I didn't attack you, I attacked the assertion, because it's so ludicrous as to be completely false. It's that naive. It doesn't follow any logic or common sense.
Presidents and their people have 100% control of whatever's in the picture frame of the cameras presented to the media. This is well-documented and rarely wrong.
These people play hard-ball -- if they don't want a banner in the shot or feel the banner is saying the wrong thing, it wouldn't have been there. There'd be a small Army (no pun intended) of aides up there taking it down themselves before the cameras turned on, if need be.
The man is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He's allowed to take down banners if he wants to. Ask any Admiral if they'd take it down if the President ordered them to.
If you took the "retarded" comment as personal, you shouldn't have. The only thing I would say to you personally if asked would be that you're very misguided if you think the President and his people didn't know a banner was covering the entire upper superstructure of an aircraft carrier in the camera's field of view behind the President. Give us a break.
Of course, but the poster was trying to insinuate that the President didn't know or care that this huge banner was behind him. We all know his PR people knew it was there, and knew the risks of leaving it there for sound/video-bytes. If they wanted it taken down, it wouldn't have been there. The poster's assertion that the President was just "blindsided" by it, is retarded.
Ahh. Outlook Express. The toy. Yeah, I'd expect that from that piece of junk.
I was talking about Outlook. I hate it, but I do have one machine at work that has a 4GB+.pst folder. I'm sure it'll get blown up by something sooner or later, but I (unlike many) know how to keep backups.
Bullshit. CEO's who need the 1% of features in Outlook virtually no one else in their organizations needs drive idiots like you to ask questions like "How can his secretary read his mail?".
Meanwhile that same idiot would save a fortune if he/she weren't so pampered and didn't need that crap, knowing that the rest of his/her employees don't need it, and his secretaries JOBS are to keep his/her damn calendar straight -- computer or not.
For the record, the stuff you're asking for is easy. Give the secretaries the login for his IMAP account. Done.
As far as the "sync to PDA" goes, if you have that working today he's either on a Crackberry or he's using Palm, or some version of Windows Mobile.
It's not happening because Exchange does it for him/her. Sync to PDA is not a built-in Exchange feature, moron.
There are both "push" apps that work with PDA's from other mail servers as well as simple docking-cradle synchronization to a central system. It *can* be done, if you're not stupid.
If your same imagination-challenged boring corporate CIO said tomorrow, "We have to stop paying for this Microsoft shit. Fix it." You'd have an "acceptable" solution to him within a couple of months, easy.
It's not about features/functionality. It's about what the bosses want.
When the companies that follow their advice have exhausted their funds, the companies that spent wisely will still be around.
Bring on a huge economic down-turn and lots of people turning companies into the BSA, I say. Wheeee.
Lots of shit got straightened out by the bubble burst in the IT industry. From time to time, we could do with a little more of that type of fiscal sanity.
The company can't run their own internal AJAX-based solution? The guy you were replying to didn't say whether the AJAX solution was hosted in-house or off-site.
Oh by the way, your ISP makes a copy of every inbound message you receive and then shoots those to tape backup.:-)
(Just kidding. Making a point.)
E-mail isn't secure, private, or anything else related to security or privacy -- and never will be. (Without encryption on every message meant to be truly private.) Pulling your mail off the ISP's server "quickly" buys you absolutely NOTHING other than keeping your disk quota down.
Nah, all it takes is a suitably bad fiscal year, a boss with enough of a clue to decree that he's not going to spend his company's hard-earned money on Exchange anymore, and a couple of good admins who have a clue about how to build a reliable IMAP server.
Even better would be to present the cost-savings to shareholders. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Board of Directors that spending money on MS Exchange is a waste of a lot of company resources, and do it right. Get the Board and Shareholders to demand better stewardship of the IT dollars spent.
As evidenced by the Ernie Ball scenario, all it takes is a mandate from above. It'd be done in ANY size organization within a month or two, if the higher-ups dictated it. It's plenty "feasible" if the boss says GET IT DONE.
All large companies shaft employees by the thousands, pay the CEO gazillions, and don't give a damn where the IT guy gets his information -- although this dude is in sad shape if he's in charge and he can't answer these questions without Slashdot's help -- and so is his company. They just don't know it yet.
Name a place where you should NOT ask questions like "Why the fuck do we have 40,000 computers anyway? Do all these people really need them, Internet access, or anything computer-related at all to get their damn jobs done?" (GRIN)
A lot of people in many companies really don't need nor should have a computer. Not exactly the type of fact that the Slashdot crowd will enjoy much, but true.
Idiots + Processes that require computers where a pencil and paper would do = Disaster no matter what OS it runs on.
Shared calendars are overrated. Yes, I know they're often the sticking point in migrations away from Exchange, but people can and will use a web-based calendar if required to switch.
And beyond that, if it's a small company a paper real calendar stuck on a common wall somewhere really does do a fine job. A fancy calendar white-board works even better and costs orders of magnitudes less money. In fact most organizations could take 50% of their desktop machines away, hand out a few reference manuals for those answering questions on the phones, and save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars, tomorrow.
They won't, but paper and filing cabinets still works better than almost any CMS in single-site workplaces.
I would love hearing that my competitor paid $10k every few years (server upgrades, version upgrades, the whole she-bang) for a fucking calendar, if I were the small biz 'round the corner competing with you.
In a managed environment, the users shouldn't be doing that anyway. It should be a crontab installed on their machines, immutable, that checks to see if you've added anything to the repository nightly.
That's the part you seem to be missing. Users shouldn't need or have to update their own machines in a managed environment -- you should be in control of that from start to finish.
Hell yes. If every Linux/Unix admin turned in one company in their town they THINK has even a chance of non-compliance a day, anonymously of course, and the SBA goes after a large percentage of them -- Linux in their town will take off dramatically.;-)
No they don't do this - the SBA "negotiates" a long-term contract with the company to purchase MS products in LIEU of the company paying $LARGE per machine. The SBA pockets a $LARGE fee for winning the contract, and MS can claim that they have X number of customers on long-term purchase agreements.
Works with Firefox, but is only a two-pane UI with Firefox and Safari. Three-pane UI and more "interactive" features with MSIE. Surprise, surprise? No.
Slashdot Mirror
Layer 8 - Religion ("We're a Microsoft shop.")
;-)
Layer 9 - Politics ("The boss wants it, even if it's stupid.)
Both of which are more important than the other 7 layers.
I didn't attack you, I attacked the assertion, because it's so ludicrous as to be completely false. It's that naive. It doesn't follow any logic or common sense.
Presidents and their people have 100% control of whatever's in the picture frame of the cameras presented to the media. This is well-documented and rarely wrong.
These people play hard-ball -- if they don't want a banner in the shot or feel the banner is saying the wrong thing, it wouldn't have been there. There'd be a small Army (no pun intended) of aides up there taking it down themselves before the cameras turned on, if need be.
The man is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces. He's allowed to take down banners if he wants to. Ask any Admiral if they'd take it down if the President ordered them to.
If you took the "retarded" comment as personal, you shouldn't have. The only thing I would say to you personally if asked would be that you're very misguided if you think the President and his people didn't know a banner was covering the entire upper superstructure of an aircraft carrier in the camera's field of view behind the President. Give us a break.
Of course, but the poster was trying to insinuate that the President didn't know or care that this huge banner was behind him. We all know his PR people knew it was there, and knew the risks of leaving it there for sound/video-bytes. If they wanted it taken down, it wouldn't have been there. The poster's assertion that the President was just "blindsided" by it, is retarded.
Ahh. Outlook Express. The toy. Yeah, I'd expect that from that piece of junk.
.pst folder. I'm sure it'll get blown up by something sooner or later, but I (unlike many) know how to keep backups.
I was talking about Outlook. I hate it, but I do have one machine at work that has a 4GB+
So you suckered me in and I clicked on the link.
You started a search engine that indexes things by how many other people link to it?
Uhh man, have you seen Google? I think you missed it by a few years.
Bullshit. CEO's who need the 1% of features in Outlook virtually no one else in their organizations needs drive idiots like you to ask questions like "How can his secretary read his mail?".
Meanwhile that same idiot would save a fortune if he/she weren't so pampered and didn't need that crap, knowing that the rest of his/her employees don't need it, and his secretaries JOBS are to keep his/her damn calendar straight -- computer or not.
For the record, the stuff you're asking for is easy. Give the secretaries the login for his IMAP account. Done.
As far as the "sync to PDA" goes, if you have that working today he's either on a Crackberry or he's using Palm, or some version of Windows Mobile.
It's not happening because Exchange does it for him/her. Sync to PDA is not a built-in Exchange feature, moron.
There are both "push" apps that work with PDA's from other mail servers as well as simple docking-cradle synchronization to a central system. It *can* be done, if you're not stupid.
If your same imagination-challenged boring corporate CIO said tomorrow, "We have to stop paying for this Microsoft shit. Fix it." You'd have an "acceptable" solution to him within a couple of months, easy.
It's not about features/functionality. It's about what the bosses want.
Who gives a fuck what ZDNet thinks?
When the companies that follow their advice have exhausted their funds, the companies that spent wisely will still be around.
Bring on a huge economic down-turn and lots of people turning companies into the BSA, I say. Wheeee.
Lots of shit got straightened out by the bubble burst in the IT industry. From time to time, we could do with a little more of that type of fiscal sanity.
The company can't run their own internal AJAX-based solution? The guy you were replying to didn't say whether the AJAX solution was hosted in-house or off-site.
:-)
Oh by the way, your ISP makes a copy of every inbound message you receive and then shoots those to tape backup.
(Just kidding. Making a point.)
E-mail isn't secure, private, or anything else related to security or privacy -- and never will be. (Without encryption on every message meant to be truly private.) Pulling your mail off the ISP's server "quickly" buys you absolutely NOTHING other than keeping your disk quota down.
Non-Free license: check
Try mutt.
Just as good, now with Added Lack of Bullshit Licenses from the University of Washington's bored and overpaid lawyers!
Could you explain what supposedly happens when a mailbox grows beyond 2GB? A machine I use regularly has a 4GB .pst on it, and works fine.
Nah, all it takes is a suitably bad fiscal year, a boss with enough of a clue to decree that he's not going to spend his company's hard-earned money on Exchange anymore, and a couple of good admins who have a clue about how to build a reliable IMAP server.
Even better would be to present the cost-savings to shareholders. Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to the Board of Directors that spending money on MS Exchange is a waste of a lot of company resources, and do it right. Get the Board and Shareholders to demand better stewardship of the IT dollars spent.
IMAP fixes all those other retarded problems you mentioned.
How right you are. If a boss said, "We are switching next month"... amazingly, the alternatives would instantly become "acceptable".
Entourage is missing one damn important feature. It can't import a user's pre-existing .pst files when they migrate to it.
As evidenced by the Ernie Ball scenario, all it takes is a mandate from above. It'd be done in ANY size organization within a month or two, if the higher-ups dictated it. It's plenty "feasible" if the boss says GET IT DONE.
All large companies shaft employees by the thousands, pay the CEO gazillions, and don't give a damn where the IT guy gets his information -- although this dude is in sad shape if he's in charge and he can't answer these questions without Slashdot's help -- and so is his company. They just don't know it yet.
Name a place where you should NOT ask questions like "Why the fuck do we have 40,000 computers anyway? Do all these people really need them, Internet access, or anything computer-related at all to get their damn jobs done?" (GRIN)
A lot of people in many companies really don't need nor should have a computer. Not exactly the type of fact that the Slashdot crowd will enjoy much, but true.
Idiots + Processes that require computers where a pencil and paper would do = Disaster no matter what OS it runs on.
Shared calendars are overrated. Yes, I know they're often the sticking point in migrations away from Exchange, but people can and will use a web-based calendar if required to switch.
And beyond that, if it's a small company a paper real calendar stuck on a common wall somewhere really does do a fine job. A fancy calendar white-board works even better and costs orders of magnitudes less money. In fact most organizations could take 50% of their desktop machines away, hand out a few reference manuals for those answering questions on the phones, and save themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars, tomorrow.
They won't, but paper and filing cabinets still works better than almost any CMS in single-site workplaces.
I would love hearing that my competitor paid $10k every few years (server upgrades, version upgrades, the whole she-bang) for a fucking calendar, if I were the small biz 'round the corner competing with you.
Poor fuckers, sounds like a nice migration if they didn't have to use GroupWise. ;-)
In a managed environment, the users shouldn't be doing that anyway. It should be a crontab installed on their machines, immutable, that checks to see if you've added anything to the repository nightly.
That's the part you seem to be missing. Users shouldn't need or have to update their own machines in a managed environment -- you should be in control of that from start to finish.
Hell yes. If every Linux/Unix admin turned in one company in their town they THINK has even a chance of non-compliance a day, anonymously of course, and the SBA goes after a large percentage of them -- Linux in their town will take off dramatically. ;-)
No they don't do this - the SBA "negotiates" a long-term contract with the company to purchase MS products in LIEU of the company paying $LARGE per machine. The SBA pockets a $LARGE fee for winning the contract, and MS can claim that they have X number of customers on long-term purchase agreements.
Yeah, and the fucking PRESIDENT and his team couldn't get it taken down? Right.
Works with Firefox, but is only a two-pane UI with Firefox and Safari. Three-pane UI and more "interactive" features with MSIE. Surprise, surprise? No.