You don't have to pay royalties. You are free to read the specs without paying royalties. You are free to integrate the information from those specs in third-party software so long as it is non-commercial.
OpenOffice is non-commercial. KOffice is non-commercial. IBM would have to pay to license the patents if they wanted to include that information in their commercial Lotus Symphony suite.
I'm also curious about Novell in this situation. They have a patent agreement. Is this going to be thrown in? And is the project commercial if the software itself is free (as in beer) but people charge for support?
"Google's labels do not fully replace hierarchical organization because there is no way to declare this relationship between different labels."
Except in how you name them. You can place the relationship directly in the name.
"English and most other languages sucks. Esperanto (or preferably Ido) are better in every way."
English is difficult and cumbersome, except it is also flexible. Part of the reason English is so popular is because it embraces bits of so many other languages. Esperanto is strictly defined.
However, your comparison is inherently faulty. You're comparing a major upheaval (dumping your spoken language) with a minor procedure for dealing with email. They aren't remotely comparable in how difficult it is. In weighing a cost/benefit scenario for making a change, the cost of that change is extremely relevant.
Keeping the email does zero good if you can't find it. You can select multiple messages at once, and then apply a label to them. The messages are still selected. Now hit archive, and they disappear from your inbox.
The difference being if you want, you have the option of labeling an email to keep track of it, and still keep it in your inbox if you so desire. A folder can't do that.
I love hierarchical organization. I'm neurotic. Everything I do has to be uber-organized. When I go shopping for groceries, I organize the groceries as I pull them out, so they go into seperate bags based upon how I plan to unload them.
The point is that labels FULLY REPLACE all the functionality of hierarchical organization while also extending it.
I can label something relating to a project, and a sub-issue of that project.
A case I just posted to someone else is a recent Aurosys upgrade I did for work. I can label it with "Aurosys" to encompass everything Aurosys, even outside the upgrade. I can then label it for the specific upgrade project. Then I can apply another label for the specific vendor I'm dealing with as a subset of that upgrade.
Three months down the road I'll have new issues with that vendor, or with that system.
I can search for Eckleman (vendor), Aurosys (overall system) or the project. Even better I can search for combinations of these things, or exclude certain things. What if I want all data relating to Ecklman that doesn't relate to the upgrade?
Folders fail me in these scenarios.
You also control threads by changing subject lines, not direct replying to a thread, or using a label. Seriously, give labels a try.
A Fortune 500 company which tons and tons of public folders. Lord knows where any of the emails are. And people with gigs of email in a laundry list of folders. Who knows where the email exists.
With a greater number of emails, there is a greater likelihood that an email fits multiple categories, and the number of categories also goes up.
In the end however, I can label and search directly for SubLabel and skip the ridiculous names.
For instance, I recently was working on a large upgrade project with two outside vendors. In a folder concept the entire Aurosys upgrade project is one folder.
Dealing with Eckleman is a sub-folder and dealing with Man Roland is a sub-folder.
Instead of slowing navigating sub-folders, I can just skip that step and label Eckleman or Man Roland. Even better, if I deal with those vendors outside the ugprade, I can keep the labels.
I label an email today Aurosys Upgrade and Man Roland. Tomorrow, outside the upgrade a seperate issue with Man Roland is just labeled Man Roland. I can easily search for all email related to Man Roland, or Man Roland and Aurosys Upgrade. Even better I can search for emails labeled Man Roland that exclude Aurosys Upgrade.
The more case-scenarios you look at, more and more labels look better and folders look like rubbish.
I've been using Gmail since the beta first launched. I have thousands of emails and labels work just fine for me. Perhaps it is a matter of good vs. poor organizational skills. I use Outlook at work with folders and detest them. The search functionality in Outlook is slow, and I find as numbers scale up labels become a better alternative. With 4 folders you know where everything is. With 200 folders, you don't know where everything is. Label = instantly find what you're looking for, especially with multiple labels.
The paradigm isn't broken, and the new paradigm is better.
And arguably the two tasks take about as long.
1 - Click on message is the same. 2 - Drag and drop is arguably two actions, the same as selecting one item from a drop-down list. 3 - Archive is optional.
That is another advantage. You can tag something AND leave it in your inbox if you want. You can't do that with a folder. I can tag something as a project I'm working on, and leave it in my inbox because I want to see it when I log in.
Seamlessly - Drag-and-drop is only in the Yahoo beta. For most web mail clients, moving to a folder takes just as long if not longer, and involves the same steps as tagging with a label. You could argue that drag-and-drop is breaking the old paradigm of web mail and forcing people to learn something new.
Easily - I wouldn't be shocked to see Gmail get drag and drop some day, but again you're talking about a Yahoo-beta-only feature as a comparison.
Completely - Wait, it gives you every feature and then some. That sounds like complete to me.
Zimbra uses threaded conversation, and Exchange is moving there as well. I guess you're calling all the major mail systems out there incompetent.
I love threaded conversation and that is the primary reason I use a web-based email for personal mail these days.
You still haven't demonstrated what is half-baked about labels. They provide all the functionality of folders, and then some. Replacing one feature with a better feature isn't half-baked. It is innovation.
If you are insistent that we must stay with older systems that provide less features, you are free to do so. But don't insist the newer system with more features is less capable, because that statement just isn't factual.
Non-commercial projects can implement them. Commercial projects can not. So Lotus Symphony and Sun Office can't use these specs. OpenOffice and KOffice can.
They can seamlessly, easily and completely replace folders. You used to put items in folders. Put labels on them and archive. It is the same thing, but even better, now one mail can have multiple labels which solves the dilemma of where to file it.
There are also extensions I've seen to have sub-labels that operate the way sub-folders do if you really want an old school nest. Technically you don't need extensions for this, but it helps the appearance for those who want to hide sub-folders/labels until you navigate to them.
I am quite familiar with Microsoft's checkered past. However, when they do capitulate to people's demands and open things up the correct response is to encourage further open behavior rather than accuse them of being manipulative.
If you look at an overall direction, Microsoft is considerably more open on the whole now than they were a few years ago. That doesn't mean they are all peachy, and they still do evil things. But I commend the direction they seem to be moving.
Yes and no. DOCX is based on OOXML's early concept, but it does not represent that standard that MS was pushing. So technically, no one, not even Microsoft, has a product that can create or read the OOXML standard.
The weird thing about OOXML (which was pure evil) is that a Microsoft spokesman recently said they are admitting they've lost that battle, and thusly they're adding in support for ODF.
I'm curious how accurately that comment represents Microsoft's actual future strategy.
I can't understand the negativity. Sure Microsoft has an unpleasant past, but this is a good move on their part and should be met with nothing less than praise.
I read a case-study of OLPC use in Africa. The most commonly used feature was the camera. Most people had only seen cameras through tourists, and had never self-documented their lives before. People were using the OLPC to blog and take pictures. Maybe it can't run Vista or Half Life 2, but that is quite different from saying the machine is useless. The machine is useless when better alternatives are ubiquitous, such as in the US. In developing nations, the OLPC is quite useful.
I agree. I think OLPC missed the mark just a little bit. The concept and design is pretty good, but the OS is a bit limited. Storage is limited. Memory is limited. And yet they went over their target price of $100.
Frankly, as prices continue to go down, they should aim to improve their current model with slightly better specs and have two models. Ship a beefier $200 model, and try to get the current model down to $100.
And even though only 370,000 have shipped to date, many of those are smaller trials and I thought there was on-going negotiations with several countries for large orders.
I think it is a bit early to call the whole project a flop.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll repeat this for like the 5th time.
You don't have to pay royalties. You are free to read the specs without paying royalties. You are free to integrate the information from those specs in third-party software so long as it is non-commercial.
OpenOffice is non-commercial. KOffice is non-commercial. IBM would have to pay to license the patents if they wanted to include that information in their commercial Lotus Symphony suite.
I'm also curious about Novell in this situation. They have a patent agreement. Is this going to be thrown in? And is the project commercial if the software itself is free (as in beer) but people charge for support?
"Google's labels do not fully replace hierarchical organization because there is no way to declare this relationship between different labels."
Except in how you name them. You can place the relationship directly in the name.
"English and most other languages sucks. Esperanto (or preferably Ido) are better in every way."
English is difficult and cumbersome, except it is also flexible. Part of the reason English is so popular is because it embraces bits of so many other languages. Esperanto is strictly defined.
However, your comparison is inherently faulty. You're comparing a major upheaval (dumping your spoken language) with a minor procedure for dealing with email. They aren't remotely comparable in how difficult it is. In weighing a cost/benefit scenario for making a change, the cost of that change is extremely relevant.
What about finding the email later?
Keeping the email does zero good if you can't find it. You can select multiple messages at once, and then apply a label to them. The messages are still selected. Now hit archive, and they disappear from your inbox.
The difference being if you want, you have the option of labeling an email to keep track of it, and still keep it in your inbox if you so desire. A folder can't do that.
If you don't distribute OpenOffice or KOffice commercially that is fine. They aren't distributed commercially. Lotus Symphony and Star Office are.
So OOo and KOffice can use these specs.
I love hierarchical organization. I'm neurotic. Everything I do has to be uber-organized. When I go shopping for groceries, I organize the groceries as I pull them out, so they go into seperate bags based upon how I plan to unload them.
The point is that labels FULLY REPLACE all the functionality of hierarchical organization while also extending it.
I can label something relating to a project, and a sub-issue of that project.
A case I just posted to someone else is a recent Aurosys upgrade I did for work. I can label it with "Aurosys" to encompass everything Aurosys, even outside the upgrade. I can then label it for the specific upgrade project. Then I can apply another label for the specific vendor I'm dealing with as a subset of that upgrade.
Three months down the road I'll have new issues with that vendor, or with that system.
I can search for Eckleman (vendor), Aurosys (overall system) or the project. Even better I can search for combinations of these things, or exclude certain things. What if I want all data relating to Ecklman that doesn't relate to the upgrade?
Folders fail me in these scenarios.
You also control threads by changing subject lines, not direct replying to a thread, or using a label. Seriously, give labels a try.
You know what is rubbish?
A Fortune 500 company which tons and tons of public folders. Lord knows where any of the emails are. And people with gigs of email in a laundry list of folders. Who knows where the email exists.
With a greater number of emails, there is a greater likelihood that an email fits multiple categories, and the number of categories also goes up.
Folders don't work for serious email.
Nesting of labels is unnecessary but easy.
Label:
ProjectA
ProjectA-SubLabel-1
ProjectA-SubLabel-2
ProjectA-SubLabel-3
ProjectB
ProjectB-SubLabel-1
In the end however, I can label and search directly for SubLabel and skip the ridiculous names.
For instance, I recently was working on a large upgrade project with two outside vendors. In a folder concept the entire Aurosys upgrade project is one folder.
Dealing with Eckleman is a sub-folder and dealing with Man Roland is a sub-folder.
Instead of slowing navigating sub-folders, I can just skip that step and label Eckleman or Man Roland. Even better, if I deal with those vendors outside the ugprade, I can keep the labels.
I label an email today Aurosys Upgrade and Man Roland. Tomorrow, outside the upgrade a seperate issue with Man Roland is just labeled Man Roland. I can easily search for all email related to Man Roland, or Man Roland and Aurosys Upgrade. Even better I can search for emails labeled Man Roland that exclude Aurosys Upgrade.
The more case-scenarios you look at, more and more labels look better and folders look like rubbish.
Use both for three months. Trust me.
I've been using Gmail since the beta first launched. I have thousands of emails and labels work just fine for me. Perhaps it is a matter of good vs. poor organizational skills. I use Outlook at work with folders and detest them. The search functionality in Outlook is slow, and I find as numbers scale up labels become a better alternative. With 4 folders you know where everything is. With 200 folders, you don't know where everything is. Label = instantly find what you're looking for, especially with multiple labels.
You can also auto-label incoming email.
Create Filter
Step 1 - Select criteria, any criteria.
Step 2 - Select "Apply label"
There you go.
The paradigm isn't broken, and the new paradigm is better.
And arguably the two tasks take about as long.
1 - Click on message is the same.
2 - Drag and drop is arguably two actions, the same as selecting one item from a drop-down list.
3 - Archive is optional.
That is another advantage. You can tag something AND leave it in your inbox if you want. You can't do that with a folder. I can tag something as a project I'm working on, and leave it in my inbox because I want to see it when I log in.
Seamlessly - Drag-and-drop is only in the Yahoo beta. For most web mail clients, moving to a folder takes just as long if not longer, and involves the same steps as tagging with a label. You could argue that drag-and-drop is breaking the old paradigm of web mail and forcing people to learn something new.
Easily - I wouldn't be shocked to see Gmail get drag and drop some day, but again you're talking about a Yahoo-beta-only feature as a comparison.
Completely - Wait, it gives you every feature and then some. That sounds like complete to me.
Don't argue semantics with me. You will lose.
Zimbra uses threaded conversation, and Exchange is moving there as well. I guess you're calling all the major mail systems out there incompetent.
I love threaded conversation and that is the primary reason I use a web-based email for personal mail these days.
You still haven't demonstrated what is half-baked about labels. They provide all the functionality of folders, and then some. Replacing one feature with a better feature isn't half-baked. It is innovation.
If you are insistent that we must stay with older systems that provide less features, you are free to do so. But don't insist the newer system with more features is less capable, because that statement just isn't factual.
What is half-baked? What functionality is missing?
I think you're hung up on semantics.
Yes you can. You need to read the post immediately above you.
First, you can create a label that you only use beneath another one.
Secondly, there are extensions that allow nesting to operate in a more traditional sense, where you navigate to sub-labels.
Non-commercial projects can implement them. Commercial projects can not. So Lotus Symphony and Sun Office can't use these specs. OpenOffice and KOffice can.
That beats the situation yesterday.
They are more open today than they were.
Let me restate myself.
They can seamlessly, easily and completely replace folders. You used to put items in folders. Put labels on them and archive. It is the same thing, but even better, now one mail can have multiple labels which solves the dilemma of where to file it.
There are also extensions I've seen to have sub-labels that operate the way sub-folders do if you really want an old school nest. Technically you don't need extensions for this, but it helps the appearance for those who want to hide sub-folders/labels until you navigate to them.
Labels aren't better than folders?
Labels can functionally completely replace folders, and surpass them.
I am quite familiar with Microsoft's checkered past. However, when they do capitulate to people's demands and open things up the correct response is to encourage further open behavior rather than accuse them of being manipulative.
If you look at an overall direction, Microsoft is considerably more open on the whole now than they were a few years ago. That doesn't mean they are all peachy, and they still do evil things. But I commend the direction they seem to be moving.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/02/19.html
Or Publisher for that matter. I don't believe anyone has a third-party app to open Publisher files.
Yes and no. DOCX is based on OOXML's early concept, but it does not represent that standard that MS was pushing. So technically, no one, not even Microsoft, has a product that can create or read the OOXML standard.
The weird thing about OOXML (which was pure evil) is that a Microsoft spokesman recently said they are admitting they've lost that battle, and thusly they're adding in support for ODF.
I'm curious how accurately that comment represents Microsoft's actual future strategy.
I can't understand the negativity. Sure Microsoft has an unpleasant past, but this is a good move on their part and should be met with nothing less than praise.
We want to encourage more behavior like this.
http://xkcd.com/378/
It would have been interesting to include the Flock 2.0 beta, which is based on Firefox 3, and IE 7. I don't think many people are using IE8 yet.
I'd also throw in a minimalist browser like KrazyBrowser for fun.
Consult the AP stylebook.
I read a case-study of OLPC use in Africa. The most commonly used feature was the camera. Most people had only seen cameras through tourists, and had never self-documented their lives before. People were using the OLPC to blog and take pictures. Maybe it can't run Vista or Half Life 2, but that is quite different from saying the machine is useless. The machine is useless when better alternatives are ubiquitous, such as in the US. In developing nations, the OLPC is quite useful.
I agree. I think OLPC missed the mark just a little bit. The concept and design is pretty good, but the OS is a bit limited. Storage is limited. Memory is limited. And yet they went over their target price of $100.
Frankly, as prices continue to go down, they should aim to improve their current model with slightly better specs and have two models. Ship a beefier $200 model, and try to get the current model down to $100.
And even though only 370,000 have shipped to date, many of those are smaller trials and I thought there was on-going negotiations with several countries for large orders.
I think it is a bit early to call the whole project a flop.