foundations for event processing and complex event processing that have been mature for many decades. It is not very efficient (nor good for customers) to pick a phrase, or concept, like “CEP” and ignore the relevant mulitiple disciplines that have been used to solve complex classes of distributed event processing problems for decades.

Therefore, “CEP has only begun” is only true for those who have ‘drank the CEP koolaid” and do not understand (yet) that they are “reinventing the event processing wheel” and ignoring (by accident or purposely, I have no idea of the motives) the prior-art and/or selectively picking the prior art or research associated with their company, byline, favorite researcher, CEO, etc. This is a fundamental issue (and constraint) with CEP, in my opinion. Complex event processing does not stand alone as an art or a science, nor should it, nor should it be based on single dimensional, or small groups of single dimensional, technologies.

If you want to see many of the foundations of CEP, you don’t need to go much further than slide 12 of this  presentation from 2006, Processing Patterns for PredictiveBusiness.

Based on my observation, it reminds me of a small group of folks on a discovery mission where their ship lands on the shore of a distant land and they call this “new land” — “CEP” because they feel they have discovered a new land.  Nevermind the big cities that already exist or the many people already “in the fields” of their new land.  These ”CEP explorers” are seemingly in some kind of modern day epic struggle to define themselves as “discoverers” or “founders” and they are coming up with new names of the lakes, rivers, streams and mountains that defined the landscape long before their ship arrived.

Note: It is encouraging to see folks slowly “catching up”…. maybe in a few years we will move CEP beyond the “not invented here” mind share that we see today.

Also note that, recently we saw a flurry of posts where many people rightly stated that “CEP was overhyped” - but then in rebuttal the EPTS community leaders came back with “Is CEP a mere hype?” or “Is CEP a hype?”. spinning the discussion to an extreme position that is wildly different than “CEP is Overhyped”.