You want a good definition of "neoconservative"? Read John W. Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience". Authoritarian, fascist, and moralist are three words that come immediately to mind.
Well, I pretty much fit exactly your "Moderate A". I'm pro choice, anti gun control, pro death penalty, and anti war. But I don't whine, and I'm offended by you characterizing me as silly for my positions.
BTW, the "middle ground" on Iraq was:
1. There's obviously no WMD in Iraq. 2. Saddam Hussein is still an asshole. 3. We've effectively contained him so he's not much of a threat. 4. We may have to do something about him in the future, but now is not the right time. 5. There's obviously no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. 6. "I don't think our nation's military should be used for what's called nation building". 7. You don't cut taxes by 1.5 trillion and then start a war. 8. Let's deal with the important issues first (Afghanistan and al-Qaeda), but keep an eye on Iraq.
Untrue. First of all, "life liberty, and property", or more properly as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution of the United States), "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", can be legally and legitimately separated from an individual through due process of law. This does not abrogate the "prinicples of the Constitution".
Second of all, your argument would seem to call into question the legitimacy of *any* government. I think most people would agree that legitimate governments can exist. For a very well thought out examination of the subject, read Randy Barnett's books on the subject of constitutional law.
What, exactly, do you believe is the basis for all wealth? Wealth is only partially created through "voluntary exchange", as you put it. This is exactly the sort of near-sighted judgement that leads to myopic visions of Libertarian free market utopiae.
Wealth *is* zero sum. Wealth comes, ultimately, from the exploitation of natural resources, which are of finite quantity. Yes, you can build several economic layers on top of that, but ultimately, you've got to have a product in order to have a product to service. Wealth creation may be spread out, but it certainly doesn't equate with equal opportunity when you have the existence of a privileged class.
I, for one, am certainly not advocating socialism, so don't set that up as a straw man. Well-regulated capitalism is just fine with me. It's just that our government has fallen down on the "well-regulated" aspect.
Let us also not forget that the estate tax does not mean that the wealthy forfeit *all* their wealth upon death.
quoted from Wikipedia:
For example, assume an estate of $3.5 million in 2006. There are two beneficiaries who will each receive equal shares of the estate. The maximum allowable credit is $2 million for that year, so the taxable value is therefore $1.5 million. Since it is 2006, the tax rate on that $1.5 million is 46%, so the total taxes paid would be $690,000. Each beneficiary will receive $1,000,000 of untaxed inheritance and $405,000 from the taxable portion of their inheritance for a total of $1,405,000. This means that they would have paid (or, more precisely, the estate would have paid) a taxable rate of 19.7%.
Minor adjustment. I read spun's second sentence with a question mark on the end, which completely changes the perceived meaning of his post. I obviously agree with him. My post still applys to the AC reply to spun, however.
I have to say, your post, and the replying AC post, are the first two statements I've ever seen that claim that Libertarians do not believe the free market and laissez-faire capitalism the be-all/end-all of economic theories. This has been the main reason why I cannot consider anyone who calls themselves a "Libertarian" seriously, even though I espouse many libertarian positions.
If there is one thing you should understand about the relationship between an economic system and a governmental system, particularly as pertains to Capitalism, it is this--Capitalism is a positive feedback loop that will consistently and ruthlessly seek the lowest common denominator and eventually eat itself alive, unchecked. The only form of restraint that works against this tendency is Morality. Government is the embodiment of morality in society. It the the rightful moral duty of the government to regulate commerce. A free market system can solve certain economic problems, but it cannot solve them all.
I know it's fashionable to be cynical about the legislative process, but your Representative will indeed respond in some way if faced with a large number of opinions from constituents. This takes more than just a few crackpot emails, which is why I suggest that everyone able to voice an opinion do so. Just be sure you write the representative of your district, and not someone else's. In this case, do not write your Senator, because if the impeachment goes through, the accused should have a fair trial unencumbered by public opinion.
Oddly enough, if the abiotic theory ever proves out, it will mean that all (or at least, a good portion) of that carbon we're liberating was *never* part of the "natural carbon cycle"...
Face it, Microsoft will force the upgrade. They always have.
However, the real problem with Vista is that it doesn't solve any pressing problems. Let's look at the last few releases of Windows:
Windows 95 - compelling upgrade because it brought a relatively modern (c. 1983) interface to the Wintel world.
Windows 98 (all versions) - compelling because it finally brought reasonable stability to the 9x branch.
Windows NT 4.0 - did for NT what 95 did for 3.1. Worked great once SP4 came out.
Windows 2000 - compelling because of Active Directory in enterprise environments.
Windows ME - absolutely no reason to use this release. It sucked big time, and we all agree on this.
Windows XP - compelling because it brought truly working USB and (post-SP2) wireless networking, along with other much improved hardware support. Especially compelling upgrade for portables.
Windows Server 2003 - partially compelling, especially if you need the new features of R2. Improved Active Directory and hardware support.
Windows Vista - no real reason to upgrade. No paradigm shifts have occurred in hardware since Wi-Fi, no major architecture changes in the software. A huge amount of cruft added on top, along with an extremely intrusive UI and DRM scheme.
That may be true, but what exactly is the point then of buying a device that runs an open OS? I mean, the whole reason I plunked down $300 for a 770 (when I knew that a replacement was in the works) is because I'm heartily sick and tired of the Palm devices I've been using (Kyocera 6135, Samsung SPH-i500, Sony Clie NX60) having absolutely no upgrades to the software available. I figured with the 770 and a new Bluetooth phone that I would be better off, but the sad fact is that there are many existing flaws in the 770, even with the latest OS update, that will likely never be fixed. Hopefully, the user community won't drop support for the 770 as quickly as Nokia has, but that remains to be seen. The potential of the 770 has barely been scratched thus far.
There's no way I'm buying an N800 after this, unless Nokia is willing to guarantee support for longer than 1.5 years. I think I'll just go for the iPhone. At least we know Apple has produced many software updates for the iPod line over several years. I don't expect the thing to be supported forever, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect support for longer than 1.5 years. My G3 iBook, which is over 4 years old, still runs the latest, greatest Mac OS X (though of course, my new MacBook Core 2 Duo is much faster at the same tasks)...why can't Nokia do the same?
I forgot to mention that I also have a Samsung WEP200 headset. The headset is the only device I have that seems to work correctly. It pairs with the phone and my MacBook with no problems, and the pairing is retained through power cycles.
or because BlueTooth is so squirrely for ordinary people to deal with
I don't know about you, but my experience with Bluetooth is that is squirrely for *anyone* do deal with. I've got a Samsung SPH-m610, a MacBook, and a Nokia 770, and Bluetooth is pathetic on all three of these units. I've even tried the MacBook with both Mac OS X and Windows, and it makes little difference. Bluetooth, in my experience, has been craptacular.
Every time I try to pair from the MacBook to the phone under Mac OS X, it crashes the phone. Every time I try to pair from the 770 to the phone, the 770 never completes the transaction. Every time one of these devices powers off, they have to be re-paired. I can eventually, with some calisthenics, get connections to work, but it's never easy, never seamless, and never fully functional.
OK, I've never actually used a Zune, but I will say this--Microsoft is poised to actually make a significant dent in Apple's sales. I've maintained all along that it is not healthy for the recording industry in general for one company to have a dominant position in market share. We need competition. Apple needs competition. Apple simply cannot maintain their leadership position for very much longer, for the very simple reason that Apple has already commoditized the digital audio player. The iPod and iTunes experience clearly works for a huge number of users, and there isn't anything about it (aside from a few questionable patents) that prevents any other company from nearly duplicating the iPod's success. The staggering fact that no other company has been able to get out of their own way for long enough to do this is not evidence that it cannot or will not be done.
First of all, the one thing that everyone needs to wrap their heads around is that there is no effective way to protect digital content. DRM simply doesn't work from a technical standpoint, let alone a human rights standpoint. Once Apple (and by extension, everyone else) starts selling DRM-free files, there nothing preventing you moving your iTunes purchases (or any other digital content purchases) from device to device, regardless of manufacturer. When this happens, every other DAP manufacturer gets access to the iTunes store, and Apple gets access to everyone else's stores. I still think that DRM-free means the recording industry will be gutted, but that's going to happen even if we keep the DRM, so we may as well just get it out of the way now. There will always be a market for recordings that cost money, but it's going to be a lot smaller than the current mostly-CD based model. I think the recent report of CD sales being down 20% year over year is the first evidence that we've reached the tipping point.
Second, how many "innovative" features can you pack into a DAP before you run out of options? Let's face it, mobile convergence is upon us. The iPhone will be the first of the next generation of mobile computing platforms, but development isn't going to stop there. I'm sure that within five years, we will all be carrying primarily one mobile device. This class of devices will integrate all the telephony, Internet access, audio/video entertainment, gaming, photography, data storage, and PDA functions into one relatively seamless package. We've come close so far, but not quite grasped the cigar, with devices like Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones, the Nokia 770/N800, Sony Mylo & PSP, etc. Possibly, there may even be a few more new features that could be added, but eventually, you're going to reach a point of diminishing returns.
What are the main hardware factors that need to be solved? Battery life, flash memory prices, and power consumption, all of which we are making great strides on every year. What are the main software factors that need to be solved? Well, really none. It's more of a marketing issue than it is a software issue. Apple has already demonstrated (and conclusively, at last) that there actually is a market for software that works well and easily with iPod+iTunes. The complexity of Windows is becoming less of a factor, especially when you consider that from the mobile devices perspective, Apple has also demonstrated that you can make a standalone software package that works the same way on Windows that it does on Mac OS X.
So, bring it on Microsoft! And bring it in brown! I like brown! It's not going to kill the iPod or iTunes, but it will make everybody sit up, take notice, and keep innovating.
Maybe the Zune doesn't work as well as it should, but it was a good idea. I definitely think that we'll see a "squirt" feature not long after the iPhone ships, if it doesn't have it on day one. It runs Mac OS X. The programs are Dashboard widgets. I predict that the development platform will not be as closed as some others think. It will be hackable, and it will be hacked, at least in the classic sense and not t
Well, it's not technically "existing" anymore, but all those things were met pretty well by Netscape Communicator 4 and Netscape SuiteSpot 3, ten years ago. In fact, if you go back and look at the trade press of the time, you will find that the Netscape products were considered far superior to Exchange 5 and Outlook, and arguably would even today be considered good products.
The Communicator client had the browser, the email, the directory, and the calendaring/scheduling stuff, and the back end was Netscape Directory Server, Netscape Messaging Server, Netscape Collabra Server, Netscape Calendar Server (a rebranded CS&T Calendar Server. CS&T became Steltor, and was subsequently bought by Oracle. The products still exist, but cannot be purchased standalone--only as part of the Oracle server suite.), and Netscape Cetificate Server (plus a few other specialized servers).
The server suite had browser gateways for everything. The only thing really missing was effective relay prevention and anti-spam. The relay problem could be easily solved by front-ending with Sendmail.
If you can show me Outlook running on 2 non-Microsoft operating systems, providing the same array of features that Outlook currently provides for Windows, I will concede.
And now you know why Microsoft is the dominant software company in the world. Outlook and Exchange comprise a killer app for a lot of organizations. They only run on Windows. Variations on this theme have been playing out for many years now. Microsoft doesn't produce these things for other operating systems because the majority of buyers will simply go Windows to get them.
Geez...do THAT many people use all that calendaring crap in Outlook/Exhange that much? I mean, I know the managerial types that are always meeting use it, but, as a mostly techie kind of guy, I rarely have to use it.
I'd be interested to find out if their Outlook integration is any better than Kerio's. I've got a client running Kerio Mail Server with a mixture of Outlook, Entourage, Mozilla, and Apple clients, and for Outlook you have a choice of the partially-functional and extremely slow Kerio Outlook Connector (which also doesn't work offline and causes many Outlook features to self-destruct), or using Outlook's intentionally broken IMAP support with the Kerio Synchronization Plug-In, which is somewhat faster and does keep a local cache, but seems to have other problems and limitations as well.
I'd be willing to bet that a fair percentage of Slashdot users are the sort who either need to or don't mind paying for business class Internet access where you can host your own servers. I know I fall into that category. Sure, I still have several GMail accounts, and a.Mac account, but I also have my own domains that run Sendmail, Cyrus IMAP, SquirrelMail, Mailman or Majordomo, and INNd. As soon as it's feasible for me, I'll also be putting up some sort of calendaring and scheduling system. This is probably going to be Apple's Calendar Server, but may end up being Zimbra (as soon as Zimbra Desktop gets up to speed with the other modules).
With my current setup, I have full online and offline access to all my email from any standard client or via a browser. C&S gets a bit more complicated, but given that my primary environment is Mac OS X, as soon as 10.5 is released, I'll be testing the Calendar Server and the new iCal (the current iCal is less than useful, IMO). I'm testing Zimbra right now, and my only real complaint is that it seems to need a whole lot more in the way of hardware resources than my current Sendmail, etc., systems.
I've got a 3Mb DSL service with a/27 network, and most of my stuff runs off of old discarded iMacs running Mac OS X and old discarded PCs running OpenBSD or Fedora Core. I've got a nice little firewall in front to keep out the tire kickers, and I can do what ever I want with my boxen, like run RT so my clients can log in and submit trouble tickets to me, or other such useful things.
It's not just a vanity exercise for me, since I'm a technology consultant, and it's my job to stay on top of these things. Plus, I've been trying to develop for years now a residential clientele for this sort of stuff, and it's as much a critical business tool for me as it is a proof of concept.
Slashdot Mirror
You want a good definition of "neoconservative"? Read John W. Dean's book, "Conservatives Without Conscience". Authoritarian, fascist, and moralist are three words that come immediately to mind.
Well, I pretty much fit exactly your "Moderate A". I'm pro choice, anti gun control, pro death penalty, and anti war. But I don't whine, and I'm offended by you characterizing me as silly for my positions.
BTW, the "middle ground" on Iraq was:
1. There's obviously no WMD in Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein is still an asshole.
3. We've effectively contained him so he's not much of a threat.
4. We may have to do something about him in the future, but now is not the right time.
5. There's obviously no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
6. "I don't think our nation's military should be used for what's called nation building".
7. You don't cut taxes by 1.5 trillion and then start a war.
8. Let's deal with the important issues first (Afghanistan and al-Qaeda), but keep an eye on Iraq.
Untrue. First of all, "life liberty, and property", or more properly as enshrined in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution of the United States), "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", can be legally and legitimately separated from an individual through due process of law. This does not abrogate the "prinicples of the Constitution".
Second of all, your argument would seem to call into question the legitimacy of *any* government. I think most people would agree that legitimate governments can exist. For a very well thought out examination of the subject, read Randy Barnett's books on the subject of constitutional law.
Are you aware that the population of the country has increased over time?
Are you aware of the incredible disparity in the rate of income gain of the top quintile as opposed to everyone else?
You really should read up on this a bit more.
What, exactly, do you believe is the basis for all wealth? Wealth is only partially created through "voluntary exchange", as you put it. This is exactly the sort of near-sighted judgement that leads to myopic visions of Libertarian free market utopiae.
Wealth *is* zero sum. Wealth comes, ultimately, from the exploitation of natural resources, which are of finite quantity. Yes, you can build several economic layers on top of that, but ultimately, you've got to have a product in order to have a product to service. Wealth creation may be spread out, but it certainly doesn't equate with equal opportunity when you have the existence of a privileged class.
I, for one, am certainly not advocating socialism, so don't set that up as a straw man. Well-regulated capitalism is just fine with me. It's just that our government has fallen down on the "well-regulated" aspect.
Let us also not forget that the estate tax does not mean that the wealthy forfeit *all* their wealth upon death.
quoted from Wikipedia:
You realize, of course, that your arguments are not self-consistent. You contradicted your own line of reasoning.
the appropriate level of government intervention is one of putting checks on established actors to prevent them from locking out new competition
Examine this statement again in relation to everything else you just said concerning the estate tax.
Minor adjustment. I read spun's second sentence with a question mark on the end, which completely changes the perceived meaning of his post. I obviously agree with him. My post still applys to the AC reply to spun, however.
I have to say, your post, and the replying AC post, are the first two statements I've ever seen that claim that Libertarians do not believe the free market and laissez-faire capitalism the be-all/end-all of economic theories. This has been the main reason why I cannot consider anyone who calls themselves a "Libertarian" seriously, even though I espouse many libertarian positions.
If there is one thing you should understand about the relationship between an economic system and a governmental system, particularly as pertains to Capitalism, it is this--Capitalism is a positive feedback loop that will consistently and ruthlessly seek the lowest common denominator and eventually eat itself alive, unchecked. The only form of restraint that works against this tendency is Morality. Government is the embodiment of morality in society. It the the rightful moral duty of the government to regulate commerce. A free market system can solve certain economic problems, but it cannot solve them all.
I know it's fashionable to be cynical about the legislative process, but your Representative will indeed respond in some way if faced with a large number of opinions from constituents. This takes more than just a few crackpot emails, which is why I suggest that everyone able to voice an opinion do so. Just be sure you write the representative of your district, and not someone else's. In this case, do not write your Senator, because if the impeachment goes through, the accused should have a fair trial unencumbered by public opinion.
Oddly enough, if the abiotic theory ever proves out, it will mean that all (or at least, a good portion) of that carbon we're liberating was *never* part of the "natural carbon cycle"...
I urge all Slashdot readers to write their respective Congressional Representatives and voice their opinions. I have just done so.
Face it, Microsoft will force the upgrade. They always have.
However, the real problem with Vista is that it doesn't solve any pressing problems. Let's look at the last few releases of Windows:
Windows 95 - compelling upgrade because it brought a relatively modern (c. 1983) interface to the Wintel world.
Windows 98 (all versions) - compelling because it finally brought reasonable stability to the 9x branch.
Windows NT 4.0 - did for NT what 95 did for 3.1. Worked great once SP4 came out.
Windows 2000 - compelling because of Active Directory in enterprise environments.
Windows ME - absolutely no reason to use this release. It sucked big time, and we all agree on this.
Windows XP - compelling because it brought truly working USB and (post-SP2) wireless networking, along with other much improved hardware support. Especially compelling upgrade for portables.
Windows Server 2003 - partially compelling, especially if you need the new features of R2. Improved Active Directory and hardware support.
Windows Vista - no real reason to upgrade. No paradigm shifts have occurred in hardware since Wi-Fi, no major architecture changes in the software. A huge amount of cruft added on top, along with an extremely intrusive UI and DRM scheme.
Yeah, well, I'm still waiting for my very own Gay Deceiver...they keep promising us flying cars with real personalities...
That may be true, but what exactly is the point then of buying a device that runs an open OS? I mean, the whole reason I plunked down $300 for a 770 (when I knew that a replacement was in the works) is because I'm heartily sick and tired of the Palm devices I've been using (Kyocera 6135, Samsung SPH-i500, Sony Clie NX60) having absolutely no upgrades to the software available. I figured with the 770 and a new Bluetooth phone that I would be better off, but the sad fact is that there are many existing flaws in the 770, even with the latest OS update, that will likely never be fixed. Hopefully, the user community won't drop support for the 770 as quickly as Nokia has, but that remains to be seen. The potential of the 770 has barely been scratched thus far.
There's no way I'm buying an N800 after this, unless Nokia is willing to guarantee support for longer than 1.5 years. I think I'll just go for the iPhone. At least we know Apple has produced many software updates for the iPod line over several years. I don't expect the thing to be supported forever, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect support for longer than 1.5 years. My G3 iBook, which is over 4 years old, still runs the latest, greatest Mac OS X (though of course, my new MacBook Core 2 Duo is much faster at the same tasks)...why can't Nokia do the same?
And in other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is *still* dead.
I forgot to mention that I also have a Samsung WEP200 headset. The headset is the only device I have that seems to work correctly. It pairs with the phone and my MacBook with no problems, and the pairing is retained through power cycles.
or because BlueTooth is so squirrely for ordinary people to deal with
I don't know about you, but my experience with Bluetooth is that is squirrely for *anyone* do deal with. I've got a Samsung SPH-m610, a MacBook, and a Nokia 770, and Bluetooth is pathetic on all three of these units. I've even tried the MacBook with both Mac OS X and Windows, and it makes little difference. Bluetooth, in my experience, has been craptacular.
Every time I try to pair from the MacBook to the phone under Mac OS X, it crashes the phone. Every time I try to pair from the 770 to the phone, the 770 never completes the transaction. Every time one of these devices powers off, they have to be re-paired. I can eventually, with some calisthenics, get connections to work, but it's never easy, never seamless, and never fully functional.
OK, I've never actually used a Zune, but I will say this--Microsoft is poised to actually make a significant dent in Apple's sales. I've maintained all along that it is not healthy for the recording industry in general for one company to have a dominant position in market share. We need competition. Apple needs competition. Apple simply cannot maintain their leadership position for very much longer, for the very simple reason that Apple has already commoditized the digital audio player. The iPod and iTunes experience clearly works for a huge number of users, and there isn't anything about it (aside from a few questionable patents) that prevents any other company from nearly duplicating the iPod's success. The staggering fact that no other company has been able to get out of their own way for long enough to do this is not evidence that it cannot or will not be done.
First of all, the one thing that everyone needs to wrap their heads around is that there is no effective way to protect digital content. DRM simply doesn't work from a technical standpoint, let alone a human rights standpoint. Once Apple (and by extension, everyone else) starts selling DRM-free files, there nothing preventing you moving your iTunes purchases (or any other digital content purchases) from device to device, regardless of manufacturer. When this happens, every other DAP manufacturer gets access to the iTunes store, and Apple gets access to everyone else's stores. I still think that DRM-free means the recording industry will be gutted, but that's going to happen even if we keep the DRM, so we may as well just get it out of the way now. There will always be a market for recordings that cost money, but it's going to be a lot smaller than the current mostly-CD based model. I think the recent report of CD sales being down 20% year over year is the first evidence that we've reached the tipping point.
Second, how many "innovative" features can you pack into a DAP before you run out of options? Let's face it, mobile convergence is upon us. The iPhone will be the first of the next generation of mobile computing platforms, but development isn't going to stop there. I'm sure that within five years, we will all be carrying primarily one mobile device. This class of devices will integrate all the telephony, Internet access, audio/video entertainment, gaming, photography, data storage, and PDA functions into one relatively seamless package. We've come close so far, but not quite grasped the cigar, with devices like Palm and Windows Mobile smartphones, the Nokia 770/N800, Sony Mylo & PSP, etc. Possibly, there may even be a few more new features that could be added, but eventually, you're going to reach a point of diminishing returns.
What are the main hardware factors that need to be solved? Battery life, flash memory prices, and power consumption, all of which we are making great strides on every year. What are the main software factors that need to be solved? Well, really none. It's more of a marketing issue than it is a software issue. Apple has already demonstrated (and conclusively, at last) that there actually is a market for software that works well and easily with iPod+iTunes. The complexity of Windows is becoming less of a factor, especially when you consider that from the mobile devices perspective, Apple has also demonstrated that you can make a standalone software package that works the same way on Windows that it does on Mac OS X.
So, bring it on Microsoft! And bring it in brown! I like brown! It's not going to kill the iPod or iTunes, but it will make everybody sit up, take notice, and keep innovating.
Maybe the Zune doesn't work as well as it should, but it was a good idea. I definitely think that we'll see a "squirt" feature not long after the iPhone ships, if it doesn't have it on day one. It runs Mac OS X. The programs are Dashboard widgets. I predict that the development platform will not be as closed as some others think. It will be hackable, and it will be hacked, at least in the classic sense and not t
Well, it's not technically "existing" anymore, but all those things were met pretty well by Netscape Communicator 4 and Netscape SuiteSpot 3, ten years ago. In fact, if you go back and look at the trade press of the time, you will find that the Netscape products were considered far superior to Exchange 5 and Outlook, and arguably would even today be considered good products.
The Communicator client had the browser, the email, the directory, and the calendaring/scheduling stuff, and the back end was Netscape Directory Server, Netscape Messaging Server, Netscape Collabra Server, Netscape Calendar Server (a rebranded CS&T Calendar Server. CS&T became Steltor, and was subsequently bought by Oracle. The products still exist, but cannot be purchased standalone--only as part of the Oracle server suite.), and Netscape Cetificate Server (plus a few other specialized servers).
The server suite had browser gateways for everything. The only thing really missing was effective relay prevention and anti-spam. The relay problem could be easily solved by front-ending with Sendmail.
Boy, did Netscape fuck that one up.
If you can show me Outlook running on 2 non-Microsoft operating systems, providing the same array of features that Outlook currently provides for Windows, I will concede.
And now you know why Microsoft is the dominant software company in the world. Outlook and Exchange comprise a killer app for a lot of organizations. They only run on Windows. Variations on this theme have been playing out for many years now. Microsoft doesn't produce these things for other operating systems because the majority of buyers will simply go Windows to get them.
Geez...do THAT many people use all that calendaring crap in Outlook/Exhange that much? I mean, I know the managerial types that are always meeting use it, but, as a mostly techie kind of guy, I rarely have to use it.
Please read what you wrote again.
I'd be interested to find out if their Outlook integration is any better than Kerio's. I've got a client running Kerio Mail Server with a mixture of Outlook, Entourage, Mozilla, and Apple clients, and for Outlook you have a choice of the partially-functional and extremely slow Kerio Outlook Connector (which also doesn't work offline and causes many Outlook features to self-destruct), or using Outlook's intentionally broken IMAP support with the Kerio Synchronization Plug-In, which is somewhat faster and does keep a local cache, but seems to have other problems and limitations as well.
Actually, right now, it's just email. The other stuff will hopefully come in short order.
I'd be willing to bet that a fair percentage of Slashdot users are the sort who either need to or don't mind paying for business class Internet access where you can host your own servers. I know I fall into that category. Sure, I still have several GMail accounts, and a .Mac account, but I also have my own domains that run Sendmail, Cyrus IMAP, SquirrelMail, Mailman or Majordomo, and INNd. As soon as it's feasible for me, I'll also be putting up some sort of calendaring and scheduling system. This is probably going to be Apple's Calendar Server, but may end up being Zimbra (as soon as Zimbra Desktop gets up to speed with the other modules).
/27 network, and most of my stuff runs off of old discarded iMacs running Mac OS X and old discarded PCs running OpenBSD or Fedora Core. I've got a nice little firewall in front to keep out the tire kickers, and I can do what ever I want with my boxen, like run RT so my clients can log in and submit trouble tickets to me, or other such useful things.
With my current setup, I have full online and offline access to all my email from any standard client or via a browser. C&S gets a bit more complicated, but given that my primary environment is Mac OS X, as soon as 10.5 is released, I'll be testing the Calendar Server and the new iCal (the current iCal is less than useful, IMO). I'm testing Zimbra right now, and my only real complaint is that it seems to need a whole lot more in the way of hardware resources than my current Sendmail, etc., systems.
I've got a 3Mb DSL service with a
It's not just a vanity exercise for me, since I'm a technology consultant, and it's my job to stay on top of these things. Plus, I've been trying to develop for years now a residential clientele for this sort of stuff, and it's as much a critical business tool for me as it is a proof of concept.