I've tried the offline mode, and it only accelerates reading mail when I'm switched to Offline. As soon as Outlook realizes it's online, that same delay occurs. And what's worse is that it synchronizes the entire Inbox (plus other selected folders) on exit by comparing the messages on my hard drive to the ones in exchange - one by one. Call me crazy or naive, but there isn't much chance that a received message is going to change. With over a thousand messages, the delay in sync-on-exit is waaaaaay too long.
Trust me, I've personally installed and configured Exchange and Outlook many times of the last couple of years. Any time I've been given a choice, I've chosen IMAP on a Linux/Solaris/BSD machine. The Exchange protocol is very, very bloated. There is no reason to not use the cached offline copies of data just because it detects a connection, that's fucking nuts. If my copy of Mozilla had to redownload a message every time I changed my selection in the folder I'd also be extremely pissed at that. Although with Moz I can file a bug report - with Outlook, I can upgrade to Outlook XP and still have all the same bugs - but with new, non-standard toolbars and menubars.
Remote mail is way too flaky, constantly bringing up a VPN connection and dropping it, adding the overhead of that protocol. I'll stick with IMAP and Mozilla - hell, even configuring Outlook to just use IMAP is a better solution all around IMO.
If I actually ever give a damn about the calendar, tasks or notes I'll just use the web-based Outlook client - which amazingly enough doesn't require Internet Explorer (it'll even run under NS4 for Linux).
I don't think Outlook is configured wrong, and I've only got 1400 messages (nice round number). The overhead of the protocol is stunning. When you're scrolling the goddamned list of messages traffic passes on the wire since there's no cached copies of the headers stored. Every time you click a message, Exchange sends the full thing - again with no caching. My home connection is cable (and very fast), and even on that I've completely given up using Outlook. Shared calendars just isn't worth the minutes of wait time.
I'm running Outlook 2000 w/ Exchange 2000 on the backend. Connecting from home over a VPN takes 3-4 minutes to initialize the connection and start seeing new mail. Connecting with Mozilla via IMAP takes less than three seconds to read new mail. I'm not even exaggerating or joking.
Inversions was a Culture novel? Are you sure? I started reading it and it looks like nothing related.... if it's in the Culture series though I mgiht actually keep going.
Re:Gnutella2 - The real story!
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
I do use Mozilla. And Linux. Work has me using Windows 2000, which I install various P2P apps on, and then I write about them. I've been using Linux for many, many years and have several *BSD boxes at home too. Read the whole thread next time, and thanks for coming out pal.
And that makes me the perfect candidate to post here. Seriously though, one would think that a neutron star's magnetic field would extend well past the distance from the moon to the Earth.
Re:Gnutella2 - The real story!
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for the straight answer Adam. I guess that's the price to pay for working at a company that actually produces cool software.
Re:Gnutella2 - The real story!
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
Hm. It's not exactly a hard-core belief of mine that open standards will win in the end - but I believe that they should win. Of course when talking about P2P applications such as eDonkey, reverse engineering and then extending the protocol takes very little effort. There's even a tool on Sourceforge specifically for decoding eDonkey network traffic.
But I defintely will keep cheering for the open standards. Like I said, I'm running Mozilla, Linux, KDE, and so on.
I have another question. You were kind enough to respond to me several times and discuss the swing from proprietary to open and so on. But you left out any comments on one topic: spyware. What's with that? Does the revenue from spyware/adware actually provide you with a valid business model?
I'm not trolling - I'm completely serious. It amazes me to see people grabbing utilities and programs off Download.com and what not that they see as invaluable (for instance Gator) - and then when I take a look at their machine, it's completely fucked thanks to the extraordinary amount of garbage that piggybacks on the install.
You LimeWire coders seem like you definitely know where it's at - I've picked through most of the code line by line, and it's great. But come on - spyware?
Re:This is missing the point
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have NEVER seen a p2p system address this issue.
Re:Gnutella2 - The real story!
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 1
Not exactly. But I'm taking the same stance as Linus Torvalds in respect to Bitkeeper - in some cases, I just won't let ideologies get in the way of progress - or more simply, in the way of raw usefullness. I do think it's a shame that Shareaza is not open source, and that Mike is not waiting for all of the GDF participants to agree on new protocol standards... but if he can do a hell of a good job on his own, well, hats off too him.
Don't get me wrong, in the previous example of IE, it sucked. Netscape was completely stagnant at 4.x, and there was absolutely no progress from the developers of the browser. Than IE started destroying Netscape in terms of features - which in turn forced everyone else to speed up the specification and development process of web standards. If it weren't for Microsoft ignoring standards when building IE, I wouldn't be using a shiny new Mozilla build today.
As far as peer to peer applications go, I feel the entire Gnutella network has fallen behind the eDonkey network. Every feature that is on the todo list of the major clients (Gnucleus, Limewire, GTK-Gnutella, and so on) has already been done by Jed (or is it Jeb?) long ago in the Donkey software. And now, since the official eDonkey application has lagged behind we have a reverse scenario - programs like eMule and mldonkey have popped up adding a ton of features to the network. And both are open source.
Re:Gnutella2 - The real story!
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Judging by your comment and your associate's, it seems that you fellows feel as if your toes are being stepped on a little:-) Honestly though, Shareaza came out less than a year ago and is outpacing Limewire and Gnucleus (which was my previous favorite client), and it's written by one guy. Oh, and, NO SPYWARE.
At first I saw that you worked for LimeWire, and felt a small amount of respect - then I remember the bullshit hoops I had to go through to clean my system of the utter crap it installed through my system directories and the registry.
As for calling something like Gnutella2 premature, um, no. The standards of the web were written down by the W3C, just as the Gnutella standards are written by the GDF. But if Shareaza comes out with something radically different and is accepted by the majority of users, it becomes the standard much in the same way that IE (unfortunately) did in the browser war. Now the W3C is playing catchup - and maybe the GDF is as well.
Re:spyware?
on
Gnutella2?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's actually got a clean record, from day one. Amazingly enough.
I think they do this for high priced auctions - it's been around for a long time. It's called an escrow arrangement, where a third party waits for the reception of the goods and the payment before the transaction is complete.
Isn't is pretty obvious that the cost is a factor here? I'm in Canada and an X-Box goes for about three hundred bucks - which is a pretty damned cheap machine that I can throw Linux on. Even if I wanted a seperate machine to run Gnutella on, this is a low-cost way to do that.
I think you're right. I'll probably go with LVM, it looks fairly stable now (I've looked into it a while ago, and it was a little unstable - problems with the device-mapper).
Thanks for the suggestions everyone, some of the ideas look pretty decent!
Re:why does it hurt when i do this...
on
Unionfs for Linux?
·
· Score: 1
In most IFS projects, the upper layer accepts new files while the lower layers are generaly mounted read-only.
Besides, telling me not to do it - what's with that? Everyone knows the Perl motto - there's more than one way to do it. Unix is the same - look at all the different variants out there.
Sounds kind of cool, but at the same time utterly useless. It's a hell of a lot easier to encrypt document fragments as a whole then encrypting individual nodes of a document (in my opinion). The alternative you outlined still sounds much more robust to me than encrypted islands inside a supposedly human-readable XML file.
XML is just a form of data, and should be totally independent in regards to encryption. If it transport mechanisms like SOAP work over HTTP, then why not just use HTTPS? What's next - an encryption standard for PNG images, text files and MPG movies? Maybe someone can enlighten me:-)
Devices are interesting - when you run the UML linux from the command line, you esentially alias ubd device names to your system device names (in the virtual context). So I map a loopback filesystem to the root partition of a UML kernel.
Apparently you can also use a copy-on-write methodology to share filesystems between UML kernels and the parent kernel - though you'll have to check their site for that since I haven't had the guts to try it out.
Slashdot Mirror
Trust me, I've personally installed and configured Exchange and Outlook many times of the last couple of years. Any time I've been given a choice, I've chosen IMAP on a Linux/Solaris/BSD machine. The Exchange protocol is very, very bloated. There is no reason to not use the cached offline copies of data just because it detects a connection, that's fucking nuts. If my copy of Mozilla had to redownload a message every time I changed my selection in the folder I'd also be extremely pissed at that. Although with Moz I can file a bug report - with Outlook, I can upgrade to Outlook XP and still have all the same bugs - but with new, non-standard toolbars and menubars.
If I actually ever give a damn about the calendar, tasks or notes I'll just use the web-based Outlook client - which amazingly enough doesn't require Internet Explorer (it'll even run under NS4 for Linux).
I don't think Outlook is configured wrong, and I've only got 1400 messages (nice round number). The overhead of the protocol is stunning. When you're scrolling the goddamned list of messages traffic passes on the wire since there's no cached copies of the headers stored. Every time you click a message, Exchange sends the full thing - again with no caching. My home connection is cable (and very fast), and even on that I've completely given up using Outlook. Shared calendars just isn't worth the minutes of wait time.
I'm running Outlook 2000 w/ Exchange 2000 on the backend. Connecting from home over a VPN takes 3-4 minutes to initialize the connection and start seeing new mail. Connecting with Mozilla via IMAP takes less than three seconds to read new mail. I'm not even exaggerating or joking.
Just grab the Talkback-enabled ZIP file, skip the installer altogether.
Inversions was a Culture novel? Are you sure? I started reading it and it looks like nothing related.... if it's in the Culture series though I mgiht actually keep going.
I'd put the whole damned thing inside Freenet.
I do use Mozilla. And Linux. Work has me using Windows 2000, which I install various P2P apps on, and then I write about them. I've been using Linux for many, many years and have several *BSD boxes at home too. Read the whole thread next time, and thanks for coming out pal.
And that makes me the perfect candidate to post here. Seriously though, one would think that a neutron star's magnetic field would extend well past the distance from the moon to the Earth.
Thanks for the straight answer Adam. I guess that's the price to pay for working at a company that actually produces cool software.
But I defintely will keep cheering for the open standards. Like I said, I'm running Mozilla, Linux, KDE, and so on.
I have another question. You were kind enough to respond to me several times and discuss the swing from proprietary to open and so on. But you left out any comments on one topic: spyware. What's with that? Does the revenue from spyware/adware actually provide you with a valid business model?
I'm not trolling - I'm completely serious. It amazes me to see people grabbing utilities and programs off Download.com and what not that they see as invaluable (for instance Gator) - and then when I take a look at their machine, it's completely fucked thanks to the extraordinary amount of garbage that piggybacks on the install.
You LimeWire coders seem like you definitely know where it's at - I've picked through most of the code line by line, and it's great. But come on - spyware?
I have - it's called Freenet.
Don't get me wrong, in the previous example of IE, it sucked. Netscape was completely stagnant at 4.x, and there was absolutely no progress from the developers of the browser. Than IE started destroying Netscape in terms of features - which in turn forced everyone else to speed up the specification and development process of web standards. If it weren't for Microsoft ignoring standards when building IE, I wouldn't be using a shiny new Mozilla build today.
As far as peer to peer applications go, I feel the entire Gnutella network has fallen behind the eDonkey network. Every feature that is on the todo list of the major clients (Gnucleus, Limewire, GTK-Gnutella, and so on) has already been done by Jed (or is it Jeb?) long ago in the Donkey software. And now, since the official eDonkey application has lagged behind we have a reverse scenario - programs like eMule and mldonkey have popped up adding a ton of features to the network. And both are open source.
At first I saw that you worked for LimeWire, and felt a small amount of respect - then I remember the bullshit hoops I had to go through to clean my system of the utter crap it installed through my system directories and the registry.
As for calling something like Gnutella2 premature, um, no. The standards of the web were written down by the W3C, just as the Gnutella standards are written by the GDF. But if Shareaza comes out with something radically different and is accepted by the majority of users, it becomes the standard much in the same way that IE (unfortunately) did in the browser war. Now the W3C is playing catchup - and maybe the GDF is as well.
It's actually got a clean record, from day one. Amazingly enough.
I think they do this for high priced auctions - it's been around for a long time. It's called an escrow arrangement, where a third party waits for the reception of the goods and the payment before the transaction is complete.
Isn't is pretty obvious that the cost is a factor here? I'm in Canada and an X-Box goes for about three hundred bucks - which is a pretty damned cheap machine that I can throw Linux on. Even if I wanted a seperate machine to run Gnutella on, this is a low-cost way to do that.
My site (submail.net) uses mod_gzip and sends compressed content to Mozilla all the time with not a single problem so far.
I think you're right. I'll probably go with LVM, it looks fairly stable now (I've looked into it a while ago, and it was a little unstable - problems with the device-mapper).
Thanks for the suggestions everyone, some of the ideas look pretty decent!
Besides, telling me not to do it - what's with that? Everyone knows the Perl motto - there's more than one way to do it. Unix is the same - look at all the different variants out there.
Sounds kind of cool, but at the same time utterly useless. It's a hell of a lot easier to encrypt document fragments as a whole then encrypting individual nodes of a document (in my opinion). The alternative you outlined still sounds much more robust to me than encrypted islands inside a supposedly human-readable XML file.
XML is just a form of data, and should be totally independent in regards to encryption. If it transport mechanisms like SOAP work over HTTP, then why not just use HTTPS? What's next - an encryption standard for PNG images, text files and MPG movies? Maybe someone can enlighten me :-)
Apparently you can also use a copy-on-write methodology to share filesystems between UML kernels and the parent kernel - though you'll have to check their site for that since I haven't had the guts to try it out.
Longest thread ever :-) Yes, rebooted into the new OS, works great. I'm going to do it for a few other machines now.