Google Docs – Changing The Way You Write and Work

On 03.11.10, In Applications, Writing, By dancalloway

by DAN CALLOWAY
Published 11 March 2010

WEAVERVILLE, NC -- Have you tried Google Docs yet? Are you still creating documents on your computer using office suite applications and emailing them to friends, family, and co-workers using email clients? There’s a better way.

Now, with Google Docs, you can create documents, presentations, and spreadsheets online and share them with anyone you want.

Choose who can access your documents. Just enter the email addresses of the people with whom you want to share a given document and send them an invitation.

Share instantly. Anyone you’ve invited to either edit or view your document, spreadsheet or presentation can access it as soon as they sign in.

Edit and present with others in real time. Multiple people can view and make changes at the same time. There’s an on-screen chat window for spreadsheets, and document revisions show you exactly who changed what, and when. Viewing a presentation together is a breeze, as anyone joined in a presentation can automatically follow along with the presenter.

Create basic documents from scratch or start from a template. You can easily do all the basics, including making bulleted lists, sorting by columns, adding tables, images, comments, formulas, changing fonts and more. And it’s free.

Upload your existing files. Google Docs accepts most popular file formats, including DOC, XLS, ODT, ODS, RTF, CSV, PPT, etc. So go ahead and upload your existing files.

Familiar desktop feel makes editing a breeze. Just click the toolbar buttons to bold, underline, indent, change font or number format, change cell background color and so on.

Edit and access from anywhere. There’s nothing to download; you access your documents, spreadsheets and presentations from any computer with an Internet connection and a standard browser. And it’s free.

Safely store your work. Online storage and auto-save mean you needn’t fear local hard drive failures or power outages.

Easily save and export copies. You can save your documents and spreadsheets to your own computer in DOC, XLS, CSV, ODS, ODT, PDF, RTF and HTML formats.

Organize your documents. Easily find your documents by organizing them into folders. Drag and drop your documents into as many folders as you want.

Publish your work as a web page. You can publish your documents online with one click, as normal-looking web pages, without having to learn anything new.

Control who can see your pages. You can publish to the entire world, just a few people or no one — it’s up to you. (You can also un-publish at any time.)

Post your documents to your blog. Once you’ve created a document, you can post it to your blog.

Publish within your company or group. With Google Apps, it’s even easier to share important documents, spreadsheets and presentations within your company or group.

Watch the following videos about Google Docs and give Google Docs a try today. I think Google Docs will change the way you write and work.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Webnews.de
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yigg
Wikio
Wikio
Tagged with: • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition (NAVCE) & Its Dependence Upon a Reliable Network

On 03.09.10, In Applications, Computer Viruses, By dancalloway

by DAN CALLOWAY
Published 9 March 2010

WEAVERVILLE, NC – The following article is a discussion of Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition (NAVCE) and its dependence upon a reliable and fully-functional network to perform its functionality.

Discussion

The network application this author has chosen to discuss as one with which he has worked closely in the past and that is dependent upon a reliable network to function properly is Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition (NAVCE). Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition, also known as Symantec Antivirus Enterprise Edition, is an antivirus software application developed by Symantec Corporation whose network component provides 24/7-365 solid protection against incoming viruses and spyware to corporate enterprise networks and servers and whose client component provides the same level of antivirus and anti-spyware protection to host computers connected to the network (“Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition,” 2010).

Symantec Corporation has acquired several small antivirus companies and security vendors over the years, but its prominence and recognition as a leader in the antivirus and anti-spyware business came about when it purchased IBM’s and Intel’s antivirus business in the latter 1990s (Hunter, Khan, & Shimonski, 2003). The development of NAVCE was built upon decades of solid know-how and support that came from Norton’s support of desktop clients in the 1980s and early 1990s, protecting desktop operating systems and email systems from malicious code since the first trojan worms and email viruses appeared in those early days and the technologies acquired from IBM and Intel in the area of enterprise antivirus software management and automated virus handling, respectively.

Application Description

Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition is a network-based antivirus and anti-spyware application that provides advanced enterprise-wide virus protection and management from a single web-based console. It incorporates an integrated web-based graphical reporting capability for network administrators. NAVCE also supports the Symantec Antivirus client for Windows Vista and Microsoft Windows Server 2008 (“Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition,” 2010). The key benefits of this application are: (1) Provides effective enterprise-wide antivirus and anti-spyware protection; (2) Incorporates Symantec tamper protection guard, which prevents unauthorized antivirus access and attacks on the network through attempts from viruses to disable network security; and (3) The application is backed by the Symantec Security Response Team, which is the world’s leading Internet virus research and support group. NAVCE offers antivirus and anti-spyware support for the Symantec System Center, Symantec Antivirus Server for Windows, Symantec Antivirus Server for Netware, AMS Server, Reporting Server, Reporting Console, Quarantine Console, Central Quarantine Server, 32- and 64-bit Windows clients (including Vista), and Linux clients (including Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.x, 4.x, 5.x; SUSE Linux Enterprise Server/Desktop 9.x and 10.x; Novell Open Enterprise Server; and VMware EX 2.5x and 3.x) (“Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition,” 2010).

In January, 2010, Symantec Corporation announced that it would stop support for NAVCE in the near future and recommended to its customers to begin looking at its successor applications: Symantec Endpoint Protection or Symantec Endpoint Protection Small Business, which is the Next-Generation antivirus/anti-spyware application that protects the endpoints of the network using simple management capabilities, fast deployment, and pre-configured settings.

Network Dependence and its Impact on NAVCE

Although NAVCE has a client component as well as a network component in its application package, its dependence on a reliable, and fully-functional network is crucial to its overall functionality. If the network upon which it is installed and configured fails to provide adequate connectivity between network servers (Quarantine, System Center, Reporting Server, Reporting Console, and WUS) and host computers attached to the network, and between the LAN and the Internet that provides access to the web-based administrator console for remote management purposes and the virus/anti-spyware definition and engine updates essential to maintain the application’s viability as a product that will protect the network against the latest viruses and malware (supported by WUS), then NAVCE will cease to be an application that will fully support the network or its hosts from external and internal viral and spyware invasions.

Implication of Network Infrastructure Developments on NAVCE

Obviously, as network infrastructure and network developments change in the coming years, Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition will not be directly impacted since support for this application will end in the months following January, 2010. However, for its successor applications, such as Symantec Endpoint Protection and Symantec Endpoint Small Business, their interface with upgraded network and client desktop operating systems, requirements for updated microprocessors, enhanced RAM at the server and desktop level, file system changes at the software and hardware level (512 KB/sector to 4KB/sector ATA hard drive changes) (“bit-tech.net | All new hard drives will be “4k advanced format”,” 2010) will require application changes to remain in lock-step so that the applications can be implemented on the network hardware and software and so that the minimum requirements to run the applications will be met on the corporate networks themselves (“Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition,” 2010). Symantec Corporation, as an antivirus and anti-spyware vendor that wishes to remain in business in the foreseeable future, will have to ensure that its future products are compatible with the latest technologies, such as more advanced mail clients, FTP clients, and the like, or its inability to provide continuing support in protecting future LANs will result in its inability to remain competitive in the marketplace.

———————–

References

bit-tech.net | All new hard drives will be “4k advanced format”. (2010, February 2). bit-tech.net | All new hard drives will be “4k advanced format”. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/02/02/all-new-hard-drives-will-be-4k-advanced-for/1.

Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition. (2010). Enterprise Antivirus Software – Threat Prevention | Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.symantec.com/business/antivirus-corporate-edition.

Hunter, L., Khan, A., & Shimonski, R. (2003). Configuring Symantec Antivirus Enterprise Edition. Syngress. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://books.google.com/books?id=nHPzTZ27a5UC&dq=symantec+antivirus+corporate+edition&lr=lang_en&source=gbs_navlinks_s.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Webnews.de
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yigg
Wikio
Wikio
Tagged with: • • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Google Chrome Web Browser

On 03.08.10, In Web browsers, By dancalloway

by DAN CALLOWAY
Published 8 March 2010

GOOGLE – I recently discovered that the Google Chrome (beta) Web browser is available for Debian Linux. Since I use Ubuntu 9.10 now fairly exclusively, this was a treat since I loved the look and feel of this Web browser in Windows. However, for some reason, it seemed to crash a lot in Windows, especially Windows XP Home Edition. But, not so in Linux.

Here’s what Google Chrome has to offer:

Speed: Fast to launch, fast to load web pages

  • Quick to start up from your desktop
  • Loads web pages in a snap
  • Runs web applications faster than ever

Simplicity: Designed for efficiency and ease of use

  • Search and navigate to web pages from the same box
  • Arrange and organize tabs however you wish — quickly and easily
  • Get to your favorite websites with just a click, from the thumbnails of your most visited sites in the New Tab page

Style: Themes to add delight to your browser

Try Minimalist or Star Gazing.

For all themes, check out the Google Chrome Themes Gallery.

Download the latest version of the Google Chrome Web browser from the Help Center. There you will see download versions for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Webnews.de
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yigg
Wikio
Wikio
Tagged with: • •
 
4 Comments
Leave A Response

IT Manager’s Decisions For Upgrading the XYZ Corporation Network

On 03.07.10, In Networking, By dancalloway

by DAN CALLOWAY
Publlished 7 March 2010

UNITED STATES – The networking needs of XYZ Corporation have changed significantly over the last five years. As the IT manager, it is imperative that the approach I recommend to management for upgrading the network—not just for the sake of improving applications that run on it, but taking into account the aspects of improving the network from a hardware and software (protocol) perspective—be taken that will ensure a reliable, scalable, and efficient network that will not only meet the requirements—now but five years from now—of the business sector and its partners (stakeholders) in the organization who will likely need to remotely connect to the network, but which will be acceptable to everyone and that can be accomplished with the least effort and most economical means.

The approach that is often taken when upgrading a corporate network, like XYZ Corporation, is to rush into the upgrade by adding network devices of differing quality from various vendors as well as software applications in the same manner because the hardware and software is the latest and greatest on the market and does exactly what the business office wants to implement and use. This is the wrong approach because the business office and management lose sight of the fact that a lot of planning goes into upgrading a network from a hardware/software and services perspective. If the former approach is taken, then most likely at some point, the network will no longer be able to support the services needed for the business factions or the network traffic generated by the users. When the network fails, then, undoubtedly, management will look to point blame on IT for not ensuring the upgrade was successful in the first place and, in all likelihood, will seek outside assistance (an ISP or managed service) in giving advice and correcting the issue, which will be costly and will adversely affect IT’s credibility in the organization.

The approach that I would recommend to management after reviewing the corporate strategic goals and current and projected mission statements of the company would be to: (1) Confer with my department on the goals the company wanted to meet and where it was heading in the next five to ten years, and elicit from them their expert recommendations for the necessary hardware and software that would be required to achieve those goals; (2) Have an onsite technician perform a site survey of the network, documenting the physical layout of the current network from a hardware standpoint, and the applications that currently run on the network as a starting point for the upgrade project; (3) Ensure the site survey collected information on the current business plans and projected growth of the company, number of users and types of equipment needed, current Internet connectivity, what applications the network needs to support, what new services will be required now and in the future, what the security and privacy requirements are now and in the future, what the wireless network requirements (wireless or a mix of wired and wireless) are, what the reliability and uptime expectations of the new network are, and what are the budget constraints; (4) Request a formal written proposal from a prospective ISP on the requirements for and the costs associated with supporting the backbone for the network; (5) Develop a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis of the upgrade plan; and (6) Report the findings of the site survey, written proposal of the ISP, results of the SWOT analysis, and documented proposal for the network upgrade to management for their approval. Following the approval from management, I would execute the network upgrade in five phases: (1) Requirements gathering, (2) Selection, design, and purchasing of equipment and applications, (3) Implementation of the upgrade, (4) Operation in a live environment, and (5) Review and evaluate the new network (hardware/software applications) against the original design plans to see if they are a match (“The Technology Upgrade Planning Guide,” 2010).

I would not foresee any major obstacles to implementing the network upgrade if all of the steps outlined above are executed properly and there is complete and upfront communications between the IT department and the business factions/management during all phases of requirements gathering, design selection, implementation, operation, and review.

——————————

References:

The Technology Upgrade Planning Guide. (2010). The Technology Upgrade Planning Guide. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.thebrookfieldgroup.com/news_story32.php.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Webnews.de
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yigg
Wikio
Wikio
Tagged with: • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Extreme Programming (XP) In The Classroom – A Study of Agile Methodology

On 03.07.10, In Programming, By dancalloway

by DAN CALLOWAY
Published 7 March 2010

WEAVERVILLE, NC – Dean Sanders, the Computer Science and Information Systems chair at Northwest Missouri State University in Maryville, Missouri asked the students to evaluate the use of Extreme Programming for a project that was to be conducted in the undergraduate computer science curriculum and to write opinion papers on the subject (Sanders, 2002). The majority of the students were opposed to the use of XP as the preferred life-cycle model for the project, but did support the introduction of some of the practices of XP for selected courses. Among these acceptable practices were unit testing and coding standards for introductory classes. The students, however, felt that other practices should be deferred to project-specific courses.

As a means of corroborating the opinions of the students, Sanders (2002) conducted two pilot studies: one on pair programming and one on Extreme Programming. The reasons for these pilot studies were to develop substantiative experience to support the opinions of the students and to evaluate the literature on pair programming and agile methods to see where they fit into a typical undergraduate computer science curriculum.

The Pair Programming pilot study (Sanders, 2002) was conducted in the Summer semester of 2001. The course selected for the study was a Data and File Structures course consisting of a small group of individuals with mixed ethnicity and diversity among family obligations, gender, age, job schedules, and grade point averages who were felt to be ideal for the study. In general, the results of this pilot study revealed that most of the students were enthusiastic about the concept of pair programming and felt that they had learned quite a bit about working in pairs, communicating with one another on the project, and felt that this experience had been a rewarding one. One surprising result of the study, however, was that early on in the course, the majority of the students felt that the introduction of pair programming in the Data and File Structures course was very useful, but by the end of the course, most students had changed their minds as a result of the stronger students constantly having to explain concepts to the weaker ones, and felt that this practice should be delayed to a later course rather than being an introductory one.

The Extreme Programming pilot study (Sanders, 2002) was conducted in the Fall semester of 2001 where one project was selected as an XP pilot project to develop a teaching/learning environment for students in an introductory programming course. This particular project was selected for three reasons: (1) the instructor would be playing the role of the client, (2) the project was large enough to instill interest among students, and (3) the project could tolerate a lack of progress. The project, codenamed Jeroo, when completed, would allow students to control the movements of an animated character by writing programs in a Java-like language. The completed project would include a GUI, an animation plane, a source-code editor, a graphical environment editor, a lexical analyzer, a parser, a compiler, an interpretor, and a run-time module. A team consisting of six students all of whom had a demonstrated history of producing excellent work, were asked to conduct further research into XP practices and were asked how they would adapt those practices to the Jeroo project. Releases of the software client were developed about every three weeks. The team reported they attempted to follow the principles of simple design but time constraints made refactoring extremely difficult. Testing during the project did occur, but did not follow the prescribed practice of Extreme Programming. Students reported the most successful aspects regarding the use of pair programming and XP were the stand-up meetings, the variation on pair programming, and the use of CVS. The majority of the students felt that XP kept their morale high, but they did not deem XP suitable for all teams or projects, recommending that a subset of XP be used in future projects.

As a result of the student evaluations and pilot studies, Sanders (2002) made six recommendations for the use of pair programming and XP in an undergraduate curriculum: (1) ensure the introduction of XP does not conflict with broader educational objectives; (2) teach XP or agile methods in an introductory computer science course but be cautious about using either in introductory course projects; (3) an appropriately modified version of XP practices can be used on some projects and some teams; (4) a topics course is the most appropriate place to practice agile methods; (5) some of the practices of XP can be distributed among selected courses as enhancements or revisions of current practices; and (6) pair programming is most effective when students have developed individual skills, when members of team pairs have equitable skill levels, and the course includes regularly scheduled lab sessions.

The results of Sanders (2002) are consistent with the findings of (Kobayashi, Kawabata, Sakai, & Parkinson, 2006) in the use of the whole team concept in which all the players involved in XP projects are gathered together to work as a team, the planning game and short releases concept in which developers and customers make plans for short releases and iterations of software development, clearly identifying the role each plays, and the pair programming concept where teams work in pairs at a single computer when developing the software. Kobayashi, et al., recommends the introduction of selected practices of XP in projects, which is also consistent with the findings and recommendations of Sanders (2002) in the XP pilot study.

—————–

References
Kobayashi, O., Kawabata, M., Sakai, M., & Parkinson, E. (2006). Analysis of the interaction between practices for introducing XP effectively. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on software engineering (pp. 544-550). Presented at the Far eas experience papers: development technique, Shanghai, China: ACM. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://portal.acm.org.library.capella.edu/citation.cfm?doid=1134285.1134361.

Sanders, D. (2002). Extreme Programming: The student view. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 235-250.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Blogosphere News
  • Fark
  • FriendFeed
  • MySpace
  • NewsVine
  • RSS
  • Slashdot
  • Webnews.de
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Yigg
Wikio
Wikio
Tagged with: • • • • •
 
2 Comments
Leave A Response

« Previous Entries
Go To Top »
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes