Well, let's just hope they ARE interested in Open Source, instead of trying to write all these non-gpl applications that only work right on their distribution.
How come everytime a company that's not "on top" goes and tries to expand their market, you get fools like this that say ignorant things like "this is a last ditch effort?"
Bah. I consider Novell a good asset to have behind Linux, they still have a lot of capital and talent in the company. I hope they use it wisely.
"The real problem with AD is it is a horrible crossbread between a directory and their old domain system"
Not only that, but the fact that AD is filled with nonsense.. much like the Windows Registry. Why couldn't they have made something that was more refined, slick, and easier to manage? They had every opportunity and they blew it big time.
"The main motivation has to be something more along the lines of wanting the best software and realizing (or thinking) that open source is the way for that."
While nice, this has never and will never be the reason a company ever does anything. However, if companies feel they have to do OSS to stay competitive then the end result could very well be better software, so I suppose it works out in the end.
I actually meant to word it "court hearing" but I wrote court order. I'm fairly certian the cops went to their friendly neighborhood judge on the down-low and got a warrant.
Good response. Gotta love people that actually read an article and get it all wrong.
The thing is, if this was any other business besides a government one (more specifically a police one), they would have to sue him like anyone else, not immediately seize all his gear. This is the problem with cops in general, they have the power to act and ruin your life, and ask questions later.
I don't care if this guy DID try to inflate the prices and such, I do not feel as though the police should have the right to do this to him without a court order.
I don't think it's a problem, if Macromedia is going to make it work under Wine, it will probably work really well, unlike say Photoshop which never had linux in mind.
Just because the IMAP support is a little flakey doesn't mean the entire thing "sucks completely."
IMAP works in Outlook, it's just not that great.
Everything else seems to work just great. Hey, it's okay if you don't agree. I believe that Outlook is a good program, it's always worked very well for me.
I have not and will not say that other mail clients are bad. I think Evolution is a very nice e-mail client, but look at it. It's Outlook! Ohh, but sheesh, I guess it's okay to like an Outlook clone.
We really can't ignore the fact that Outlook also interfaces with Exchange either.
We need a free backend server system like Exchange. Even if it's not as featurefull, if you could at least keep the message store on the server, share contacts and calandars, and have public folders..
Yea. I have purchased CrossoverOffice in the past, and have demo'd their "server" version.
Codeweavers is a great company, and it works perfectly. I've been running Office XP in Linux for awhile now. I don't use it much, except for Outlook, and the occational Word doc that doesn't look right in OO. But it sure is nice to have.
Strange, I've been running Outlook since it was called "Microsoft Exchange" (old inbox client) and I've never gotten a virus.
Maybe that's because I don't open attachments that say "awesome_cash_here.exe."
If you opened an executable linux binary or script on a linux box, you'd be screwed just like any Outlook user.
I mean, I'm sorry, but I honestly can't blame Microsoft for some of these e-mail worms. The latest batch of them REQUIRE you to open the attachment and confirm that you would really like to open them. I don't see how this could ever be "corrected" any more then it is..
To me, if a peice of software is well organized and feature rich, it's very nice. I don't see any other way of looking at it.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I do like a good peice of software when it's good no matter where it comes from.
I think Outlook is one of the very few softwares on MS's list that is good. Exchange 5.5 is the other one I thought was well done.
I agree that IMAP is not very good in Outlook 2003, but I don't use it, and a lot of folks don't. I use it with Exchange mostly, but also as a Pop client in a lot of places. It works exceptionally well.
I agree; IM is really useful and I use it on a daily basis. It's fantastic for keeping in touch with my friends (easier and less attention grabbing then a phone call for sure) and close coworkers. It won't replace e-mail, ever, though.
In business, I need to communicate with everyone, not just people who happen to have IM.
Plus, the idea of e-mail is sound. You can just toss someone an e-mail and be relatively sure they will recieve it. You can include as much or as little information in them as you please, and attachments almost always work (versus IM file transfers which fail more often then not.)
It's a pity that it's so abused by spamming tards. They are the kind of people that will force government action on an otherwise free and open medium. I won't be the very bit surprised when we have to start paying some "governing company" or registrar for every e-mail address on a domain, so that you can prove it's a legit message.
No, you're right about that. Outlook 2003 is a very nice, well organized, fast e-mail client. Great features and less cluttered then previous versions.
I hope that the other mail clients can achieve a similar level of functionality and interface attributes.
Gone are the days where a simple pop client will get the job done for me. I need a more robust package. Outlook certainly fills this position, but it's not cheap and it only runs on Windows.
I'd buy Outlook 2003 if it was available for Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
Ohh yea, duhh... just like all of us do at the local stores in the mall. You: "Take $50 for this TV?" Salesperson: "No. Tag says $75 moron."
Bartering isn't commonplace anymore, unless of course you're buying a car and don't want to be charged double.
Naa, that only happens when you're running for President and your brother is governor.
Coo! Sayth the Raven.
Well, let's just hope they ARE interested in Open Source, instead of trying to write all these non-gpl applications that only work right on their distribution.
Show me the proof?
How come everytime a company that's not "on top" goes and tries to expand their market, you get fools like this that say ignorant things like "this is a last ditch effort?"
Bah. I consider Novell a good asset to have behind Linux, they still have a lot of capital and talent in the company. I hope they use it wisely.
"The real problem with AD is it is a horrible crossbread between a directory and their old domain system"
Not only that, but the fact that AD is filled with nonsense.. much like the Windows Registry. Why couldn't they have made something that was more refined, slick, and easier to manage? They had every opportunity and they blew it big time.
Oh well, that's Microsoft for ya.
"The main motivation has to be something more along the lines of wanting the best software and realizing (or thinking) that open source is the way for that."
While nice, this has never and will never be the reason a company ever does anything. However, if companies feel they have to do OSS to stay competitive then the end result could very well be better software, so I suppose it works out in the end.
Why take things so litteraly? I think he means "an alternative to AD" since most people don't use Netware anymore.
I think NDS is pretty good. As simple or complex as you need it to be. (AD on the other hand is complicated from the start.)
Yea, all of a sudden anything having to do with "illegal" content is immediately labeled "peer to peer."
I actually meant to word it "court hearing" but I wrote court order. I'm fairly certian the cops went to their friendly neighborhood judge on the down-low and got a warrant.
It still sucks.
Good response. Gotta love people that actually read an article and get it all wrong.
The thing is, if this was any other business besides a government one (more specifically a police one), they would have to sue him like anyone else, not immediately seize all his gear. This is the problem with cops in general, they have the power to act and ruin your life, and ask questions later.
I don't care if this guy DID try to inflate the prices and such, I do not feel as though the police should have the right to do this to him without a court order.
I don't think it's a problem, if Macromedia is going to make it work under Wine, it will probably work really well, unlike say Photoshop which never had linux in mind.
Ohh come on.
Just because the IMAP support is a little flakey doesn't mean the entire thing "sucks completely."
IMAP works in Outlook, it's just not that great.
Everything else seems to work just great. Hey, it's okay if you don't agree. I believe that Outlook is a good program, it's always worked very well for me.
I do agree.
I have not and will not say that other mail clients are bad. I think Evolution is a very nice e-mail client, but look at it. It's Outlook! Ohh, but sheesh, I guess it's okay to like an Outlook clone.
We really can't ignore the fact that Outlook also interfaces with Exchange either.
We need a free backend server system like Exchange. Even if it's not as featurefull, if you could at least keep the message store on the server, share contacts and calandars, and have public folders..
Yea. I have purchased CrossoverOffice in the past, and have demo'd their "server" version.
Codeweavers is a great company, and it works perfectly. I've been running Office XP in Linux for awhile now. I don't use it much, except for Outlook, and the occational Word doc that doesn't look right in OO. But it sure is nice to have.
Or Internet Explorer.
It would be neat if the Mozilla installer had the option to remove IE =)
With a post like your's, who's the true troll here? Moron.
Strange, I've been running Outlook since it was called "Microsoft Exchange" (old inbox client) and I've never gotten a virus.
Maybe that's because I don't open attachments that say "awesome_cash_here.exe."
If you opened an executable linux binary or script on a linux box, you'd be screwed just like any Outlook user.
I mean, I'm sorry, but I honestly can't blame Microsoft for some of these e-mail worms. The latest batch of them REQUIRE you to open the attachment and confirm that you would really like to open them. I don't see how this could ever be "corrected" any more then it is..
To me, if a peice of software is well organized and feature rich, it's very nice. I don't see any other way of looking at it.
I'm not a Microsoft fan, but I do like a good peice of software when it's good no matter where it comes from.
I think Outlook is one of the very few softwares on MS's list that is good. Exchange 5.5 is the other one I thought was well done.
I agree that IMAP is not very good in Outlook 2003, but I don't use it, and a lot of folks don't. I use it with Exchange mostly, but also as a Pop client in a lot of places. It works exceptionally well.
You're right about that. LDAP in Outlook 2003 is like an afterthought.
Some MS manager: "dude, you forgot about IMAP."
Some MS coder: "ohh yea. I'll whip one up before next week's deadline."
Queueing in IM is certianly a good idea, but it's the the proper format to rely on this.
With an e-mail client, you recieve messages, you organize them, etc. With an IM client, you can perhaps log chat text in a file, but that's about it.
Less we also not forger that with IM we're relying on a company to provide the service, whereas e-mail has no single point of failure or defunction.
I agree; IM is really useful and I use it on a daily basis. It's fantastic for keeping in touch with my friends (easier and less attention grabbing then a phone call for sure) and close coworkers. It won't replace e-mail, ever, though.
In business, I need to communicate with everyone, not just people who happen to have IM.
Plus, the idea of e-mail is sound. You can just toss someone an e-mail and be relatively sure they will recieve it. You can include as much or as little information in them as you please, and attachments almost always work (versus IM file transfers which fail more often then not.)
It's a pity that it's so abused by spamming tards. They are the kind of people that will force government action on an otherwise free and open medium. I won't be the very bit surprised when we have to start paying some "governing company" or registrar for every e-mail address on a domain, so that you can prove it's a legit message.
This isn't true.
Microsoft very rarely makes any significant changes to it's OS with service packs. SP3 for NT4, and XP SP2 will be the two notables.
It's not an elegant alternative to E-Mail in any event, even if the IM server will "queue" the messages for you.
The main point is that IM is not even close to a viable alternative to E-Mail and it was somewhat off the wall for him to suggest so.
No, you're right about that. Outlook 2003 is a very nice, well organized, fast e-mail client. Great features and less cluttered then previous versions.
I hope that the other mail clients can achieve a similar level of functionality and interface attributes.
Gone are the days where a simple pop client will get the job done for me. I need a more robust package. Outlook certainly fills this position, but it's not cheap and it only runs on Windows.
I'd buy Outlook 2003 if it was available for Linux.
Good for you, but most people can't rely on IM for virtually all of their communications.
IM generally requires the party on the other end to be logged in and sitting at their PC. E-Mail does not.