Ed tried to ask a serious question. Why did you have to add that little note to the article where you say:
>The school is currently looking into Microsoft >NetMeeting, but Ed worries (and rightly so) that >Microsoft might be positioning itself to >dominate in this market, allowing them to >determine the standards later on.
This addition is absolutely not needed in the context of his question. It is food for a anti MS flamewar instead of a serious answer to this important question that Ed asks.
You read too much into what I said, and that addition was actually part of the original question , I just reworded it a bit to fit the style of the article.
I also have to disagree with your assertion that it was unnecessary, when it most definitely was. My intention for mentioning it was this: I wanted to see if people could come up with alternatives!
You see, without alternatives to NetMeeting, then the fears allayed by that comment are extremely justified because it means that Microsoft can and will "embrace and extend" simply because they can. Judging from the comments expressed here so far, there are not many alternatives that have the popular mindshare that would make them a contender for said market (I haven't seen a single solution mentioned more than twice).
Most of the ones that have been mentioned are outdated.
Stop the childish Microsoft bashing please. Comments like this make slashdot sound like it's being run by teenage Linux doodz (or is it?) who are all on a holy war against Microsoft.
I think everybody with posting rights should stop putting ANY remarks about Microsoft in articles where it's not needed. Let's keep a professional level in the content of Slashdot.
I agree with everything you said above, however you need to stop seeing every mention of Microsoft as a call to Microsoft bash.
In case I haven't made this clear enough here: I do not tolerate Microsoft bashing, or bashing of any sort on Ask Slashdot articles. If I see posts that exist for the sole purpose of bashing, then they get moderated. Period.
So please, read the article more carefully, and remember what I've said here. Being "professional" also means dealing with the difficult questions, and I felt this question qualified: Until I posted this question, the only Video Conferencing software I knew of was NetMeeting.
Slashdot Mirror
You read too much into what I said, and that addition was actually part of the original question , I just reworded it a bit to fit the style of the article.
I also have to disagree with your assertion that it was unnecessary, when it most definitely was. My intention for mentioning it was this: I wanted to see if people could come up with alternatives!
You see, without alternatives to NetMeeting, then the fears allayed by that comment are extremely justified because it means that Microsoft can and will "embrace and extend" simply because they can. Judging from the comments expressed here so far, there are not many alternatives that have the popular mindshare that would make them a contender for said market (I haven't seen a single solution mentioned more than twice).
Most of the ones that have been mentioned are outdated.
I agree with everything you said above, however you need to stop seeing every mention of Microsoft as a call to Microsoft bash.
In case I haven't made this clear enough here: I do not tolerate Microsoft bashing, or bashing of any sort on Ask Slashdot articles. If I see posts that exist for the sole purpose of bashing, then they get moderated. Period.
So please, read the article more carefully, and remember what I've said here. Being "professional" also means dealing with the difficult questions, and I felt this question qualified: Until I posted this question, the only Video Conferencing software I knew of was NetMeeting.
I hope this clears things up.