Um, Microsoft DOES have open documentation for the Exchange protocols. Google even has a license to implement them (why you need a license to implement a publicly availably spec I'll never know).
Yes, but there are easy to follow instructions to undo the "signed apps only" restriction, since Microsoft doesn't want to stand in the way of "developers developers developers". Try THAT on Mac OS X Mobile (or even Symbian if locked down in such a manner).
It's been done. Court ruled in favour of an argument that a PS3 should be expected to last at least 5 years. Granted, they didn't specify what they thought was reasonable.
Troll? Nice. If that mod was actually present, they'd actually know that it actually was me. Well, if you knew who I was anyway.
Still, it seemed the presenter thought that he was asking if the app would be removed from sale, not remote nuked from devices. Anyway, pleased to hear that this isn't necessarily the case- the response seemed to indicate that the nuke would occur for any app Microsoft removed.
Bear in mind folks, that Apple can do, and have done, the same thing as well.
One of the reasons the iPhone is so popular, however, is that it is restricted and that results in a better signal to noise ratio when trying to buy applications to run on it.
You know, I distinctly recall them lobbying to make jailbreaking illegal because "jailbroken iPhones can be used to commit terrorism by executing Denial of Service attacks on wireless networks!"
That's a rather ironic selection of signature-link for this post don't you think?
Anyway, I don't agree that it's just about "preventing PC-style chaos". Apple makes a mint from us iPhone developers, and I hardly imagine they want their revenue stream annihilated by a bunch of "run anything" code interpreters.
** It's off-topic I know, but I always felt like forcing the entirety of the Windows source code to be public domain would have been the best punishment for Microsoft after they were convicted of abusing their monopoly. What better punishment for an abusive monopolist than to give anyone and everyone the ability to directly compete with them on their own turf? It's certainly a neater solution than meaningless fines or any of the proposals to split them up into multiple companies.
It's actually relatively on-topic. Anyway, what you're suggesting would almost certainly violate the Berne Convention. And I'm pretty sure your government is legally obliged to adhere to international treaties.
Actually, Google Apps (premier only) has support for a connector Google built to feed Exchange Free/Busy information into Google Apps. So it can be done with little trouble.
How is Exchange not a real email server. For some reason, I've never had an outage of Exchange except that one time the power supply caught fire. Am I doing it wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Microsoft DOES have open documentation for the Exchange protocols. Google even has a license to implement them (why you need a license to implement a publicly availably spec I'll never know).
Yes, but they bought it not developed it.
No, I actually meant I was physically present at TechEd and was the one who asked that question.
Yes, but there are easy to follow instructions to undo the "signed apps only" restriction, since Microsoft doesn't want to stand in the way of "developers developers developers". Try THAT on Mac OS X Mobile (or even Symbian if locked down in such a manner).
Actually, the gripes and confusion are more prevalent on the actual Developer forum (free developer login required to view),
Madness?!? THIS IS SPARTA!
Yeah, back on topic now.
Granted, actually. I'm not even 100% certain that the baby-shaker app was remote-nuked. Regardless, the ability is there.
It's been done. Court ruled in favour of an argument that a PS3 should be expected to last at least 5 years. Granted, they didn't specify what they thought was reasonable.
Troll? Nice. If that mod was actually present, they'd actually know that it actually was me. Well, if you knew who I was anyway.
Still, it seemed the presenter thought that he was asking if the app would be removed from sale, not remote nuked from devices. Anyway, pleased to hear that this isn't necessarily the case- the response seemed to indicate that the nuke would occur for any app Microsoft removed.
Bear in mind folks, that Apple can do, and have done, the same thing as well.
Woot. I was the one that asked that question too! Well, I clarified the question anyway since the guy didn't get it the first time.
Greetings Apple FUD machine!
You NEVER need to submit the source of your application.
If the app appears not to respond to the user for x amount of time (no-one actually knows what x is) then the OS terminates it.
And now it'll try to pawn you a crappy, expensive, database engine.
One of the reasons the iPhone is so popular, however, is that it is restricted and that results in a better signal to noise ratio when trying to buy applications to run on it.
No it doesn't.
You know, I distinctly recall them lobbying to make jailbreaking illegal because "jailbroken iPhones can be used to commit terrorism by executing Denial of Service attacks on wireless networks!"
Yeah. They so don't care.
But you have to pay them $100 to do it.
You'd only have access to the application bundle and containing folder. It's CHROOT jailed.
Damn. NTVDM is actually resilient against that. Sure, it halts the VDM, but Windows doesn't go down with it.
No, he's quite right. He said that a vast 99.8% of folks could care less - which is pretty damn obvious from the sales.
That's a rather ironic selection of signature-link for this post don't you think?
Anyway, I don't agree that it's just about "preventing PC-style chaos". Apple makes a mint from us iPhone developers, and I hardly imagine they want their revenue stream annihilated by a bunch of "run anything" code interpreters.
** It's off-topic I know, but I always felt like forcing the entirety of the Windows source code to be public domain would have been the best punishment for Microsoft after they were convicted of abusing their monopoly. What better punishment for an abusive monopolist than to give anyone and everyone the ability to directly compete with them on their own turf? It's certainly a neater solution than meaningless fines or any of the proposals to split them up into multiple companies.
It's actually relatively on-topic. Anyway, what you're suggesting would almost certainly violate the Berne Convention. And I'm pretty sure your government is legally obliged to adhere to international treaties.
They forgot to count the Wheel of Time.
Actually, Google Apps (premier only) has support for a connector Google built to feed Exchange Free/Busy information into Google Apps. So it can be done with little trouble.
How is Exchange not a real email server. For some reason, I've never had an outage of Exchange except that one time the power supply caught fire. Am I doing it wrong?