You can find ECMs nowadays that are well integrated with your email client (and may even allow users to ignore that they are moving information out of Exchange). You can think of Exchange as merely a staging area for all incoming information; anything with long-term business value should be expected to end up in the ECM where it can be shared, portalized, linked to wikis or other knowledge management applications, filed by project or business area with related information in other content types, searched six ways to Sunday (Exchange is woeful at this), etc., etc.
If you're able to do this, then you shouldn't miss the other 95% (I'm pulling that figure out of the air), the dreck that's left behind in Exchange, when it's aged out and shredded.
If you're not able to do this, and you're trying to adapt your email repository as a long-term knowledge archive, at best you'll have an individual repository for yourself, not your team or your organization, that can't be easily shared or integrated with other related knowledge.
That's why you shouldn't mind the retention limits established in Exchange. As to why they should be established at all, consider that the organization has no business interest in maintaining a gigantic archive that is 95% worthless, poorly organized, poorly indexed, unsharable crap and that, if a legal discovery request ever does hit, will be an unbelievable burden to sift through. Plus, the retention deadline gives people an added incentive to move the valuable stuff into the valuable place.
God, what a dickish response. What did I do to deserve that?
I know plenty about Ozzie, I know how to Google (you sanctimonious prick), I've sat through marketing presentations on Groove, I've read about it, I'm even about to load it on my machine in a few weeks. I've also just completed a day-long "product roadmap" (supposedly a 2- to 3-year forward view) with our Microsoft account reps and had to castigate them for not mentioning Groove once the entire day until I asked them about it.
I'm interested in perspectives from people who aren't going to give me marketing spin,are really familiar with the product, and have made it work and seen or proven to themselves the particular value of its particular uniqueness. That's the perspective that's going to tell me why it can't or can't be replaced by a SharePoint-based solution or any of the other options I've learned about or built over the course of a 30-year career. That's also the perspective that might help me explain to users why I think they should adopt a new tool that might fundamentally change the way they work.
You need to review the definition of "troll." The fact that you don't know what it means, apparently, doesn't say much for your credentials here. Asking questions aimed at offering constructive help does not make you one. Responding like a dickhead maybe does, though, no matter how low your ID is.
As one who's vaguely but not overly familiar with Groove, I'd be interested in hearing the "business case" for it. What does it do particularly well, and for what types of projects/needs has it been particularly successful? That might make it easier for the rest of us to suggest alternatives.
Good thing you figured out the situation was not for you. But if such a simple, standard request (resumes are standard and highly useful even for contractors, and even for those with lots of samples) was able to negate your interest, he was well rid of you as well.
The article says that "Ballmer admitted the platform's interoperability work with IBM and Sun had stalled slightly" or (earlier in the article) "slowed" [emphasis mine].
Our helpful Anonymous Reader reports this as follows: Ballmer "confessed the software giant's.Net strategy has come to a standstill."
What a load of crap.
The project with IBM and Sun may be in more trouble than Bush's Social Security plan, for all I know, but neither.NET itself (with the upcoming release of.NET 2.0) nor even the interoperability piece of.NET (with Indigo) are at anything remotely resembling a standstill.
Dream on, if you must, but learn to read. There are plenty of good reasons to have an anti-Microsoft bias, but.NET isn't one of them. And feeding yourself blatant spin instead of arming yourself with facts is going to leave you unequipped in this battle.
Shame, CmdrTaco, shame. Don't you check these postings for accuracy?
>.NET (VB) - Easy, but limited abilites..NET (C#) - Not as easy, but a tone of abilities
Your view seems colored by experience with pre-.NET VB. I doubt you've looked very closely at VB.NET, because its capabilities very nearly match C#'s.
> I hate.NET because almost everything I coded in VB and C++ was no long[er] considered 'valid' becuase I couldn't dump it into.NET and get a new bunch of binaries over night.
This is tantamount to saying you hate.NET because it's new and not like what you're used to. No painless migration path was promised. It's a brand new platform.
> Anything I write in.NET has a memory leak from the poorly writen.NET virtual machine.
This assertion is really suspect. The.NET garbage collector makes memory leaks far less likely than in VB6 or unmanaged C++. Having written a lot of.NET code, I can say you'd have to be a phenomenally bad coder to have a memory leak in everything you write, and you'd be just fooling yourself to attribute it to a flaw in the platform.
Java is represented by a single line at the top while.NET practitioners are split across multiple categories, including ".NET languages", C#, and VB. Summing those 3 gives a percentage higher than that recorded for Java. Tap off a bit of the C# if you will, and a larger bit of the VB to represent folks still working with VB6, and you've still got a very competitive situation.
Moreover, all of this ignores the question of whether book sales represent anything meaningful anymore. I used to be an avid tech book buyer, but I almost never buy them anymore -- what I need to know is all there on the web. I'm actually just as likely to buy a book covering an area I don't use as often, as a means of getting a good summary or introduction.
Slashdot Mirror
Admittedly, this is a suggestion that only a large, committed organization can implement, but it is sane:
Drag email worthy of retention into an Enterprise Content Management (ECM) system.
You can find ECMs nowadays that are well integrated with your email client (and may even allow users to ignore that they are moving information out of Exchange). You can think of Exchange as merely a staging area for all incoming information; anything with long-term business value should be expected to end up in the ECM where it can be shared, portalized, linked to wikis or other knowledge management applications, filed by project or business area with related information in other content types, searched six ways to Sunday (Exchange is woeful at this), etc., etc.
If you're able to do this, then you shouldn't miss the other 95% (I'm pulling that figure out of the air), the dreck that's left behind in Exchange, when it's aged out and shredded.
If you're not able to do this, and you're trying to adapt your email repository as a long-term knowledge archive, at best you'll have an individual repository for yourself, not your team or your organization, that can't be easily shared or integrated with other related knowledge.
That's why you shouldn't mind the retention limits established in Exchange. As to why they should be established at all, consider that the organization has no business interest in maintaining a gigantic archive that is 95% worthless, poorly organized, poorly indexed, unsharable crap and that, if a legal discovery request ever does hit, will be an unbelievable burden to sift through. Plus, the retention deadline gives people an added incentive to move the valuable stuff into the valuable place.
your email has a severe case of disclaimerrhoids?
Thanks for the effort. I'd mod you up if I could. That was very illuminating.
God, what a dickish response. What did I do to deserve that?
I know plenty about Ozzie, I know how to Google (you sanctimonious prick), I've sat through marketing presentations on Groove, I've read about it, I'm even about to load it on my machine in a few weeks. I've also just completed a day-long "product roadmap" (supposedly a 2- to 3-year forward view) with our Microsoft account reps and had to castigate them for not mentioning Groove once the entire day until I asked them about it.
I'm interested in perspectives from people who aren't going to give me marketing spin,are really familiar with the product, and have made it work and seen or proven to themselves the particular value of its particular uniqueness. That's the perspective that's going to tell me why it can't or can't be replaced by a SharePoint-based solution or any of the other options I've learned about or built over the course of a 30-year career. That's also the perspective that might help me explain to users why I think they should adopt a new tool that might fundamentally change the way they work.
You need to review the definition of "troll." The fact that you don't know what it means, apparently, doesn't say much for your credentials here. Asking questions aimed at offering constructive help does not make you one. Responding like a dickhead maybe does, though, no matter how low your ID is.
As one who's vaguely but not overly familiar with Groove, I'd be interested in hearing the "business case" for it. What does it do particularly well, and for what types of projects/needs has it been particularly successful? That might make it easier for the rest of us to suggest alternatives.
Good thing you figured out the situation was not for you. But if such a simple, standard request (resumes are standard and highly useful even for contractors, and even for those with lots of samples) was able to negate your interest, he was well rid of you as well.
It's
just
you.
Hiding and having fun in the isles -- didn't Salman Rushdie try that for a while?
Our helpful Anonymous Reader reports this as follows: Ballmer "confessed the software giant's .Net strategy has come to a standstill."
What a load of crap.
The project with IBM and Sun may be in more trouble than Bush's Social Security plan, for all I know, but neither .NET itself (with the upcoming release of .NET 2.0) nor even the interoperability piece of .NET (with Indigo) are at anything remotely resembling a standstill.
Dream on, if you must, but learn to read. There are plenty of good reasons to have an anti-Microsoft bias, but .NET isn't one of them. And feeding yourself blatant spin instead of arming yourself with facts is going to leave you unequipped in this battle.
Shame, CmdrTaco, shame. Don't you check these postings for accuracy?
> .NET (VB) - Easy, but limited abilites. .NET (C#) - Not as easy, but a tone of abilities
Your view seems colored by experience with pre-.NET VB. I doubt you've looked very closely at VB.NET, because its capabilities very nearly match C#'s.
> I hate .NET because almost everything I coded in VB and C++ was no long[er] considered 'valid' becuase I couldn't dump it into .NET and get a new bunch of binaries over night.
This is tantamount to saying you hate .NET because it's new and not like what you're used to. No painless migration path was promised. It's a brand new platform.
> Anything I write in .NET has a memory leak from the poorly writen .NET virtual machine.
This assertion is really suspect. The .NET garbage collector makes memory leaks far less likely than in VB6 or unmanaged C++. Having written a lot of .NET code, I can say you'd have to be a phenomenally bad coder to have a memory leak in everything you write, and you'd be just fooling yourself to attribute it to a flaw in the platform.
Java is represented by a single line at the top while .NET practitioners are split across multiple categories, including ".NET languages", C#, and VB. Summing those 3 gives a percentage higher than that recorded for Java. Tap off a bit of the C# if you will, and a larger bit of the VB to represent folks still working with VB6, and you've still got a very competitive situation.
Moreover, all of this ignores the question of whether book sales represent anything meaningful anymore. I used to be an avid tech book buyer, but I almost never buy them anymore -- what I need to know is all there on the web. I'm actually just as likely to buy a book covering an area I don't use as often, as a means of getting a good summary or introduction.
What did B&N do?
Ran every independent bookseller in my city (and many others) out of business, that's all.
Not in the forefront of many geek brains, I'll admit, but it's an important quality-of-life issue to some of us.
Try to find your book someplace like Powell's instead.