Got bogged down in some research this afternoon and didn’t have time for a full post today, so it’ll just be a few links and comments (think of this as the tecosytems version of the Simpsons’ clip shows).
First, apologies for all the readers via aggregator for my feed being reset to all new entries: I subscribed to Feedburner Pro, which apparently recreates the existing feed, thus confusing aggregators.
Second, Ryan asks how we’re doing. I could say, “A lot better since I read that,” which while true doesn’t answer the question. To answer it, I’d say this: in describing the horsepower output of its various cars, Rolls Royce declines to be specific, and merely says “adequate.” In other words, we’re doing fine. Because we’ve made certain business choices, I’m not driving a Rolls Royce but a Taurus (SHO, mind you) with a 145K miles on it, but we’re doing just fine. I can still get a pint at the end of the day, which is all that matters 😉
Third, anyone monitoring the RedMonk Wiki’s recent changes feed may have noticed that Andy Fundinger removed a bunch of spam for us. This, despite the fact that we didn’t go with his recommended wiki solution. What can you say about someone who donates time that way but thanks?
Fourth, Catherine Helzerman of IBM AR has taken to calling us “rogue” analysts. While my colleague was a bit leary of the term, I quite like it. I should include that on our marketing materials – oh wait, we don’t have any.
Fifth, speaking of marketing, I’ve just engaged a designer/web programmer to reconstruct redmonk.com. We’ve got some ideas for things we’d like to incorporate to make it a bit more dynamic, but if there’s anything any of you would like to see just drop me a note.
Last, a question. Would any of the Linux, Solaris or Windows folks out there like a cut at a RedMonk work in progress? I’m toying with the idea of posting a draft publication on Solaris 10 to the wiki, but wanted to see if any of you would have interest in a.) seeing it before it goes live, and b.) giving it a read from your respective perspectives, and (optionally) c.) correcting mistakes you find. If so, drop me a comment.
Otheriwse, more tomorrow.