I'm not suggesting that you or the other guy are that bad, but Christ, show some fucking gratitude when somebody gives you something!
I think you missed the point of my post. Of course I'm grateful for the software that I use all day, every day. My point was that there needs to be a better way of addressing the needs of end-user software users than telling them to write code. I want to see open source and Linux thrive - and I mean beyond its current market share (what is it on the desktop - something under 1%?).
I want my calendar available to me wherever I am - home, work, on the road - using a client-side solution is pointless in this respect. The same goes for mail. A service like Yahoo Calendar is the way to go - have your calendar wherever, on whatever browser. This seems self-evident.
Server-based calendar store will, of course, be essential. But I believe the roadmap for the Mozilla calendar is to get the personal calendar fully functional, then extend it to a server back end.
I too want a calendar available to me on the Internet from anywhere, but I DON'T want to store my personal information on a third-party server. I want it to reside on a server I've set up at work, or on my hosting provider account.
If Yahoo etc. had the ability to encrypt/decrypt your server-stored information at the client - I might be interested.
Why don't you take the code and integrate it with KDE or Gnome yourself? You have the itch, scratch it. All the tools and a big pile of source code are there. Welcome to Open Source!
Gee, thanks for the news flash! But what if this guy, like countless others who might have an interest in using open source, DON'T FUCKING WRITE CODE? Sometimes that itch is in a place that the end-user cannot reach - you know, that spot right in the middle of your back...?
Sorry to yell, but the patronizing "write it yourself" refrain gets a little tiresome sometimes. We need an easy, acceptable way for non-programmers to pool their resources and get the software THEY want written.
On what planet does it make sense to integrate a calendar into a web browser?
On the same planet where people like to have their calendar along-side their mail reader?
I'd *love* to have a calendar nicely integrated with the whole computer, not just the web browser. It'd also do a lot to convince more novice users that Linux is a friendly environment.
I agree, but the important thing is to GET the person to actually become a novice - i.e., take that first step and try Linux. This is MUCH easier if that person knows that their web/mail/news/PIM application will be pretty much exactly the same whether they're in Windows or Linux.
The ideal would be to have Mozilla and Evolution and GNOME Calendar and other mail / PIM clients use the same calendaring data store. That way once the novice becomes a Linux devotee, he/she can pick and choose from a variety of calendars.
As there are many things that outlook could do via imap but it refuses to because it wants you to buy their server.
This is SO obvious...
Recently, as part of the process of SHUTTING DOWN and THROWING AWAY our Exchange server, I switched our users' Outlook clients from Corporate to Internet Only mode. I found that not only will it not store calendar items on an IMAP server (which I understood already), but it would not store "special folders" there like Drafts and Sent Items. This is patently ridiculous.
If you search MSKB for ways to do this stuff, you can almost *hear* their eyes shifting around as they claim this is for compatibility or performance reasons or some other bullshit lie of an excuse. It sounds very much like the current MSN browser block thing, which, as we all know, is because other browsers aren't "standards-compliant" and can't fully render the "MSN experience" (pardon me while I throw up).
I'm SO thankful our group did not get heavily into shared calendar usage, or we'd be locked in for sure. Having a multi-user calendar in Mozilla (eventually) will be a huge boon to people trying to get the Exchange/Outlook monkey of their backs. They should name this project "Methadone".
I just did a search for "calendar" on freshmeat... 131 projects found
Do we really need mozilla to include yet another thing which we can just find somewhere else?
OK, let's start off by scratching all the web-only clients.
Now scratch the ones that are not cross-platform.
Now scratch the ones that are simply not usable or in a state of suspended animation.
Finally, scratch the ones that don't easily interact with your mail client.
Ta-da - you've gone from 131 projects down to precisely zero.
There are a LOT of people for whom the major obstacle to a Linux desktop is that goddamn foul filthy contemptible Outlook+Exchange combination. If we can replace this we have won a major battle.
I have been waiting for this for a LOOOOOONG time - I fervently hope this works out.
linux or any *nix is only cheaper if your client is trained in how to use it. if your app will be used by data entry clerks, spending a lot of time training them in how to use a *nix is not cost justified.
Exactly, that's why you coded your applciation in Java, remember? It's pretty much the same across different operating systems.
Re:because your client wants windows forms?
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 1
Am I going to tell the marketing guys that I want to write the app they need to run only on *nix boxes? When they don't know what that is? Or am I going to give them [expl. del.] forms and pop-up dialogues and a self-installing package?
Of course you are, that's why you're going to write it Java. And why bring up the operating system anyway? As long as it can run a JVM, your appliction will run too.
VB is quick to write, and quick to re-write.... Similarly, VB uses the powerful windows api functions that Microsoft exposes. Toss in an instance of IE. Toss in menu bars for file operations. Toss in a button to print. Powerful functions that are easily implemented by the coder.
Now toss it on the engineering department's Linux boxen, or on the Macs in Marketing.
Or just toss it on the stack of SuSE boxes Management decided to go with to rid themselves of Microsoft's pernicious licenses.
Sure, the lifetime of a PC is 20-30 months, but you may be surprised to learn that the lifetime of an application is often many times more than that (Y2K anyone?).
*Years* ago I wrote a fairly large and involved VB 3 program that our department is still using today. Oh sure, it was quick and dirty and easy to write, as long as the requriements didn't change too much as I went along. The thing is a damn albatross around my neck now, and I desperately try to avoid even touching that code until I have a chance to rewrite in Java.
The point being that you cannot predict the future, and you owe it to your business to keep your options open. Using VB slams those doors shut. Don't say it can't happen to you - it always happens to you.
It's a great tool for what it's meant for: rapid application development for small businesses where the software will be run on a windows pc and used by someone who wants to do all their work in windows forms. It's very very quick, and there are a lot of developers who know it.
There are a couple grains of truth here if you squint right, but...
It's a good choice for internal company apps.
...this is absolutely, horribly, pathetically wrong. It locks your company into Microsoft technology, the only alternative to which is massive rewrites of code. The "good choice" for company apps is a language that abstracts your applications from their host environments. The natural choice is Java.
Maybe I'm just easily inmpressed, but I'm still thrilled when I can just copy the entire webapps directory from one of our NT boxes onto a Linux box and have applications work flawlessly without touching the code or recompiling anything.
Netscape implemented this long before MS. MS simply bought the code (Mosaic IIRC) upon which IE is based.
Actually I believe it was Spyglass - another perfect example of MS's unrivaled sleaziness. They "bought" the code from Spyglass for a percentage of each copy of IE sold - then they gave the damn thing away.
Yay, Microsoft. What would we do without you megalo-fucken-maniacs.
Java is not a standard unless your criteria for being a standard is simply that it is used by a lot of people. If that's the case then Microsoft has created lots of standards
The whole point of standards is to provide portability and interoperability. Java is extremely effective in abstracting your applications from the hardware and its operating system.
Microsoft has been utterly miserable with "standards" in this sense. The vast majority of its "standards" work is merely a short-term tactic used to ultimately lock people into their proprietary environment, inch by inch, step by step.
we all know that 99% of the sharing is people who are 1. too cheap
It's too expensive
and/or 2. too lazy to get a copy of the "item" itself.
The media industry has done an incredibly pathetic job (ie non-existent) of providing "consumers" with convenient on-line music service.
Gotta use it awhile to appreciate it
on
Nautilus 1.0.5 Release
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
If your'e still using GMC, try Nautilus for awhile - it will grow on you (please, clever punster wags, control yourselves).
I especially like the ability to have remote FTP file systems integrated with the file manager alongside local storage, so I can cut a file from local drive and just paste it into an FTP site. Can't wait till they get SMB file shares and other filesystems added to it as well.
Combine this with the bookmarks feature and you have a very efficient way of managing remote and local files transparently. It's worth a few seconds startup time IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Sony wants to sell the "Aibo Licks His Balls" expansion pack, not have some deviant terrorist hacker commie give it away for free.
I think you missed the point of my post. Of course I'm grateful for the software that I use all day, every day. My point was that there needs to be a better way of addressing the needs of end-user software users than telling them to write code. I want to see open source and Linux thrive - and I mean beyond its current market share (what is it on the desktop - something under 1%?).
There goes breakfast...
Server-based calendar store will, of course, be essential. But I believe the roadmap for the Mozilla calendar is to get the personal calendar fully functional, then extend it to a server back end.
I too want a calendar available to me on the Internet from anywhere, but I DON'T want to store my personal information on a third-party server. I want it to reside on a server I've set up at work, or on my hosting provider account.
If Yahoo etc. had the ability to encrypt/decrypt your server-stored information at the client - I might be interested.
Mo'Zoolander ?
BLUE STEEL!
Gee, thanks for the news flash! But what if this guy, like countless others who might have an interest in using open source, DON'T FUCKING WRITE CODE? Sometimes that itch is in a place that the end-user cannot reach - you know, that spot right in the middle of your back...?
Sorry to yell, but the patronizing "write it yourself" refrain gets a little tiresome sometimes. We need an easy, acceptable way for non-programmers to pool their resources and get the software THEY want written.
On the same planet where people like to have their calendar along-side their mail reader?
I'd *love* to have a calendar nicely integrated with the whole computer, not just the web browser. It'd also do a lot to convince more novice users that Linux is a friendly environment.
I agree, but the important thing is to GET the person to actually become a novice - i.e., take that first step and try Linux. This is MUCH easier if that person knows that their web/mail/news/PIM application will be pretty much exactly the same whether they're in Windows or Linux.
The ideal would be to have Mozilla and Evolution and GNOME Calendar and other mail / PIM clients use the same calendaring data store. That way once the novice becomes a Linux devotee, he/she can pick and choose from a variety of calendars.
This is SO obvious...
Recently, as part of the process of SHUTTING DOWN and THROWING AWAY our Exchange server, I switched our users' Outlook clients from Corporate to Internet Only mode. I found that not only will it not store calendar items on an IMAP server (which I understood already), but it would not store "special folders" there like Drafts and Sent Items. This is patently ridiculous.
If you search MSKB for ways to do this stuff, you can almost *hear* their eyes shifting around as they claim this is for compatibility or performance reasons or some other bullshit lie of an excuse. It sounds very much like the current MSN browser block thing, which, as we all know, is because other browsers aren't "standards-compliant" and can't fully render the "MSN experience" (pardon me while I throw up).
I'm SO thankful our group did not get heavily into shared calendar usage, or we'd be locked in for sure. Having a multi-user calendar in Mozilla (eventually) will be a huge boon to people trying to get the Exchange/Outlook monkey of their backs. They should name this project "Methadone".
OK, let's start off by scratching all the web-only clients.
Now scratch the ones that are not cross-platform.
Now scratch the ones that are simply not usable or in a state of suspended animation.
Finally, scratch the ones that don't easily interact with your mail client.
Ta-da - you've gone from 131 projects down to precisely zero.
There are a LOT of people for whom the major obstacle to a Linux desktop is that goddamn foul filthy contemptible Outlook+Exchange combination. If we can replace this we have won a major battle.
I have been waiting for this for a LOOOOOONG time - I fervently hope this works out.
Yeah, but even that doesn't pass the validator.
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. I simply don't trust Microsoft when it comes to interoperability.
I think you'll learn to love it!
Hmmm, someone reads (and internalizes) The Onion. :-)
The hilarious part is that even MSN's simple block page fails W3C validation
Exactly, that's why you coded your applciation in Java, remember? It's pretty much the same across different operating systems.
Of course you are, that's why you're going to write it Java. And why bring up the operating system anyway? As long as it can run a JVM, your appliction will run too.
Now toss it on the engineering department's Linux boxen, or on the Macs in Marketing.
Or just toss it on the stack of SuSE boxes Management decided to go with to rid themselves of Microsoft's pernicious licenses.
Sure, the lifetime of a PC is 20-30 months, but you may be surprised to learn that the lifetime of an application is often many times more than that (Y2K anyone?).
*Years* ago I wrote a fairly large and involved VB 3 program that our department is still using today. Oh sure, it was quick and dirty and easy to write, as long as the requriements didn't change too much as I went along. The thing is a damn albatross around my neck now, and I desperately try to avoid even touching that code until I have a chance to rewrite in Java.
The point being that you cannot predict the future, and you owe it to your business to keep your options open. Using VB slams those doors shut. Don't say it can't happen to you - it always happens to you.
There are a couple grains of truth here if you squint right, but...
It's a good choice for internal company apps.
Maybe I'm just easily inmpressed, but I'm still thrilled when I can just copy the entire webapps directory from one of our NT boxes onto a Linux box and have applications work flawlessly without touching the code or recompiling anything.
You have a low concept of "standard", IMHO.
And the mouse cursor drop-shadow.
And the fade-in pop-up menu.
Lots of other critical stuff too, I'm sure.
Actually I believe it was Spyglass - another perfect example of MS's unrivaled sleaziness. They "bought" the code from Spyglass for a percentage of each copy of IE sold - then they gave the damn thing away.
Yay, Microsoft. What would we do without you megalo-fucken-maniacs.
The whole point of standards is to provide portability and interoperability. Java is extremely effective in abstracting your applications from the hardware and its operating system.
Microsoft has been utterly miserable with "standards" in this sense. The vast majority of its "standards" work is merely a short-term tactic used to ultimately lock people into their proprietary environment, inch by inch, step by step.
But you probably knew that already.
It's too expensive
and/or 2. too lazy to get a copy of the "item" itself.
The media industry has done an incredibly pathetic job (ie non-existent) of providing "consumers" with convenient on-line music service.
If your'e still using GMC, try Nautilus for awhile - it will grow on you (please, clever punster wags, control yourselves).
I especially like the ability to have remote FTP file systems integrated with the file manager alongside local storage, so I can cut a file from local drive and just paste it into an FTP site. Can't wait till they get SMB file shares and other filesystems added to it as well.
Combine this with the bookmarks feature and you have a very efficient way of managing remote and local files transparently. It's worth a few seconds startup time IMHO.