Google Apps Not the DC Success Many Believe?

theodp writes "Google touts its partnership with the District of Columbia government, presenting it as quite the Google Apps success story. So as part of his coverage of last week's Gmail outage, nextgov's Gautham Nagesh called the DC government, but was told they hadn't heard of any reports of outages among city employees. Nagesh wrote this off to safeguards put in place for the government by Google, but readers tipped him off to another explanation: 'Despite all the press releases trumpeting Google in DC,' an anonymous commenter wrote, 'Exchange is still the city's primary email system.' Nagesh followed up, and was surprised to learn that there is indeed no Gmail in DC government. This all seemed rather strange to Nagesh, considering how much attention former DC CTO and current Federal CIO Vivek Kundra has received for implementing Google Apps for District employees. Reporting separately, CNET's Elinor Mills was told by a DC spokeswoman that while Google Apps is available to 38,000 DC city employees, only 4,000 are actively using it. The spokeswoman added that Gmail could potentially replace Microsoft Exchange, 'but this decision has not been made yet.'"

Comments

This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I live here, unfortunately, and the whole DC government is corrupt and inefficient. This is really not surprising to anyone familiar with the local government.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Presto Vivace]

maybe, just maybe, DC civil servants have a good reason for not using Google aps.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[baegucb]

I would say inefficient at a minimum. 38,000 employees? That's almost as much as my entire state government has.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[netcaretaker]

Wow, and the haters who love to bash MS begin. Ya, exchange, the mature product that does calendering and mail and all your contacts truely sucks. It is much worst then google (oh wait, they don't have a global directory, and email outage, blah blah blah), or Apple .mac (really? that works now?) or mac servers with IMAP. Google, is not enterprise ready, and is not secure, and will own your data in the cloud. I would perfer my local .gov NOT to use it if my name is going to be on any of their docs.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[ajs]

maybe, just maybe, DC civil servants have a good reason for not using Google aps.

Well, I don't think they're going either way... and that could be the problem. Right now, they're paying a lot of money for two solutions. Granted the Google solution is cheaper, but both are costing the taxpayers money. Hopefully they'll be making a decision soon and not continuing to cost the taxpayers for indecisiveness....

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[briareus]

Since when is resistance to change a good reason?

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Nadaka]

I have to agree. I am generally in favor of free and open source software. But MS exchange and the software ecosystem surrounding it is highly available, reliable, feature rich, painlessly scalable from a small operation up to hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of users at a price point that almost any business can afford. Its one of microsofts best products, and there really isn't anything I have seen in any competitors that can meet, much less, beat Exchange at its game.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Presto Vivace]

Resistance to change by itself is not a good reason. But I have seen enough of the installations from hell to know that when end users do not adopt a proposed changed they often have very good reasons for staying with the old system. We are not there, we don't know their reasoning.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[MrZaius]

Did you even bother reading the article summary? It is plainly a Google problem if they're misrepresenting the level of adoption by the local DC government. Off to RTFA.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[omeomi]

Well, I don't think they're going either way... and that could be the problem. Right now, they're paying a lot of money for two solutions. Granted the Google solution is cheaper, but both are costing the taxpayers money. Hopefully they'll be making a decision soon and not continuing to cost the taxpayers for indecisiveness....

So call it a phased roll-out? We went through pretty much the same process at place where I work. We used Exchange when I started there. Then there was the option of switching over to Gmail. Then, when things seemed to be going smoothly, there was a forced deadline for when everybody had to switch.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[MrNaz]

As an open source evangelist, I also regretfully agree. While there are substitutes for many *parts* of the Exchange ecosystem, there is no other truly integrated system that works as well, is as comprehensive, provides the full gamut of functionality and is as mature and easy to use.

If you want to know how Google Apps as a whole compares to Exchange as a whole, compare the Google Apps spreadsheet application to MS Excel. Sure, it covers the functionality needed by little Johnny figuring out what a spreadsheet is, but the minute you need to do any *real* spreadsheet work, Google Apps just doesn't deliver.

That is true of the whole Google Apps framework. It's great for high school study groups and perhaps even university clubhouses, but when heavy lifting needs to be done, it doesn't cut the mustard. Anyone who thinkos otherwise hasn't spent any/enough time in a real, productive office workplace.

As I said, I regret to have to say this, as I'm a Linux only desktop user, and hate it every time I have to troubleshoot some guy's virus infested workstation. I *wish* open source could deliver, but it just can't - YET. Google Apps, THANK GOD, doesn't deliver. Moving from platform lock in on the desktop to another platform lock in where not only the software that I'm using but also my frakkin' USER DATA is also locked in is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Can the Google fanboys please stop? Can't you idiots see that Google has the makings of an evil monopoly that makes Microsoft look like your friendly local corner store.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[LordLimecat]

Or they have no particular reason to use Exchange, except that its Exchange, and that hasnt changed yet. That doesnt mean one solution is better than the other-- ive seen people migrate away from Google Apps because they used gmail IMAP into outlook and wondered why it was awful.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[nrgy]

You had me most of the way until your last sentence.

I've used Linux for quiet some time and am lucky enough I can usually request Linux for my operating system at freelance jobs. That said I really don't give a rats ass about the cloud, Microsoft, Google, or where my data is.

At the end of the day all I care about is what works regardless of where it comes from. I have forgotten documents at home more than Google has had an outage preventing me from getting at my Gmail account. I have all my email at my employers forwarded to my Gmail account. The one or two times Google has prevented me from accessing Gmail I simply logged into the companies web servers that had my data still on them.

I'm not saying Googles services are the best or great at everything but obviously they are for some people or no one would use them. The last movie I worked on we used Google calendar and docs to push things around the office and to vendors. A 200 million US dollar movie I hope thats a productive enough office workplace for you.

And so what if Google has my data. I figure the chances of someone owning Google or a Google employee getting my personal data is about the same risk as someone owning my rig at home/work. Continue on bashing Google as the anti-christ reborn while I enjoy my use of there services.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[LordLimecat]

Google apps is a hell of a lot cheaper in many cases, and can potentially have lower downtime. And if SSL isnt secure, then i think we're all in trouble. As for "owning your data", do you have a citation from the EULA of Google Apps for business to back this up?

Exchange has a lot going for it, but so does Google Apps-- for example, instead of spending $500 (WinServ license) + $20 per WinServ cal + $1100 (exchange license) + $40 per exchange cal + $200 for office (and outlook), you could just sign up for Google Apps. Want a more large-scale setup supporting blackberries? There's a connector for BES. Maintenance costs are literally nil-- that doesnt mean theres no downtime, but historically downtime has been very low.

That said Im not sure of the wisdom in switching from an already-deployed Exchange environment to Google Docs; that seems somewhat backwards.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[LordLimecat]

And from what I've seen end users tend to have no reason at all for never changing. Theyll use Internet Explorer 6 forever and complain about how slow it is, and if you suggest chrome / firefox and they see that its faster they will begin using that, and stick on that forever. People will use what theyre given, and will do their jobs without giving the IT stuff a second thought in most cases.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[TheRaven64]

As someone intimately familiar with Exchange, perhaps you can answer this simple question: What features does it have that OpenGroupware.org or Scalable OpenGroupware.org do not have? Exchange advocates frequently cling to the 'integrated address book, mail and calendaring' line, but OG.o/SOG.o have had that for a while, along with support for CalDAV clients and a web interface. Presumably, as someone who is an open source evangelist but familiar with Exchange, you can shed some light on exactly what the compelling features of Exchange over the competition are. I presume it has some, but without anyone who uses Exchange being willing to enumerate them, it's difficult for open source alternatives to implement them.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[FlyingBishop]

I agree with you in general, but with a caveat. Google apps present a far better way to organize information than Exchange does. Yes, it's mature and people understand it. However, it's very difficult to properly version documents with Exchange. With Google Apps, it's effortless. Collaboration is built in. I'm working on a project right now that's split into 5 spreadsheets, and there are two separate copies, not counting the numerous copies that have been sent via e-mail as we've been modifying back and forth and making corrections.

All the spreadsheet does is track some database field names, their purposes, and equivalents in the new database. It doesn't need anything other than the basic features. What it does need is version control. Exchange not only avoids version control, it actively supports this sort of e-mail tag where everyone has several copies floating around.

Until Exchange provides proper Wiki functionality, I don't see it as a compelling alternative for someone who hasn't yet learned its ways. Unfortunately, there's a lot of training that goes out the window, and probably makes the current workforce incapable of realizing the benefits of ditching the e-mail and modify model without having the full force of the Office interface in place.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[kabloom]

Open source can deliver just fine. We've got CalDav, IMAP, OpenOffice, etc... for doing your basic and advanced office functions. Your mistake is confusing Google Apps with open source software.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[bigpat]

Microsoft Outlook 2007 running on Microsoft Windows XP hangs on me all the time in mid email. I'd hardly call that stable.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[MrCrassic]

Exchange over Activesync? RPC over HTTPS? Seamless integration with Outlook?

(I know that Zimbra, a groupware product I used for a LONG time, had the basics of the first feature, but lacked everything else.)

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[lukas84]

Unfortunately, these kind of comparisons are very hard to do, because people that are familiar with Exchange usually aren't as familiar with other products, even if they looked at them or evaluated them.

From my perspective as someone who works for a small Microsoft Partner, the main advantage of Exchange over the competition is "it just works". Getting a small company with 10-50 employees up and running on Microsoft's Small Business Server 2008 is something that can be done in a few days, and it offers much more than just Groupware (managed updates, group policies, file sharing, intranet using Sharepoint services).

Outlook integrates into Sharepoint, Active Directory, etc. without the need to configure anything. You can easily get a fairly standardized setup without much hassle or the necessity to develop or create deployment plans, default configurations, etc. in house, as SBS already ships with a very decent configuration that only needs slight adjustments.

My most extensive experience with another Groupware product was Lotus Notes, using both the native Notes Client and the Outlook Connector. Notes gives you several things that Outlook does not have (e.G. offline capable applications that can replicate their database when the network is back up), but it's much more of a hassle to use. The Outlook plugin sometimes just doesn't work, lags behind released Outlook versions (took forever till they got a 2007 version out), etc.

I know that the Slashdot groupthink here disagrees, but Microsoft does indeed products that work together very well. You can all your non line of business infrastructure from Microsoft, and you'll get a pretty decent system, even though there are some suppliers out there that offer partially better products (e.G. VMware).

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[lukas84]

If you want version control and such, you'll need Sharepoint. Exchange is not equal to Google Apps.

Exchange + Sharepoint + Office is.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[nrgy]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1190080/

No I don't do IT work.

As to your laptop VPN suggestion, most facilities firewall off the wireless and internal networks from themselves.

"I can has my files" is exactly why I use services like Google and Dropbox, sorry you disagree. I'm not a tinfoil hat crazy as you appear to be so I don't mind someone controling my data. In all honesty I don't see any difference between Google and a financial institution when it comes to personal data. Both can be good and bad.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

As an open source evangelist, I also regretfully agree. While there are substitutes for many *parts* of the Exchange ecosystem, there is no other truly integrated system that works as well...

I would put a caveat here. Nothing works as well, out of the box from one provider. If, you're willing to pay someone to put together a solution for you using CalDav, OpenOffice, etc. it can be integrated just as well, and sometimes better. The issue being, you actually have to pay someone like Redhat, IBM, or Canonical to build a good solution and you have to have a good idea of what you want. This is, or course, not how big business in the US works. Sure IBM does a lot of business, but mostly in selling lock-in to their services to people without a proper set of requirements. It's the same as MS, supply the hookers and blow to whoever is purchasing a solution and they'll take whatever you offer them.

If you want to know how Google Apps as a whole compares to Exchange as a whole, compare the Google Apps spreadsheet application to MS Excel. Sure, it covers the functionality needed by little Johnny figuring out what a spreadsheet is, but the minute you need to do any *real* spreadsheet work, Google Apps just doesn't deliver.

In my experience 99% of users never do any *real* spreadsheet work as you have defined it. The issue with Google Docs in this case is mostly momentum for all the templates in use out there today and all the places that won't change because change is hard and they don't have to. For the other 1%, most of them are covered by OO.org and most of the rest are lock-in liability situations where people have build brittle solutions and entrenched workflows probably are stuck on Win2K and some other software that will never be updated, and are using packages that were a terrible idea to start with and you need some serious professional help migrating and starting something flexible that can go forward.

That is true of the whole Google Apps framework. It's great for high school study groups and perhaps even university clubhouses, but when heavy lifting needs to be done, it doesn't cut the mustard.

I disagree here. For some use cases they certainly are not as productive as MSOffice, but for most of those it is cases where MSOffice is being misused anyway and people should be using more cost effective tools tailored to their needs. Examples of this are long, technical documents where Word is one of the worst, yet most used solutions. For a few grand you can get enough licenses of a good tool for the people running the project and it can import work from people using Word or Google Docs. The cost will be recovered a dozen times over by the productivity savings. Where MS Office is doing the "heavy lifting" is usually where purchasing and software licensing is so bureaucratically entrenched that nothing other than MSOffice will ever be approved anyway, and users will simply have to suck it up and make do.

For more common, everyday use cases the collaborative capabilities of Google Docs are probably more of an advantage to users workflow.

I *wish* open source could deliver, but it just can't - YET.

It's funny because I've seen it happen, so yes it can deliver. You just need smart people putting it together in the first place and designing a good solution for your needs.

Google Apps, THANK GOD, doesn't deliver. Moving from platform lock in on the desktop to another platform lock in where not only the software that I'm using but also my frakkin' USER DATA is also locked in is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

I truly don't understand your concerns. Google exports to several formats cleanly, so you can always migrate to another solution, be it open source or closed or Web apps. Google Apps can source the user data from your LDAP, Domino, or MS-AD server or you can use one of the synch tools to migrate the

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to know how Microsoft Windows as a whole compares to GNU/Linux as a whole, compare the Microsoft spreadsheet application to Gnumerics. Sure, it covers the functionality needed by little Johnny figuring out what a spreadsheet is, but the minute you need to do any *real* spreadsheet work, Microsoft Excel just doesn't deliver.

That is true of the whole Microsoft framework. It's great for high school study groups and perhaps even university clubhouses, but when heavy lifting needs to be done, it doesn't cut the mustard. Anyone who thinkos otherwise hasn't spent any/enough time in a real, productive analysis unit.

Fixed that for you.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[ThePhilips]

I'm sorry, but many forget that most people expect e-mail to work just like plain post.

I for example was putting up with all bugs and weirdness of Thunderbird 1.x simply because it was easier for me to stay with it than to migrate anywhere. (Doubly so as I was Netscape Messenger user for many years). Only after I have learned that Tb 2.x is going to drastically improve all the bugs and bring more of the Outlook Express craziness to the boat, when I have finally made decision to start trying out alternatives. Not sooner.

The point here is as long as Outlook/Exchange would work for the people - they are going to use it. End of story.

If moving around whole address book isn't scary enough (all the incompatibilities of different optional fields presentations) think about moving the e-mail archive. My current personal archive now reached about 3GB (while my past mailbox is about 250MB archived). I know that import/export mostly works, but there is no simple way to verify that some e-mail will not get botched during migration. And not once on me during migration some important e-mails went missing and some attachments went missing/broken.

Changing e-mail client is a red herring. Real story in how migration is done.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[turbidostato]

"Open source can deliver just fine."

Can you effortlessly sync calendars (yes, calendar*s*), notes and addressboks seemlessly to your mobile devices as Exchange plus Activesync? While your main data is not duplicated and stays at an LDAP server easy accesible by a ton of other apps? With document routing for approval?

Seriously, I don't think open source deliver just fine on this field.

But, hey, I would be very glad if you can show us *your* opensource solution (not the one that you heard it should work but the one you already have in place and in production for more than six months) for a typical ~200 people company with two or three locations.

I wait.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[h4rr4r]

Scalix does all this.

Activesync is pay for only though.In fact it can use an AD ldap directory just fine.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I do not have a citation from the EULA, but it seems to me that

A - the exchange server sitting in a datacenter at an enterprise is a lot harder to get to then a google box sitting on the net.

B - Google will have your data in the sky, and will then be able to index that data. As a matter of fact, I am sure that some customer will demand it. If they have an index of it, what keeps them from "do no evil"?

C - When the fed comes a knocking, they will roll just like every other large company has up to this point. If you own your data in your company, you can at least put a fight before the .gov takes it. I am unsure that google or any other company will support fighting the .gov.

SSL can be corrupted, and when it leaves the enterprise, it gets much easier to do that, there have been DNS (redirects) and SSL attacks for years.

In a company that runs its network and applications correctly (securely) it will always be safer then putting it in the cloud. And the inherent risk of having it stored within the cloud should deter people from putting their data in the cloud.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exchange has only one thing going for it: it's made by Microsoft, who happen to have a monopoly. The same reason people (a few of them) use Microsoft on servers, for source control (what a joke), for instant messaging , web browsing, and so on.

It's irrelevant that Exchange and many other Microsoft products are absolutely horrible and can't begin to compete with the other products. It's Microsoft, it's an "integrated solution", therefore businesses will use it. No matter how bad it is.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the benefit of Activesync or RPC over HTTPS? From my experience these seem to be kludgy hacks to make Exchange's protocol perform some of the basic features every other mail protocol can do easily.

Similarly, "Seamless integration with Outlook"? Microsoft refuses to support 3rd party servers and protocols in their software. No one can make them other than the government.

Fortunately Outlook isn't even a good mail client. "Requires Outlook" is a negative on Exchange, not a positive on Exchange and a negative on everything else.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who is currently in the middle of an Exchange migration, I think I am safe in challenging that "painlessly scalable" bit.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[BikeHelmet]

Moving from platform lock in on the desktop to another platform lock in where not only the software that I'm using but also my frakkin' USER DATA is also locked in is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Everything is easy to export from gmail/gdocs/etc.

Can the Google fanboys please stop? Can't you idiots see that Google has the makings of an evil monopoly that makes Microsoft look like your friendly local corner store.

Google hasn't done anything "evil" yet. So far I'm far more trusting of them than of Microsoft, which does evil anti-consumer stuff at every opportunity.

The only stipulation is that Google (of course) uses all your info internally to improve their advertising service.

But since companies like Microsoft and Yahoo already give away much of your info to other companies, internal use isn't really anything to get miffed about.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[MrCrassic]

Quote by quote:
 
 

What is the benefit of Activesync or RPC over HTTPS? From my experience these seem to be kludgy hacks to make Exchange's protocol perform some of the basic features every other mail protocol can do easily.

Exchange over Activesync allows mobile devices to use most of Outlook's key functionality on supported mobile phones. This protocol is supported by Windows Mobile, BlackberryOS (with an intermediary BES server), iPhoneOS and any device capable of using GoodLink (which an intermediary GoodLink server). Yes, you can mimic similar functionality using Google IMAP4, Calendar and Contacts sync on the Android, but not only does this solution lack practically all of the remote management capabilities integrated into EAS (including remote wipe and mobile policies), it also doesn't support synchronization of Tasks (supported by Windows Mobile and BlackberryOS) and text messages (with Exchange 2010 and Windows Mobile 6.5 or higher.) It also raises privacy concerns, as all information must be stored on Google's servesr instead of a trusted site. None of these might matter for personal consumers, but would be insurmountable concerns for any company that deal with compliance (i.e. the customers that *really* make these companies money).

 

Similarly, "Seamless integration with Outlook"? Microsoft refuses to support 3rd party servers and protocols in their software. No one can make them other than the government.

Fortunately Outlook isn't even a good mail client. "Requires Outlook" is a negative on Exchange, not a positive on Exchange and a negative on everything else.

WTF are you talking about? If you were referring to mail protocols, you're wrong; Outlook supports POP3 and IMAP4, which are the two most common inbound mail delivery protocols used, as well as SMTP, which is the de facto mail sending protocol used. If you meant connectors and add-ins for other services, you're also wrong; there are MANY examples of software that hooks into Outlook to extend its functionality; Google Cal sync is one, Zimbra Connector is another, along with the tons and tons of spam, junk mail and mail control services available...

In regards to Outlook's performance as a mail client, from an industrial perspective, it really doesn't matter how good or bad YOU think it is; what matters is that EVERYBODY uses it (relatively speaking). Additionally, I never even said Exchange requires Outlook, since it uses nothing proprietary to send and receive mail...

Come back when you've actually USED Outlook, Exchange or, hell, any groupware product please...

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[mrclisdue]

Woody?

Brilliant way to promote the film, buddy.

Down in popularity this week? Erm...maybe not so good.

cheers,

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[turbidostato]

"Scalix does all this."

Do you really use it? Do you use it for contacts, notes and calendars on mobile devices? Which devices? How many users? Which desktop software (if any) have you tested against Scalix?

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[lonecrow]

I was happy to install and use SharePoint but as soon as I found that I couldn't add the info for my mailserver (mailenable) it lost all its luster.

I think Sharepoint is a fine program when used for purpose (Intranet). But you might as well call it an Exchange Add-on.

Where is support for iCal, rss, etc.

Sure it integrates with MS Outlook but Outlook is the devil himself so why would you want to? Burdening peoples PC and laptops with 2gb PST files instead of leaving mail on the server where it belongs causes heaps of problems IMHO.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[lukas84]

I was happy to install and use SharePoint but as soon as I found that I couldn't add the info for my mailserver (mailenable) it lost all its luster.

Sharepoint can send mail using any SMTP server. Receiving mail just requires a drop folder, that can be provided using the built-in SMTP Server or any other software that can provide a drop folder.

Sure it integrates with MS Outlook but Outlook is the devil himself so why would you want to? Burdening peoples PC and laptops with 2gb PST files instead of leaving mail on the server where it belongs causes heaps of problems IMHO.

Erm, disable Cached Exchange Mode if you don't want any mails on the client.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[minorDistraction]

Exchange is not magically more reliable than other systems. The way it's managed makes a great difference. My company introduced it early last year. The first half year was a nightmare. We still have at least one "outage" a month. I don't blame Exchange, but a server park that's overloaded and bad management. For me, my private Gmail is much more reliable then my company's Exchange.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

But MS exchange and the software ecosystem surrounding it is highly available, reliable, feature rich, painlessly scalable from a small operation up to hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of users at a price point that almost any business can afford. Its one of microsofts best products, and there really isn't anything I have seen in any competitors that can meet, much less, beat Exchange at its game.

Sure shows that you have never had to admin an Exchange server or your either a Microsoft shill. The above is utter BS.

We run an Exchange cluster and also a Java Messaging system. It takes 2 guys about 30 man hours a week to maintain it. The Java Messaging system takes one guy and about 3 man hours a week to maintain it.

For 2000 users it takes 4 machines clustered together on Exchange and it could use more. We use two machines clustered together for Java Messaging for 4000 users and it runs just fine. Actually one server will handle the load. The other is just for fail over. Java Messaging is rated for the box we are running on to support 1 million users. Try that on just one Exchange box. citation

and yes you can use Outlook to connect to Java Messaging and it works fine. Most users don't even know they are not using Exchange.

painlessly scalable

Again you've never had to admin one of these have you. If you had you would know the pain.

 

up to hundreds of thousands or possibly even millions of users at a price point that almost any business can afford

Yea right.

OK Explain this. It takes 4 machines to handle 2000 users on Exchange. You buy 4 server licenses and 4 Exchange licenses from MS PLUS a user licenses for each user. (2000 user licenses) and pay two people to maintain it.

Java Messaging will handle more than 2000 users with less use of resources on one machine. The OS cost $0.00 the software cost $0.00 the user licenses cost $0.00 and only takes one person to maintain it.

Now which is at a price any business can afford?

reliable

This one word shows you have no clue and have never work on a large Exchange system.

You say you are a fan of open systems so lets talk about how any other OS's email clients have a hard time connecting to Exchange with their broken "Closed" protocols. Why MAPI? Why not be like everyone else and use IMAP w/ SSL or TLS? Every open protocol on the Internet MS has broken it and perverted it in some way so it only works with THEIR system. Exchange is a good example of this along with Kerbous5, and LDAP to mention a few more.

Its one of Microsofts best products,

I don't think so. Its one of the biggest piece of shit they ever made.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Java Messaging. Its Open Source. It has all the features of Exchange plus more. No user lock in. Works with Outlook and any other open compliant email/calendaring client. Once set up it runs forever. It doesn't run on Windows Server. runs on any flavor of Linux or Solaris.

I totally agree with you Google does has the makings of an evil monopoly that makes Microsoft look like your friendly local corner store.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[flybefree]

Geez, Gmail crashes for a couple of hours once in a blue moon and everyone is up in arms about it. I remember Exchange consistently crashing for a whole day or two once a month, and people were still telling me that it was the cat's meow.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[DragonWriter]

Sure, it covers the functionality needed by little Johnny figuring out what a spreadsheet is, but the minute you need to do any *real* spreadsheet work, Google Apps just doesn't deliver.

Most of the things Google Apps spreadsheet doesn't work for are things for which a spreadsheet isn't a good solution in the first place, though they are commonly used because corporate IT policies often let anyone build complex spreadsheets (which become unmaintainable nightmare apps) but prevent most employees from using real programming tools, and because ponderous internal coordination at many corporations simply make building relatively small apps that require formal IT involvement not worth the internal project overhead it takes to get them built.

Re:This is a DC problem, not a Google problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is easy to export from gmail/gdocs/etc. Actually no, it's not. Exporting email data to another IMAP server? Exporting your files from a web server? I would argue it's easier to change OSes from Windows to Ubuntu than it is to migrate your email from one IMAP server to another, presuming you can even get your destination IMAP provider to play ball.

This "Google doesn't lock me in" BS argument is starting to piss me off. MS doesn't lock you in, either, you're totally free to use Firefox, Ubuntu and OpenOffice.

And nothing evil yet? WTF are you talking about? Google collects mountains of data on you and has a tighter grip on your online activity than MS has on your desktop PC. Do you *really* think that the data is only used internally for advertising optimization? Wow, naivete to the max, dude. They were *founded* with seed capital from the CIA. What do you think the CIA is doing funding dotcom startups?

Google is a big corporate, with *exactly* the same incentives as Microsoft. They just manage their PR better.

Apps

[XPeter]

Are all Google needs for Android to take off in the mobile market. From what I've seen Android is superior to IPhone OS, BB OS, and WinMobile so once it takes off with the mainstream non-geek market, It could possibly become the next big thing.

Google could eventually do something like this:

1. Make Chrome a browser OS
2. Established cloud computing services on Android mobile devices
3. ???
4. Profit!

-P

Re:Apps

[nurb432]

And how much "corporate control" can you exert over an Android phone? Encryption? They have a central management server you can install?

I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.

Re:Apps

[Poobar]

Playing with my girlfriend's new Android we managed to freeze it utterly within a minute of playing with the piss-poor camera*, and after connecting to my wifi once successfully it won't do it anymore, for no reason we can see.

The rest of the phone is shaping up to be awesome (especially when available on such cheap contracts and with google apps fully intergrated), but it needs some improvement to get the non-geek majority away from thier shiney iPhones.

*(The camera broke when trying to take a photo of my face, so it might not be an issue with the phone...)

Re:Apps

[XPeter]

*(The camera broke when trying to take a photo of my face, so it might not be an issue with the phone...)

Like the rest of us, your a nerd. How dare you blame the phone?

Anyway, wouldn't the camera breaking be more of a hardware problem?

Re:Apps

[XPeter]

And how much "corporate control" can you exert over an Android phone? Encryption? They have a central management server you can install?

I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.

People in the "secure" market have phones. The thing all phones have in common is that they can all be hacked; doesn't matter whether its an IPhone or a BB if someone wants your information, they can get it. It doesn't matter who writes the encryption, there's always someone better who will crack it.

Re:Apps

[Poobar]

Anyway, wouldn't the camera breaking be more of a hardware problem?

Sorry, to clarify I meant that the phone froze while trying to take the photo, possibly because the lighting was bad. It also takes a bloody age to autofocus and then take the picture. Maybe the combination of my horrible nerd face and the rictus grin you get after 5 seconds of waiting for a photo to be taken was too much for the poor software? I'd still probably buy one though, as for everything else (apart from the wifi connection problem) it's top notch so far.

Re:Apps

[nxtw]

People in the "secure" market have phones. The thing all phones have in common is that they can all be hacked; doesn't matter whether its an IPhone or a BB if someone wants your information, they can get it. It doesn't matter who writes the encryption, there's always someone better who will crack it.

No, the difference is there might be someone who can crack a BlackBerry with encryption enabled, but there's no widely known attack that doesn't require 256-bit AES to be cracked... whereas anyone who wishes to crack an iPhone with encryption enabled can do so without too much trouble.

But none of the other smartphone platforms have had an exploit quite as bad as the Android's root console bug.

Re:Apps

[Alphanos]

I really doubt an offering from Google is ready for the government scene. They may be perfect for home consumer markets, which is fine, but not government or 'secure' corporate.

You're right! Anyone who needs real corporate or government-level security uses Microsoft. Oh wait...

Re:Apps

[Anonymous Coward]

People in the "secure" market have phones. The thing all phones have in common is that they can all be hacked; doesn't matter whether its an IPhone or a BB if someone wants your information, they can get it. It doesn't matter who writes the encryption, there's always someone better who will crack it.

Riiiight. Unlike the iphone and other POS phones, the blackberry has been audited from end-to-end and is certified to a number of different standards. The blackberry platform has been audited by:

NATO
Fraunhofer Institute for Secure Information Technology (Germany)
Communications Security Establishment (Canada)
Communications Electronic Security Group (United Kingdom)
Center for Secure Information Technology (Austria)
Defense Signals Directorate (Australia)
Government Communications Security Bureau (New Zealand)
National Institute of Standards and Technology (United States)
Turkish Standards Institute (Turkey)

Who audited the iphone? Nobody, because Apple can't do security.

Re:Apps

[Nadaka]

Wait a second, you and your girlfriend were testing out a new camera...
And you decided to take a picture of your face?

In the same situation, my girlfriend would have been nude within seconds.

Re:Apps

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought blow up dolls came nude....

Re:Apps

[jbolden]

No there isn't someone better who can crack it. Encryption really does work.

Re:Apps

[dlgeek]

How much do you want? Android isn't some take-it-or-leave-it system like iPhoneOS, it's a flexible platform the manufacturers and carriers can build on. TMobile released the G1 with pretty much a stock android system, but Palm took an android kernel and ran a completely new userland/frontend (WebOS) on top. AT&T is talking about releasing the HTC Lancaster with an android kernel but with a standard locked down AT&T userland with all the crappy "BUY STUFF" apps on the desktop you can't delete.

There's no reason a company can't use Android as a starting point to build a custom locked-down environment with central management, encryption, etc. and a lot of reasons TO do this, since they have all the Linux security stuff already available to tie in, meaning less in-house work.

Re:Apps

[Marcos Eliziario]

Consider this:

I've seen lots of companies using local authentication for their linux boxes, along with a supposedly secret root password configured in every machine. There are a lot of centralized directory and authentication options for linux. But, how much people use it? But, they do know how to setup Microsoft's Active Directory and setup clients to use it.

Linux has ACLs for some time know, something that is way better than the old permission schemes. But, again, I've never seen it widely deployed across a large network. ACLs are the default file permission scheme on Windows.

No to mention that lots of linux and servers desktop out there are not configured with a password on GRUB to avoid people booting into single mode and getting root credentials.

So, while linux is as corporate-security capable as windows under a administrative point of view, most corporations and system administrations are not aware of that. And even when they are, the tools for managing such things are not as straightforward to use as Active Directory;

Being less sucetible to exploits is not the whole game in security. It doesn't matter what is your operating system, a badly configured operating system is insecure no matter which kernel do you use. And at this point, ease of management becomes very important.

Re:Apps

[Marcos Eliziario]

Not to mention companies that spend a lot of money with VPN solutions with two factor authentication, and at the same time leave ssh outgoing unmonitored on their firewalls.
In this scenario having remote access to your network is just a matter of issuing

ssh2 -R 1234:localhost:23 username@host

And now, all traffic which comes to port 1234 on the server (host) will be forwarded to port 23 on the client (localhost).

So, again, there's a lot of people out there using linux without actually knowing shit about security and how linux works. These people like to boost how secure they are just because they are using linux (even if their boxes and networks are badly configured and full of holes). Those people are lamers.

Re:Apps

[TheRaven64]

Palm took an android kernel and ran a completely new userland/frontend (WebOS) on top

Do you have any evidence that Palm took the kernel from Android, as opposed to a stock ARM Linux kernel? Actually, reading the rest of your post, do you know what 'kernel' means?

Re:Apps

[LordLimecat]

Theres an option called "Content protection" in blackberry options. Turn it on, and all your data (optionally including contacts) is encrypted-- this can be either 3DES to AES, set by the BES. I am unaware of some magical way of getting past AES encryption short of bruteforcing the password.

Additionally, if your blackberry is stolen and you are worried, theres a nifty "wipe handheld" option in the BES, as well as the ability to remove redirection. Additionally, if your WinMobile or iPhone is stolen, your activesync details are on that phone waiting to compromise other areas (such as OWA). Blackberries dont use activesync, so once the account is removed from the BES, the thief wont be able to recover any login details (unless they break the encryption and find an email or memo with that info in it).

And if what youre saying about encryption is true, then I certainly hope you dont use online banking, or Amazon, or Ebay, or do any sort of online purchases whatsoever.

Re:Apps

[growse]

GP's general point is right, but he was wrong to suggest that it 'can be cracked'.

The general point is that if someone wants your data badly enough, they'll get your data. Whether it's worth it for what it'll cost is a completely different question. Using a BB over an iPhone just closes off one of the many vulnerabilities that exist when humans try to handle confidential information.

Re:Apps

[dlgeek]

Ah, it appears I was misinformed about the Pre having an android system, I'm not sure why I had that misconception. Yes, I do know what a kernel is. I was trying to simplify my comment. For a more accurate view: the rumors are that the HTC Lancaster will be using an android kernel, android systems/phone software, but the user interface parts of the userland and such will be replaced by custom components to give the phone a purely AT&T user experience.

Re:Apps

[cmdrbuzz]

You do realize that ActiveSync allows the admin and / or the user to remotely wipe the device? Supported on both Windows Mobile and the iPhone....

And consumers with a MobileMe subscription can wipe their iPhone (and other stuff like locate it / display messages etc) from www.me.com?

Re:Apps

[dbcad7]

From what I have read.. Lancaster is dead.. Not saying this to burst your bubble, I had my eye on that phone. Apparently, they just snoozed too long and specs just would not be that impressive to compete. I believe that Sprint (with the modified Hero) and Tmobile (Motorola Morrison) are the next androids coming out.. Verizon will also come out with a Motorola phone as well.. (not sure when yet).. And AT&T just might have their own Hero as well.. will it be modified like Sprints ?, or the stock Hero ?.. we will see.. As to modifying the OS for "buy stuff", I don't necessarily think that was the whole story. I'm sure they wanted to be able to sell things like their Navigator., but I think it was also a choice not to go with the "Google experience" version of thew OS which has some limitations built in.. For example, you cant use the HTC created multitouch UI with the Google experience phone.. So perhaps "maybe" (however unlikely) they were trying to keep it better for the user. Although I should caveat this with the fact that I own a myTouch (got tired of waiting for rumor phones) and I have no problem with the Googlfication. Yes the multitouch thing would probably be a little nicer, but really I am happy with what I got.

Re:Apps

[oldhack]

It's true. She would.

Re:Apps

[SanityInAnarchy]

Android is an open source OS. This means if there's a feature you need, you can add it.

I don't know if there's a central management server already built, but there's no reason you couldn't write or adapt one.

FTC should be involved

[nurb432]

If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.

Re:FTC should be involved

[hedwards]

Umm, the FTC doesn't have jurisdiction over that kind of thing. You mean the SEC might call that a violation.

Re:FTC should be involved

[ajs]

If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.

1) You're assuming that Google had any idea. They got an agreement from DC that they could use them in advertising (I'm fairly certain, since no one trumpets a customer without such an agreement) that that's it. They don't get to tell DC how to use it.

2) There's nothing false in saying you made a large sale when you did. Your claim of fraud is similar to claiming fraud when Ford touts a giant sale of a fleet of cars to the military when the military is just putting them into bunkers and never driving them.

3) Do you really think an apps sale to DC affected Google's stock price? I dare you to find a blip on their chart.

Re:FTC should be involved

[nurb432]

Yes, that is what i meant, donno why i typed FTC.. but was closer then FCC :)

Re:FTC should be involved

[nurb432]

If Google used this 'news' to help their stock prices or increase sales, id call it fraud. And they might too.

1) You're assuming that Google had any idea. They got an agreement from DC that they could use them in advertising (I'm fairly certain, since no one trumpets a customer without such an agreement) that that's it. They don't get to tell DC how to use it.

2) There's nothing false in saying you made a large sale when you did. Your claim of fraud is similar to claiming fraud when Ford touts a giant sale of a fleet of cars to the military when the military is just putting them into bunkers and never driving them.

3) Do you really think an apps sale to DC affected Google's stock price? I dare you to find a blip on their chart.

OF course they knew. They are just trying to save face ( and their butts ) by claiming ' we didn't know'.

It's illegal if you knew the statement was bogus and used it to prop up value. I have seen other things like that happen.

I don't care if it was effective or not, if the intent was there, its illegal.

Re:FTC should be involved

[Rogerborg]

Cite statue and case law, or GTFO my intarnets.

Re:FTC should be involved

[ajs]

I don't care if it was effective or not, if the intent was there, its illegal.

The intent to do WHAT? You're claiming false advertising. What I'm saying is that, ignoring how horribly weak your claim is, false advertising does not equal securities fraud. You would have to demonstrate an attempt to manipulate stock price, and there really wasn't. Now, if this had been a major uptick in the order of magnitude of apps customers AND apps was a major revenue source then you might have a leg to stand on.

Actually, even then there's the problem of intent. Did anyone at Google unexpectedly sell? Was there any collusion with an external entity?

What you're suggesting as a standard for fraud would land every public company in court every day of the year over securities fraud. Now, you might feel that's in line with actual violations of the law, but the Federal Courts System doesn't actually favor your perspective.

Also, you are signing your messages "Booth was a patriot," which tends to make me think you troll for the sake of it, rather than actually formulating any kind of coherent point.

Re:ATTENTION SLASHDOT READERS

[hedwards]

You do, of course realize, that it's spelled "Nigerian," right?

User Inertia

[WED Fan]

I work in government. Not DC.

The problem is user inertia, it always has been, it always will be.

We deployed SharePoint years ago. Did that improve anything? No. User's still send attachments in email, still use network drives for collaboration, and still use spreadsheets to gather data.

The spreadsheet thing is really funny. The boss finally put the spreadsheet up on SharePoint and sent a link to it. But you still see people downloading the spreadsheet from the site, filling out their portion, then uploading it with a new name. Then yelling over the cubicle wall that they are done with their tasking. We've gone through training and tried to get them to do it the more efficient way. Impossible task.

Trying to get users to switch off of software and methods they've used for years is a near impossibility.

Re:User Inertia

[duffbeer703]

You're very right.

As someone who has managed a few mail migrations for government agencies, and I probably could guess the reason why GMail isn't in use in DC: Calendaring. I've seen hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted over this bs.

Typical problem: you cannot instantaneously migrate GB's of email. But once you migrate the accounting department, they won't be able to see free/busy status for the garbagemen, which is essential for some reason. Or worse, the conference room!

So instead of using the secretaries to actually do something (government office still have them), they wait for a magic, half-baked technical solution.

Re:User Inertia

[Anonymous Coward]

The spreadsheet thing is really funny. The boss finally put the spreadsheet up on SharePoint and sent a link to it. But you still see people downloading the spreadsheet from the site, filling out their portion, then uploading it with a new name. Then yelling over the cubicle wall that they are done with their tasking. We've gone through training and tried to get them to do it the more efficient way. Impossible task.

That's ... strange. If my boss at work said "we have this new process and from now on, you must start doing it this way" then my options are pretty clear. I can follow his instructions or I can be fired. I would not expect to be able to defy such a direct request for very long before he gets tired of it and finds someone else who can listen. I take it that at the place you describe, the problem is managerial.

I work in government.

That would explain a few things.

Re:User Inertia

[qbzzt]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a theoretically more efficient way to do the job is nice, but having a way that works now is priceless.

You have to show value before people will care about a new technology.

Re:User Inertia

[slim]

We deployed SharePoint years ago. Did that improve anything? No.

Could that be because (from my experience at least), Sharepoint is as user friendly as the lost luggage desk at Franz Kafka International Airport?

Re:User Inertia

[WED Fan]

If my boss at work said "we have this new process and from now on, you must start doing it this way" then my options are pretty clear.

I understand and have worked in that environment, as well. But, it is also clear from your statement that you have never worked in government and especially in government with a union.

All it takes is one guy filing a "Change in work environment" complaint with the union and the boss's "new process" becomes not only moot, but it will become a forbidden choice for all time and eternity.

In government, you will rarely hear bosses try that.

Re:User Inertia

[Danathar]

I've come to the conclusion that if you want people to change in an organization you have to TAKE AWAY the methods they did it before.

Re:User Inertia

[FatherDale]

Huh? Let's see.... I have a fast Exchange server and a bulletproof client with all sorts of fun add-ons. Sure, I'll trade that for a web-based service! If that's inertia, I have tons.

Re:User Inertia

[Anonymous Coward]

You might have better luck switching to software that doesn't totally suck. We use Sharepoint at work, and it's a huge pain in the ass, so most people avoid it.

It only works in Internet Explorer, and even then not very well. It's difficult to navigate. It's difficult to integrate with any non-Microsoft software. It has confusing error messages. It changes in random ways between versions. It's not even clear what problem it's trying to solve.

I don't know why your coworkers avoid Sharepoint, but those are just a few of the reasons we don't use it at work.

Re:User Inertia

[WED Fan]

It only works in Internet Explorer

You don't really work with SharePoint, do you? I mean, this isn't even true and hasn't been for some time.

It's difficult to integrate with any non-Microsoft software.

We have a number of 3rd party apps that are very SharePoint aware. You see, if you really worked with SharePoint, you'd understand that out-of-the-box MOSS/WSS is a very basic product that will do small or simple office needs. SharePoint has a fairly powerful and open API. It did have problems with documentation but most of that is in the past. If you want integration, go with a company that provides SharePoint awareness, or you can write your own stuff (Isn't that what geeks do? Isn't that what the Linux guys like to say? "If it doesn't do what you want it to do, write your own plug-in/module/web part/feature.")

If you are going to make a point, use talking points that don't come from SharePoint 2001.

Re:User Inertia

[WED Fan]

Or take away the people...oops.

Re:User Inertia

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it's so fucking great, why can't you get people to use it?

You don't really work with SharePoint, do you? I mean, this isn't even true and hasn't been for some time.

Lying doesn't help your credibility. I can say with 100% certainty that as of Friday afternoon Sharepoint 2007 didn't work in any of the non-IE browsers I tried. I know because I've fucking tried it. Nothing some butthurt IT admin can say is going to make me forget my actual experience trying to use Sharepoint in Opera.

We have a number of 3rd party apps that are very SharePoint aware. You see, if you really worked with SharePoint, you'd understand that out-of-the-box MOSS/WSS is a very basic product that will do small or simple office needs. SharePoint has a fairly powerful and open API. It did have problems with documentation but most of that is in the past. If you want integration, go with a company that provides SharePoint awareness, or you can write your own stuff (Isn't that what geeks do? Isn't that what the Linux guys like to say? "If it doesn't do what you want it to do, write your own plug-in/module/web part/feature.")

Wow, that's awesome, "If we just buy all new software, we can buy software that works with Sharepoint..." That just strengthens my argument that most existing software doesn't work with Sharepoint...

Maybe your users aren't using Sharepoint because when they have a problem you tell them to STFU because it isn't a problem...

Re:User Inertia

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck is a MOSS/WSS?

Re:User Inertia

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It only works in Internet Explorer

You don't really work with SharePoint, do you? I mean, this isn't even true and hasn't been for some time.

I do believe you are correct, sort of. I had the misfortune to use SharePoint at a software development company a few years back. Some new management folks brought in implemented it as a company wide solution to all our problems, and did not consult any of the engineering staff, which was the majority of the company. They wanted it to be a surprise. "Surprise! We wasted a lot of money licensing and building a SharePoint solution to solve all our company's problems." Of course the people talked into implementing it by some MS salescreep did not even know what Firefox was or that half the company was using OS X and another quarter using Linux or a BSD on the desktop. SharePoint worked in Firefox, sort of, with lots of random brokenness and in a completely slow and painful way. Of course the default permissions made everything hard and since the people running it had no clue our workflow for posting shared documents became horrible. Where at one point we e-mailed a doc to a few people, or dragged into a network share, it instead became e-mail the file to one of the people who had permission to upload files, then wait for them to start a remote Windows session on VM and upload the file, then e-mail everyone telling them where it was and then wait for the inevitable requests from people for copies of the file since getting it from the SharePoint server was so hard.

Things lasted like that for about a month while they promised to get all the cross platform problems worked out, and then there was a silent revolt. Everyone stopped obeying the corporate directive to use it. Engineering hacked the main page for engineering in SharePoint to be a frame with our internal wiki on it and everyone in the company except a few execs who had implemented it went on with our lives ignoring the crap while the CTO tried to figure out how to get rid of the new dead weight at the top.

So my assessment of SharePoint (as of a few years ago) is it only theoretically works in multiple browsers and OS's and if you actually try using them you;re in for a lot of pain. Further, it is an inferior solution to a decent CMS or even a wiki+network storage. Within engineering it is a watchword for clueless technocrats that will suck your productivity. If a company is using it, look for a job somewhere better and you'll probably be happier.

Re:User Inertia

[WED Fan]

Well, if it's so fucking great, why can't you get people to use it?

Inertia...oops, I put that in the title.

Opera

I have a feeling the only browser you used that choked on SharePoint was Opera. You definitely didn't try FF.

Firefox handles SharePoint wonderfully. But, remember, SharePoint makes use of JavaScript, so if you are blocking JavaScript, you have a problem.

In my office, we have a mix of FireFox 2 - 3.x, and IE 6 through 8 (IE 6 is thanks to EDS and NMCI for being behind the curve).

The only time FireFox chokes on SharePoint is because of a non-SharePoint problem, we make heavy use of card based certs and log on, and FireFox doesn't like passing card based authentication, but, there is a U.S. Navy developed open source FF plug in for that. Works fine, lasts long time. In fact, for you open source types, FF plug ins are great way to add functionality to SharePoint sites and make it work even more wonderfully with SharePoint unaware applications.

Most of SharePoint is exposed by web services, and most of the SharePoint feature systems can be modified by some DOM stuff.

I never told a user to STFU. Maybe you are having issues with your company? If your IT folks regularly tell you to STFU, then 1) they aren't worth anything, or 2) you are in need cranalanalectomy.

Re:User Inertia

[WED Fan]

MOSS: Microsoft Office SharePoint Services (This is the for pay SharePoint with extra features. WSS: Windows SharePoint Services (This is included in Windows Server 2k3 and 2k8.

Re:User Inertia

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I've come to the conclusion that if you want people to change in an organization you have to TAKE AWAY the methods they did it before.

I've come to the conclusion that if you want users to change their methods you have to provide them with a new method that is both learnable and better for them, not just for you. In my experience, sharepoint is generally harder to use than e-mail attachments, makes for a slower workflow, and has a learning curve, especially as it is usually implemented. Seriously, sending an e-mail with an attachment is easier than uploading a file and sending an e-mail with a link to the file. If you want users to have a better method, set up something easier, like a CMS repository that automatically sends an e-mail to the selected users with a short message, using the same interface as the e-mail system.

The problem with migrating users away from e-mail based workflows, is creating workflows that are actually easier for the user than the e-mail based workflow. Mark my words. Provide users with something better and easier, potentially something like Google Wave with an application editing plug-in and (if they do it right) you won't have to force your users to change workflows because they'll be lining up to do it. Users are like a river, following the path of least resistance. Sharepoint is like a pipeline in the river with the IT department as the pump constantly working to try to make users follow a harder workflow.

Re:User Inertia

[rainmayun]

The value isn't to individual employees, it's to the organization as a whole. You'll never be able to show them the value, unless they care about broader organizational goals. And sometimes, those goals are to do whatever the department is doing at the same capacity with less staff. In those cases, the staff will be actively antagonistic to your goals.

Re:User Inertia

[Danathar]

My prior response was a half-truth humor remark. I agree though. The problem is that email is REALLY easy. Anything that replaces it has to be just as easy.

Re:User Inertia

[crispytwo]

You completely missed the point...

The process IS broken and it makes WAY more work for people. Using collaborative software is superior than you make it sound.

On top of that, in many cases, getting people in a group and saying raise your hand if X would do better than sending a f**n spreadsheet to the masses.

Re:User Inertia

[cmseagle]

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pragues_franz_kafka_international

The reference, for those who aren't Onion fans.

Re:User Inertia

[salgiza]

Although it's Firefox are Safari are supported in the latest version of SharePoint, you can't edit documents directly from the portal (and probably Excel Services won't work either, but I haven't tried it). Taking into account that document libraries are the most useful part of SharePoint, and they only work in IE, well, yeah, it works, but you wouldn't use any other browser unless in an emergency.

Moreover, I pity the poor programmers currently involved in SharePoint. Have you seen the HTML that it generates? It was written for IE6, in quirks-mode, and it continues that way. That means that everything having to do with HTML and CSS has to be written at least twice, because padding, :hover events (on non-A elements) and many other things we now take for granted are either not available in quirks-mode, or work differently across browsers.

And if you develop anything on top of SharePoint, well, you don't have the option to use valid HTML, so welcome back to the year 2000! In the end, the overhead cost of developing for multiple browsers in this mode means that most customers are quite fine if their custom apps (that work on top of SharePoint) only work on IE. In fact, many useful third-party addons (ej. Nintex) only work in IE.

Hopefully, SharePoint 2010 will fix this, and I'm quite sure that SharePoint is going to be a great product some day. But just right now, it sucks in too many areas, and it has a major handicap to overcome: shared folders are easier and faster to use.

Re:User Inertia

[SanityInAnarchy]

You must have a very strange definition of "bulletproof"...

Re:User Inertia

[Anonymous Coward]

If your Exchange server isnt bulletproof, sack the admin of it. There is NO reason why Exchange isnt bulletproof outside of an incompetent admin.

Re:User Inertia

[Kalriath]

Actually, Google Apps (premier only) has support for a connector Google built to feed Exchange Free/Busy information into Google Apps. So it can be done with little trouble.

Re:User Inertia

[shutdown -p now]

You see, if you really worked with SharePoint, you'd understand that out-of-the-box MOSS/WSS is a very basic product that will do small or simple office needs. SharePoint has a fairly powerful and open API. It did have problems with documentation but most of that is in the past.

I'll have to call bull on that. I had a misfortune of working with SharePoint 2007 for about half a year; my wife is working with it for 3 years now, as an analyst/architect (and previously a developer). Our shared conclusion is that SharePoint extensibility APIs plainly suck.

First of all, saying "it did have problems with documentation" doesn't do it justice - I'm not sure how you call it when upon release, the API documentation for a product includes a number of major classes, the only documentation for which are class and method names. Nothing else. Yes, it did get better in a sense that there are fewer such articles on MSDN, but they are still there - over 2 years, and 2 service packs, after release! Some crucial CAML bits, like LookupId, are still not officially documented either. In effect, as a SharePoint developer, you have to spend more times digging for information that you need to do your work in various blogs than you do in official API docs.

The API itself is horrible. I do not know who vetted its design, and perhaps it's for the best, because the violent urges would probably be too strong to resist. For one thing, it pisses all over Microsoft's very own Framework Design Guidelines for .NET APIs, with such gems as property getters returning new disposable objects on every invocation, with ownership transfer. Oh, and COMException whenever anything goes wrong, with the trademark helpful "Unknown error" message for those same occasions.

Extensibility points are, frankly, rather primitive as well. It often looks like you can do a lot of things from the first glance, but once you actually start trying, it often turns out that either 1) there are some very non-obvious limitations for some corner case that you need, or 2) you start running into laughingly low built-in limits (like number of items in a single list, or complexity of SQL queries generated from CAML), or 3) it all works, but it is extremely slow because SP simply isn't properly designed to handle the load that would be trivial for any properly engineered solution.

Oh, and don't get me started on the bugfest that's SharePoint Designer, the lack of any decent IDE support in Visual Studio (why do I still have to watch at all those red error indicator squiggles when editing any SP page? oh, and remember the x64 VS plugin debacle?), and the mess that is solution deployment - especially when you have to deal with localization, and consider future planned upgrades.

Don't get me wrong. Despite all this, I do actually like SharePoint for things that it does out of the box. It is a fairly good way to enable small teams and individuals within organization to set up content sites dedicated to collaboration on specific topics and projects, with easy and convenient content and permission management, and good Office, Exchange, and Communicator integration. When used as such, it's awesome. But as a platform for custom development, it is a major PITA with no redeeming points whatsoever.

That said, I do hope that SP2010 will change this. From what I've seen so far, there are some signs indicating that it will be better at least on some of the points I've given above.

Re:User Inertia

[SanityInAnarchy]

If you can't tell the difference between the server and the client, how the hell are you a competent admin?

What does this say about Vivek Kundra?

[zuhaib]

"This all seemed rather strange to Nagesh, considering how much attention former DC CTO and current Federal CIO Vivek Kundra has received for implementing Google Apps for District employees." This part looks very interesting to me as in the past few weeks a lot of things Mr Vivek Kundra has been claiming he done in the past have turned out not true and has opened a lot of questions about his experience and expertise. You just had the John C.Dvorak blog bring up a lot of questions and day by day it seems he is more right http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/ I am starting to wonder if this selection was not some kind of political pay back for something Vivek Kundra did in the past or people around him.

Re:What does this say about Vivek Kundra?

[TheLink]

Dvorak? Isn't he famous for trolling[1] people to get more ad hits?

He makes insinuations that Vivek might not have the degree he claimed to have. But he doesn't do a thorough investigation, and just shoots his mouth first.

Maybe the UMD newsdesk is wrong (they could be after all), but they did say that:

"Vivek Kundra moved from chief technology officer of D.C. to being the first federal chief information officer, working in the White House. Kundra holds an undergraduate degree from UM in psychology and a master's of science in information technology. "

See: http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/facts/mm/08-09/mar.cfm

Perhaps the UMD newsdesk was sloppy, but given the other stuff I see, it just looks like Dvorak is trolling again.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQv0j29WHA

Billions in ad revenue buys you BILLIONS IN PR

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all P.R., folks. For the foreigners in the crowd, that means B.S. For this dumasses in the crowd, that means, oh never mind.

Keep in mind that you're talking about DC

[bfwebster]

While I was living in DC (in the District itself, mind you) and working for PricewaterhouseCoopers, I met with the CIO of the DC Public Schools to see about doing some pro bono work to help with their information technology problems. She spent an hour describing just how wretched, disjoint, and underutilized their IT infrastructure was, and we came to the joint conclusion that there wasn't a lot that I could do to help.

This was about 10 years ago, and I was looking just as the DC Public Schools system, not the District as a whole. But as anyone (else) who has lived in the District for an extended period, particularly as a private citizen, can tell you, the District of Columbia is a profoundly dysfunctional government.

That said, I'm not sure Google should be going around touting their adoption in the District as a success story, since -- as per the original post above -- any effort to check out what's actually going on is likely to be quite disappointing. ..bruce..

Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[HangingChad]

The spokeswoman added that Gmail could potentially replace Microsoft Exchange, 'but this decision has not been made yet.'"

Quit dorking around the flip the switch already. We did and it was the best move we ever made. It was a little rocky at first, then smooth sailing ever since. We've noticed two outages in the last year, I think there have been three total. Only the recent one generated any calls. Overall that makes it more reliable than Exchange.

Not sure what holds companies back from making the change. I've heard the arguments, they don't hold up to reality. Google doesn't spy on our email and if it's something really sensitive we can add a password to the document or encrypt the content. I've done that exactly once in the last year. Your company email passes unencrypted through dozens of relays, regardless of what email provider you use. Any one of those relays could be copying and storing those messages. So what would make Google any bigger risk than any one of them?

Backups are the other thing I hear about a lot. If it's that important, you can set up Gmail to auto-forward some or all of your messages to another account or you can use any number of tools in Windows, Linux and Mac to keep backups, if you feel the need. So far email backups have been a big waste of time and drive space, but I suppose it's better that small waste than a big loss if something bad did happen.

That change freed up a lot of money. We didn't need an Exchange admin and we saved a bundle on license fees.

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[Poobar]

Not sure what holds companies back from making the change. I've heard the arguments, they don't hold up to reality. Google doesn't spy on our email and if it's something really sensitive we can add a password to the document or encrypt the content. I've done that exactly once in the last year.

"Hmm, wonder which one of his emails holds the Top Secret Data...".

"Maybe the one that's encypted?"

"Nah, it's probably one of the others!"

Seriously though, if you need to rarely send sensitive data, isn't it far more secure if you encrypt everything you send, and for very little extra effort?

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[BitZtream]

3 times in the last year? My mail server hasn't been unavailable outside of a short scheduled maintaince window 3 times in the last 10 years.

You can put your email on someone elses servers, thats fine, I won't. My internal email doesn't pass over anything unencrypted, our servers require SSL or TLS.

Doing backups on the client side? Have you ever dealt with more than 3 PCs before? Are you nucking futz? My email backup is an rsync command line. It may be hard for someone who is clueless, but anyone with a few years of experience and a head on their shoulders can make backups pretty easy. Hell, now that we're using zfs for the backing stores, we have daily snapshots of the entire system.

You, or whoever was managing your email systems is just a shitty admin, thats what gmail is better for you. Those of us who actually do our jobs have plenty of reasons why its far more cost effective to keep it internal, even if you pay for a dedicated 60k/year admin.

If you're a small company, gmail is fine. If you're of any size at all, outsourcing your email just makes you retarded.

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard the arguments, they don't hold up to reality. Google doesn't spy on our email ...

How the fuck would you know?

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's accepted as part of the terms and conditions of using Gmail doesn't change the behavior.

Gmail messages are parsed for advertising, therefore, Google (using electronic means, even if no Google employees do any actual e-mail parsing) spies on your e-mail.

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[subreality]

Not sure what holds companies back from making the change.

A conservative approach to new technologies, when the old ones work good enough. The need for SLAs and other vendor agreements. Lawyers insisting on data retention policies. The rational or irrational concern of being out of control if something goes wrong.

Google doesn't spy on our email

Actually, Google *does* spy on your email, definitely for advertising, probably for marketing, and possibly they (or individuals with access) are corrupt, but that's not the big privacy concern about Google.

The big problem lawyers have with Gmail is that it keeps a very long term record of everything everyone has said, with no way to enforce a data retention period, or even know how long it'll be before all the copies of your data are really deleted after you've told it to delete them.

Also, if your mail server gets subpoenaed, at least you KNOW it; with Gmail, you won't necessarily ever find out.

And if you think that's only for business criminals who're who're trying to bury the knowledge of how their product was killing people, read this: http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/rbarip.html

We can add a password to the document or encrypt the content.

Do you have a systematic method in place to a) securely store the encryption keys as long as you need them (you're at the risk of losing all your really important stuff here!), and b) delete them when they're done? Is implementing such a system easier than just running your own mail server?

Your company email passes unencrypted through dozens of relays

Our internal mail doesn't, and external mail to our our business partners is secured with TLS. Only occasional mails to random people are unencrypted. That's significantly less exposure than having every internal mail in the hands of a third party.

So far email backups have been a big waste of time and drive space

All backups are a big waste of time and drive space... Right up until you need them.

What's your business continuity plan if "something bad" happens to Gmail? Scramble around and try to find a way to import your CC'd copies from the other account into whatever your new provider will be, and change the mailservers over? That might be OK (I'd argue not) for a 10 person company, but for a 200+ person company, that'll never fly.

That change freed up a lot of money. We didn't need an Exchange admin and we saved a bundle on license fees.

That's what we say about Postfix. :)

I won't say "Never" to Gmail, but there are certainly solid arguments against it.

Re:Don't be a girlie man, flip the switch

[vxvxvxvx]

Your company email passes unencrypted through dozens of relays, regardless of what email provider you use. Any one of those relays could be copying and storing those messages. So what would make Google any bigger risk than any one of them?

I worked at a software company that produced the software used by an unnamed nation-wide tax preparation company. While returns moving from office to office or to the IRS filing centers were sent securely, if any problems came up with a return it was standard operating procedure to email the tax returns. This is a document that includes your current name, address, SSN, the amount of money you made, and your banks routing and account numbers (for direct deposit.) Usually it was the program specific file which wasn't clear text, but wasn't that hard to decipher. Occasionally it was simply a PDF of the tax return itself. The security issue was raised constantly by the lower level employees but those that made the decisions would not listen. On the other hand, there was company policy against the faxing of tax returns because of the risk they would be sent to a wrong number. As far as I know, the company still operates this way.

This one made me laugh outloud, thx!

[herojig]

As an ex-DC resident of many years, I had to laugh out loud when I read that there even was a partnership between Google and DC gov, and I was rolling on the floor thinking about the DC DMV using google docs or calender. I think most have just mastered the Google search field...maybe. I agree with WED Fan above, DC workers are not going to embracing new tech anytime soon. They are still suffering heart attacks over the office 2007 ribbon. And about those 4,000 that have made the huge dramatic mt. Everest leap to gmail, I bet most of them just have home accounts. Even more hilarious was when I searched for a DC gov group and only found ONE. It has 3 members and ONE post. Boy, they are really using that Goog feature no? But I may have a chip on my shoulder, as when I went into south west DC to renew my driver's license right around the time of the last Clinton election, I was asked first if I was a Republican or a Dem before getting any service. I told the big bottomed woman that I was of course a Dem and not to be fooled by my Fitzgerald Bold Pinstripe from Brooks Bros. We had a laugh, but I seriously think that if I had told the truth I would not have gotten renewed in the blazing speed that I did (two hours). For sure that lady is not using any kind of cloud computing today, unless you count daydreaming at the terminal.

data theft

[tru3ntropy]

So now you have to rely on the public servants ability to make a password that's not some ones birthday; at least in the old days you would have to wait until they left their laptop or thumb drive in the back of a cab before you could access everyone information. hmm progress

Gmail? What about the other apps?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What I recall reading was that in 2008, DC decided to start transitioning to Google Docs for replacing Word and Excel, and as a starting point for an all web application interface going forward. There was one brief mention that Gmail would be provided as well, but nothing that said they were going to use it as the primary e-mail client/server.

So I guess my question would be, where is DC with this transition and where had they planned to be? Since e-mail was not the focus of the project, where are they with the other applications? Have they signed any new licenses for MSOffice or for a new version? Do they have any desktops without MSOffice? Do any of there users run word processing and spreadsheets with Google Apps instead of Word and Excel?

Re:Gmail? What about the other apps?

[BitZtream]

Everyone still has Office installed of course, since they actually do have to communicate with people outside the DC government as well.

Re:Gmail? What about the other apps?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Everyone still has Office installed of course, since they actually do have to communicate with people outside the DC government as well.

I don't understand your reasoning. Why could they not send .doc files or .xls or .pdf files generated by Google Docs and use it to read said docs when communicating with external companies and organizations? Are you trolling or do you have some rationale you did not bother to explain?

Bad Integrators and Oversell

[WED Fan]

I'm not too familiar with OS X platforms that work or don't with SharePoint. The problem with some Linux installs, and we have a few, are that dependencies aren't well documented. Your best bet is to use the .net plug in for FF.

The other problem is that a lot of companies are told about all the wonderful things that SharePoint does, except, most of the integrators doing the selling are telling you about things that have to added on to the system.

SharePoint workflow sucks donkey balls. Don't sell it to your users, its out-of-the-box and not worth the time they put into. Go with Nintex or K2 for SharePoint workflow.

Also, we have had a major issue with an integrator and then asked them to set up Performance Point, Google Earth, and CorasWorks. They have yet to get it working right. I really wish I could tell you their name so you could avoid them, but I can't. But, I do know the USMC and USAF have similar farms that are well integrated and working fine. We got screwed by the "partner" we went with.

I've gone to a lot of code camps, seminars, and other functions, and anectdotal evidences seems to indicate that most companies that have problems with SharePoint is because they went with a crappy integrator, or they handed the install manuals to someone in their IT department and said, "Go" without sending them to training.

Re:Bad Integrators and Oversell

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm not too familiar with OS X platforms that work or don't with SharePoint. The problem with some Linux installs, and we have a few, are that dependencies aren't well documented. Your best bet is to use the .net plug in for FF.

And therein lies the big problem. The last time MS was selling "crossplatform" and "futureproof" solutions it was applications built on IE, largely depending on ActiveX, and quite a few gullible people believed them. Those companies are now locked into Web apps they can't afford to upgrade or replace and are constantly shelling out license fees to MS just to set up another Web terminal that should cost nothing. Why would any administrator/purchaser in their right mind assume Sharepoint is going to be any different? If Sharepoint doesn't work well now with any browser and any OS without an MS proprietary plug-in... why would one think it would do so in five or ten years when MS's financial interests are just the opposite? Sharepoint seems completely inflexible and closed and offers implementors no guarantees for the future. The only reason I can see to implement it is if you don't plan to be around to deal with the mess five years down the road.

The other problem is that a lot of companies are told about all the wonderful things that SharePoint does, except, most of the integrators doing the selling are telling you about things that have to added on to the system.

Or, of course, that they only work in IE on Windows and if a significant portion of your users might be using Blackberries or iPhones, or Linux netbooks or workstations, or OS X, or anything else in a few years... well they won't be because you built your infrastructure completely dependent upon one vendor.

...most companies that have problems with SharePoint is because they went with a crappy integrator...

The same can be said for any other solution to creating a networked infrastructure. If Sharepoint isn't a turnkey solution and requires a skilled implementor, in my mind I'd much rather pay someone to build me a solution that is more flexible and forward looking.

This is a common story today...

[ibsteve2u]

This all seemed rather strange to Nagesh, considering how much attention former DC CTO and current Federal CIO Vivek Kundra has received for implementing Google Apps for District employees.

Anybody who has worked for a bureaucracy - corporate or government, of late - is familiar with the big whiz-bang project that is poorly thought out and only implemented half-assed, but the the project's "champions" claim success and are subsequently promoted up to another level where their incompetence is only more dangerous - yet their income is far higher.

Leaving the grunts to either make it work, or to permit it to die a quiet, ignominious death from disuse and decay. So common, is it, that the art of pitching projects makes it onto the curriculum in some "hire" education institutions - here and abroad.

Once a bureaucracy starts to function only through interwoven webs created by "networking" and the belief that "one hand washes the other", it is time to sell their stock. (Or treasuries, as the case may be.)

GMail not out to POP/IMAP users

[Anonymous Coward]

GMail was only out on the web-based scene. If you use POP3 or IMAP to get your mail (which if you're using it as a replacement for exchange you would be) it was fine, and there was no outage at all.

Re:Give it time.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd prefer them to have switched to Kontact on GNU/Linux"

Why should you prefer such a nightmare? Kontact is literally ages away for any decent corporate-grade solution (just to name the most obvious you can't delegate subdomains: each Kontact stanza live as alone in the world; good for a corporate environment).

GMail completely sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to Exchange.. Sorry, the UI blows.

Outlook IMAP integration isn't remotely as close to as good as Exchange.

No alias's (no you cannot have bob and sales goto the same inbox).

On Blackberry Storm's link's with query strings don't render correctly in the GMail app.

It is mediocre at best.

Why "Integrated"?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I mean, I understand why the end-user interface should be integrated, or at least well linked together.

But the whole Unix philosophy, the whole reason it works so well, is that we tend to isolate things as "do one thing and well". If I were to try to compete with Exchange, I'd use Postfix for the actual SMTP server, probably something like RoundCube for the webmail, etc. Indeed, even Postfix can be broken down into tiny, replaceable programs that communicate via pipes.

Why would I want one monolithic app that handles everything?

Anyone who thinkos otherwise hasn't spent any/enough time in a real, productive office workplace.

I have, but it was a small office.

Let me ask, then: What, specifically, is missing from Google Apps in terms of calendar/email?

Google Apps, THANK GOD, doesn't deliver. Moving from platform lock in on the desktop to another platform lock in where not only the software that I'm using but also my frakkin' USER DATA is also locked in is literally jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Except that your user data is mostly available, and in open standard formats. I don't know about Docs, but the Calendars can be downloaded as iCal, and the mail can downloaded via IMAP. And in the mean time, you've got a much nicer web interface that works cross-browser, pretty much by definition cross-OS, while Exchange pretty much works with Outlook.

Can't you idiots see that Google has the makings of an evil monopoly that makes Microsoft look like your friendly local corner store.

I can, but there are several big reasons I'm not nearly as worried about Google as I am about, say, Apple (who truly does make Microsoft look like a friendly corner store, at least on mobile devices):

First, Google stuff is technically superior to Microsoft stuff in most ways that matter to me. Chrome is a better browser than IE, and before Chrome, Google sponsored Firefox.

Second, Google does seem to have a real commitment to open source and open standards. See: Summer of Code, GTalk (uses Jabber), OpenID, ODF in Google Docs, Firefox, Chrome (the browser, the OS, and 99.999% of the support needed to build it, excluding some codec support), Android, native Linux ports of most of their apps (even proprietary ones), free APIs to their proprietary services (like maps -- Microsoft wants you to call them before they'll even give you a price), Gears, O3D, Protocol Buffers...

Microsoft does some interesting open source things, but they tend to prefer their own license to more standard, proven licenses such as BSD or GPL, and they also tend to do it half-assedly -- for instance, while Google will give away a VM (as with Dalvik), Microsoft will not give the source to the .NET runtime. Since so much of what they do lately (including open source stuff) depends on .NET, this is a major roadblock. Sure, they help Mono along, but for how long?

Perhaps I'm not being fair, but Microsoft has a long history of embrace, extend, extinguish. Google, on the other hand, has a history of create/embrace, extend, set free.

Re:Why "Integrated"?

[shutdown -p now]

But the whole Unix philosophy, the whole reason it works so well, is that we tend to isolate things as "do one thing and well". If I were to try to compete with Exchange, I'd use Postfix for the actual SMTP server, probably something like RoundCube for the webmail, etc. Indeed, even Postfix can be broken down into tiny, replaceable programs that communicate via pipes.

Why would I want one monolithic app that handles everything?

Because sometimes it works better? Even in Unix world, there's Emacs as a testament to the fact that Unix philosophy isn't a universal architectural principle that's 100% right.

Re:Why "Integrated"?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Because sometimes it works better? Even in Unix world, there's Emacs as a testament

...to the fact that some people would much rather use vim.

Moreover, Emacs isn't monolithic. Aside from the fact that it's just a set of Lisp scripts for a much simpler editor (TECO), there's the fact that most of the more interesting things you might want to do with it are also going to call some external program at some point.

One obvious example: Version control. I very much doubt anyone's actually written bindings for Emacs for all the various version control systems it supports. Specifically, I know it supports Git, and I know Git has no simple library or API beyond its commandline interface -- in other words, if you use Git with Emacs, that means Emacs is calling git commands.

Small programs, doing one thing well. One unified interface acting as a frontend for these small programs. Sounds exactly like the Unix philosophy to me -- indeed, the best of both worlds.

Stop exaggerating :)

[Anonymous Coward]

All it takes is one guy filing a "Change in work environment" complaint with the union and the boss's "new process" becomes not only moot, but it will become a forbidden choice for all time and eternity.

In government, you will rarely hear bosses try that.

You are exaggerating heavily. Besides, it would be horrible reason to fire somebody. "Yeah, you've worked here for 30 years. Yeah, you are pretty good at what you have been doing. But we are going to fire you because you haven't gotten used to using Sharepoint instead of e-mail attachments." The whole idea is absurd.

Even if you could do that to one person... You can't (an certainly shouldn't) fire everyone around because of that. And there can never be only one person who uses email attachments when everyone else uses Sharepoint. The problem is that you either get everyone to switch or nobody will switch.

And then there are the old, senior officials (ex diplomats, etc.) who have been give some safe jobs where they don't really do anything but can enjoy good wage (and believe they are useful, though everyone else who works there knows how it really is) and rot until they die. They won't switch to anything new and nobody opposes them. I don't think it is because of unions, but it's just the general culture there. Perhaps because they have been there long enough to know all those in power.

And yes, I work at the IT department of one very large government agency.

Re:Stop exaggerating :)

[WED Fan]

Re-read the poster I was responding to. I didn't say "fire". I said that if the boss tries to enforce a new process that moves from email to SharePoint, and call it mandatory, some yahoo is *IS* going to file a complaint, and in my little killer branch of Government, thats enough to put the kabosh on any innovation. And, yes, I'm CS not a contractor.

No, Google does NOT "own" your data

[Anonymous Coward]

> As for "owning your data", do you have a citation from the EULA of Google Apps for business to back this up?

Replying as AC, since I'm also moderating...

The contract for the Google Apps for business (the paid service, ie, Premium, since if you're half-way serious about your business, you're going to pay $50/user/yr) states clearly, in its own paragraph, that Google has no rights to your data. This is very standard for B2B (and P2B, I'd assume) contracts.

Do they have access to it if they maliciously wanted to? Yeah.. and the ILEC repairman has access to your whole network also. That is a bogus argument.

Re:No, Google does NOT "own" your data

[Nexus7]

Damn it, moderation undone, even if I posted anonymously.

Gmail?

[rakslice]

This may be kind of a dumb question, but what does whether or not DC uses Gmail have to do with their deal for Google Apps?

How can you believe anything Vivek Kundra says?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why anyone would believe anything Vivek says is beyond me. John Dvorak has written on this guy -- and he makes a good case that Vivek doesn't even have the graduate degree that he claims he has. It's about time people take anything he says with slightly more than a grain of salt.

Re:Give it time.

[WillHill]

This alone makes you look very stupid. What are you talking about "A lot of ?what? never to complain" or "A lot of never to complain" What are you, a high school dropout? You sure look like it. LMFAO!