Unintentional revelations
Enterprisey architect, James McGovern, makes the following self-actualization today, but I think he misses it:
Communities promoting their wares are simply guilty of hype and will get it twisted whenever someone asked for quantitative research as they cannot provide facts that support their claim but will only respond with assertions that the wrong questions are being asked or will resort to other tactics to rationalize their viewpoint, but we all know that Rationalization is a trap!
Seriously, this stuff writes itself. Who better to understand the guilt of hype and twisted priorities based on false research than an “analyst,” or worse a self-proclaimed “enterprise architect.” This guy’s got a future on the comedy circuit, but please, stop feeding the silliness by paying people like this for their ideas. They’re not even worth giving away.
These are the people who somehow convinced one of my customers, a large government agency very concerned with security to buy into the who SOA pipe-dream before anyone’s bothered to solve any of the truly difficult security issues. I could go off about how we’ve been down this road before, or how the whole SOA truely is the most enterprisey thing I’ve seen in a long, long time, but the truth of the matter is, these half-wit analysts are selling half-baked ideas to people who trust them for some reason. Strangely, they should know better, and don’t.
Enterprisey, indeed.
This entry was posted at 7:23 am on 9 April 2006 and is filed under Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the post-specific RSS 2.0 feed.
I’m quite aware of the issue that SOA isn’t CORBA, but WS-* is trying to replicate much of what CORBA did, even if it’s 10x slower and 100x more complicated—an achievement of epic proportion. Having said that, you’re obviously misinterpreting my definition of security.
Security is not “talking about it.” Security is doing it, solving it, breaking it, knowing why it fails, and how others might cause it to break. It is formal system analysis; certification and accreditation, and concepts like integrity propagation.
I have read what Mr. McGovern has written, and nowhere in there do I see a demonstration of security as anything more than yet more enterprisey mumbo-jumbo that demonstrates lip-service over knowledge in my mind. I’m quite sure he fools lots of people—that doesn’t take much.
By the way, hiding behind fake emails is hardly a way to engender confidence in your personal assessment of the situation.
Thanks for quoting me as you have proved that the community can only respond with even more perspective yet you have still failed to state a single fact that proves otherwise.
I will continue to ask the community to provide fact so that you guys can keep responding with everything but…
Mr. McGovern, beginning with your first article that I responded to, you demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the system, the language and indeed even the nature of programming languages as a whole. Your article was riddled with factual errors, intellectual dishonesty and comple logical fallacies.
Why is it you expect us to do your job? That you miss the genuine irony of your position demonstrates that there is little self-reflection involved.
Tools are nothing but that, and must be judged only in the context of their use, not the context of some abstract creation that serves the particular needs of those peddling their advice. Nobody is trying to tell someone that Ruby, or Rails is there to solve all problems. It’s simply a tool in my toolbelt, along with many others.
How many tools are in your toolbelt, Mr. McGovern? Your analysis so far has demonstrated either a total lack of intellectual curiosity about the system, or the intentional willingness to paint a false picture of reality. Which would you prefer I assume?
When someone states things that are demonstrably false— so false that the first hit on Google proves you wrong—and then deceptively changes them without proper notification that your work has been changed, do you really expect respect? Respect is earned, not bestowed.
Your work is not worthy of my time any longer to analyze its fallacies, but instead, only the 15 seconds necessary to ridicule your “thought leadership” so that others might carefully examine its value before accepting it.
Would love your thoughts on this blog: http://enterprisearchitect.typepad.com/ea/2006/04/enterprise_arch.html
[...] I just couldn’t pass this one up when “it was mentioned in a comment to an earlier post”: http://blog.amber.org/2006/04/09/unintentional-revelations/#comments. Proclaimed “enterprise architect” Robert McIlree is convinced that it’s enterprise architect versus the world. Really? The whole damned world? Or just a few people? Exaggeration is always a fun hobby. [...]
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
You must haven’t read any of James other blog entries as he talks about security more than any other topic. Maybe you should read his blog instead of reading into his blog.
FYI SOA is not CORBA