Bob Cancilla’s CNet article is so full of FUD that I can’t help but making a few more comments and post a few questions. Unfortunately, his email address isn’t mentioned near the article … therefore I have to blog it. Mr. Cancilla, feel free to use the comments feature here, if you find this…

Unlike IBM, Microsoft falls short when it comes to helping customers use standards in a productive, cost-effective way. […] Sure, both companies have worked closely to develop and promote a sizable number of important industry standards that will continue to have a big impact on the way business is conducted in the foreseeable future. But cool specs are meaningless to the IT people who must actually assemble all those standards into real business solutions. That's where the rubber meets the road for Web services. Redmond's approach to Web services is a dead-end of closed, Windows-only systems that lock customers into a single computing model. Customers don't have the freedom to choose the best hardware or operating system. Where does that leave the millions of users who rely on non-Microsoft platforms such as mainframes, Unix or Linux?

First of all, Mr. Cancilla, you haven’t understood Web Services, at all. Web Services are about connecting systems, irrespective of operating system, application platform or programming model. Redmond’s approach to web services is just like IBM’s and BEA’s and Sun’s and Oracle’s approach to Web Services. All of them think they have a superior application platform and their embrace of Web Services serves to make that platform the hub of communication for their and all other systems that are (for them: unfortunately) running on other platforms in the reality of today’s heterogeneous IT landscape. It’s about opening services for access by other platforms. I wish I would know how you get the idea that “lock-in” and “Web Services” belong in the same sentence?

Secondly, show me an environment that enables the average programmer to be more productive and hence more cost effective when developing XML and Web Services solutions than Microsoft’s Visual Studio .NET – to a degree that it backs up your “falls short” claim.

Third, I wonder how someone who has dedicated his career to one of the most monopolistic, locked-down and proprietary platforms in existence, that is IBM’s midrange and mainframe platforms, feels qualified to discredit Microsoft for their platform strategy. In fact, I can run Windows on pretty much any AMD and Intel-based server or desktop from any vendor – how’s that with your AS/400 and mainframe apps?

Ultimately, .Net defeats the purpose of open standards because Microsoft products are open only as long as you develop applications on the Windows platform. To me, this doesn't say open, it says welcome to yet another Microsoft environment that is anything but open.

Likewise, IBM’s full Web Services stack is only open as long as you write applications for their WebSphere environment. WebSphere is IBM’s application server and Microsoft’s application server is Windows Server 2003. Every vendor who makes money from software tries to build a superior platform, resulting in features that aren’t covered by standards and therefore cause vendor lock-in. That’s a direct result from market economy. However, this still doesn’t have anything to do with Web Services, because these are “on-the-wire” XML message exchange standards that primarily exist for the purpose of cross-platform interaction.

Proprietary environments deny businesses the flexibility to chose best-of-breed solutions that are fine-tuned to their industry's unique environment.

… like OS/400 and OS/390 ?

Additionally, Microsoft's claim that .Net's Web services platform saves customers money is misleading. Sure, the initial investment is enticing, but how much will it cost when the hard work begins? A recent Gartner report said companies planning to move their old programs to .Net can expect to pay 40 percent to 60 percent of the cost of developing the programs in the first place.

A recent discussion with my 9 year old niece has shown that moving “old programs” from anywhere to anywhere isn’t free and that anyone who’d make that claim shouldn’t be working in this industry.

Building your company's Web services platform on .Net is fine if you don't mind throwing away decades of investment in existing applications. For instance, on any given day, businesses use CICS systems to process about 30 billion transactions, to the tune of $1 trillion. They can't afford to rip out that kind of processing power. Instead, they're looking for ways to exploit it within other applications. But if they were to buy into .Net, they'd better be prepared to stack it on the shelf because Microsoft's Host Integration Server provides limited access to CICS on mainframes.

Ok … here we have it. CICS is a lock-in, proprietary IBM product, right? So, what’s better than Host Integration Server? I suspect it’s an IBM product, correct? So if you were to replace that all so powerful IBM mainframe with any other technology (including Linux), of course using a different approach to architecture (which is entirely possible), how would you have not to throw away that investment?

What seems to be promoted here is “stay with IBM , use their stack”. I have all respect for the power of the IBM mainframe platforms, but using “openness” as an argument in this context and for the conclusions the author is making, is nothing less than perverse.

The temples of the old Khmer empires in Angkor (Siem Reap) in Cambodia are truly amazing and a must see for anyone interested in ancient cultures. (Although they are actually medieval on the Western time scale considering the time they were built – between 900AD and 1300AD). The picture shows the most famous and best preserved temple, Angkor Wat, which can only be compared in terms of overall scale and work effort to the great Cheops pyramid in Giza. Angkor Wat is the biggest religious site on the planet.

I don’t even know where to start writing about how impressive the Angkor sites are and I am certainly not the least bit qualified to describe them properly, so the best is for you to check this very informative guide to the Angkor monuments.

In Siem Reap we stayed (luckily) at one of the two best hotels in town, at the Sofitel, which was US$100 a night, but which I can highly recommend if you want to avoid a major culture shock. Cambodia is one of the poorest countries in the world and while Siem Reap doesn’t immediately reflect this, staying at the Sofitel is certainly the best thing a western tourist can do who is not of the adventurer/backpacker type. I spoke to a Swiss tour organizer who specializes in Cambodia tours and he told me that he consolidated his hotel list to only 4 hotels in Siem Reap and the Sofitel easily tops his favorites list – and it’s not the most expensive one. In general, Siem Reap is not a very cheap place to go to considering all cost, but it’s all money well spent if you consider that tourism is the primary source of income and the economic engine for literally hundreds of  thousand of people in the Siem Reap region and that Angkor is still mostly a destination for “those who know”.

The entry fee for all of the Angkor sites is US$20 per day and person or US$60 for a three day pass. A good local tour guide and a taxi driver will cost you between US$30 and US$40 per day. You’ll need both and you shouldn’t try to explore the sites just with a book – the guides speak good English (a German speaking guide will ask US$10/day more) and are usually very well educated about the sites and they will fill you in with all the religious background and legends that you will need to understand to appreciate the art. Food can be very cheap (less than US$1 for a meal) if you are one of the daring types with a strong stomach or between US$10 and US$30 at a hotel or at the very few proper restaurants, if you are such a civilization wimp as I am.

What you definitely need is lots of sun-block, anti-mosquito spray, light clothes and a hat. Even in the rain season (which is now) it’s very hot around noon time and the humidity is easily at >90%. But that’s not so different from Cairo ;)

I am safely back from my Asia tour and Patricia and I have seen lots of very cool places and I am sure going to post some pictures today and tomorrow.  The one thing that didn’t really work well for me was Internet access so I was essentially offline for the last two weeks. So, first things first, below you’ll finally find the download links for the demos of my talks in Malaysia.

I have to admit that I was a bit hesitant when Patricia came up with the idea to go to Vietnam on the “leisure-loop” of our South-East Asia trip. The country is, of course, still controlled by a socialist party and is even still “Socialist Republic”, and I really knew very little about Vietnam except for the horrible historic events of the 1960s and 1970s. Of course I was absolutely wrong being concerned about our safety and Ho Chi Minh City isn’t socialistically dull and boring, at all. In fact, it’s great fun!

We met Dung (right) and Tuang (on the left) at a street corner where they asked us whether we wanted to take a tour on their bike-carts. One hour per person for $3 US. Although Vietnam does of course have a proper local currency (the exchange rate is about 15,500.00 VND for 1 USD), everything can be paid for in U.S. Dollars and that’s actually the preferred way of payment. In fact, $3 USD/hr is relatively expensive already considering that locals can get a full meal for less than 30 cents and that you can buy 2.5 liters of (surprisingly good) local draught beer for about 30,000 VND if you (a) find the right place and (b) have local people with you as we did.

However … Dung and Tuang’s services are easily worth their money. They are very friendly (it seems like any other Vietnamese person you could meet in the streets of HCMC is like that), they speak OK-enough English for a conversation and for them to explain a couple of things here and there and of course they know the places to go. But their most amazing skill is navigating through the traffic chaos of Ho Chi Minh City. In “HCMC”, you see a couple of cars here and there, but the streets are dominated by thousands of quadrillion-bazillons of small motorbikes. And of course, nobody pays any close attention to traffic rules (if there are any), but mysteriously, it just works. Even if you go with a slow bike-cart against a one-way street smack in the middle of the road, the traffic flows magically around you and you never get a feeling of being in danger. The secret seems to be that everyone drives very slowly and everyone seems very alert. I would think that the average speed in traffic is about 25-30 km/h. Dung and Tuang took us around for about 6 hours for the money equivalent of 3 rollercoaster-rides at the “Kirmes” in Düsseldorf complete with the entire thrill but a lot more fun.

What becomes very apparent even as you approach the city-center from the airport is that all that seems left of the “Socialist Republic” are the occasional paroles on street posters, but otherwise the market rules. We were told that it’s very different outside the two big cities Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi and that the agricultural collectives are still the common organization of work there, but there’s no trace of what I think is a “Socialist Republic”, of course having East Germany in mind as an example. Quite to the contrary, Saigon (you will find the old name used much more frequently than “Ho Chi Minh City”; “Sai Gon” is in fact the name of the central 1^st district) is a very colorful and vibrant city with a lot of very visible entrepreneurial spirit.

While it seems to be a fun place to be (I spoke to an English guy who went there for a three day trip, went home, quit his job and is now there for 9 months already), don’t expect too much great sightseeing experiences. There are a couple of things to see, but nothing too spectacular. “The War Remnants Museum” on the premises of the old U.S. embassy (from which the last U.S. troops were evacuated by swarms of helicopters), shows a couple of U.S. weapons that were left behind, including the obvious Huey Chopper, an F-5 fighter, a couple of tanks and all sorts of short range missiles. The most horrible two weapons on display are two “daisy cutters” – 7 ton fuel-bombs that annihilate all life within a 500m radius of their point of detonation. The most horrible pictures on display in the adjacent exhibitions halls are those that illustrate the short and long-term effects of the infamous “Agent Orange” on people. Interestingly enough, the rest of the exhibition – except some obvious propaganda in a hall illustrating the support of the world for Vietnam in the times of war – is mostly from U.S. publication sources and photographers, which gives the exhibition some (strange) balance. The entrance fee is 10,000 VND per person.

Otherwise, Saigon is a very interesting and friendly place to explore if you have two or three days while in South East Asia. The Vietnamese people have long understood what the Dollar and Euros are not only worth to them but also to you so don’t expect it to be very cheap. Saigon seems more expensive than, for instance, Bangkok and is much less developed at the same time. However, just from feeling much less “westernized” than any of the other Asian cities that I’ve been to, it draws its appeal.

With TechEd Malaysia done, Patricia and I now have a bit more than 2 weeks of vacation! Today we fly to Saigon (Vietnam) and tomorrow from there for 4 days to Siem Reap (Cambodia) to see the temples of the sunken capital of the Khmer empire in Angkor. Then we’ll fly back to Thailand to spend 1 ½ weeks in a beach resort and finally we fly home after another one night stop in Bangkok. This is going to be great fun.