If it is implemented as a voluntary system, I see no problem with it. Parents should be able to do this to keep their nutty teenagers under control, or have control over how their cars are used when they lend their vehicles to other people.
No way will I let anyone install such a system in my car but I'm very selective about who I let drive my cars.
I'd like to see this in SuSE (Retail as well as Open). SuSE does have some LDAP management tools but it's not really an alternative to Microsoft's Active Directory yet (blasphemy, I know, but it's hard to argue against point-and-click management of a hierarchical directory service). This is something Linux sorely needs - a strong directory and centralized authentication service that is easy to deploy AND manage, and if a Windows client will work with it, it will be very, very hard to justify paying for Windows server and the gazillion CALs for each server when the same could be had for free on *nix. As long as they keep the CLI for maintenance tasks and mass import/migration of users, they'll have a winner. I hope every major distribution backs one of the tools and works to make it really, really solid.
I don't think this would kill off RHEL or SLES or Novell Linux, because larger organizations will want bundled support and value-added items like subscibed centralized deployment tools, consulting time, and so forth.
Funny thing though - last summer a small tornado touched down the next town over from my office, and it crossed over into our town for a few minutes. I was joking that I don't understand how this town could have a tornado, considering that there are no trailer parks here.
Well, I thought it was funny:), especially since damage was limited to a couple of downed trees and power lines. I'm glad New England rarely ever gets large tornadoes. A couple have crossed my parents' property over the years (and caused almost a million dollars in damage in downed trees on a neighbor's property) but what we'd call a tornado, folks in say, Kansas would probably say "oh that's just a big dust devil."
I know you're trying to make a funny, but let's be fair here.
FEMA (and the Federal government at large) was blocked by law from responding until the local government (be it state or municipal) requests assistance, and when it was offered, the local authorities denied assistance, stating that it it was being handled by local authorities. Were FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers to step in despite local government's objections, it would be a major violation of Federal laws, including The Constitution. Unless the local govermnent is incapacitated, the Federal government is supposed to heed that. I suppose that one could argue that when New Orleans was under >12' of seawater that the government was incapacitated, but that would really be stretching things and encroaching on States' rights in a major way.
(note: I am no fan of FEMA or any other disorganization or individual who claims that there is ANY justification to EVER suspend the Constitution of The united States of America. I dislike FEMA in particular.)
Gilette files suit against Sun Microsystems citing trademark infringement (confusion on part of the customer) and also for infringing upon their business model. When token minority Faux News corrrespondent Virginia Washington questioned Gilette CEO regarding the validity of the suit, he responded "It is well known that we established the business model by selling inexpensive razors with expensive proprietary razor blade refills. It is clear that Sun Microsystems is attempting to capitalize our trademarks and trade names with their newly-announced product line. We believe the public is comprised of idiots and may begin to associate in their minds affiliation between Sun Microsystems and Gilette. Besides, we're bigger than Sun Microsystems. The law means nothing when you have enough money to buy off judges."
Various bloggers who are open source proponents web sites sharply criticised both Gilette and Sun Microsystems, claiming that the design for both both kinds of razors should be open, to avoid vendor lock-in issues. Richard Stallman issued a statement demanding that not only should the design be open, but freely given away because when he ran out of razor refills he was forced to buy a different brand along with its expensive refills because the store he went to was out of Gilette razors. When Faux news inquired what the hell that has to do with anything, Stallman replied "I already have plenty of money in the bank myself, so I don't think that there is any need for anyone to make money off of razors. After all, I'm all set, who gives a rat's ass about anyone else?" FAUX Correspondant Virginia Washington pointed out that many razor choices exist and no one forced Stallman to choose Gilette, to which he responded "Didn't I mention I already made my money? I no longer see any need for razor manufacturers to charge for their products or block others from producing identical products for free."
(this has been a weak attempt at humor poking fun at both FOX and current patent and trademark cases and how the law often goes ignored in such cases. Roll your eyes and move on, or chuckle a bit)
How could even n00b mods miss the obvious joke here?
(hint to the n00b who modded it down - click your username at the top left, click on fans, if you have no fans it says you're lonely. The post was obviously a funny and is very topical because it's a pun on a quote from the article. Duh.)
I think they've fallen for Microsoft's Get the Facts FUD campaign.
support costs for open source in China could yet derail the plans
How could that be? Does Google charge per search result in China or something? Are "man" and "info" unavailable in Chinese distributions? Is censorship so strong that users cannot get to related messageboards and mailing lists? *just kidding*
Seriously though - it seems to me that they'd still come out ahead if they have to pay for support. After all with a proprietary/closed source platform you not only have to pay for the OS, you have to pay for each OS and in many cases per-user licenses as well, and then support costs extra in many cases - to the tune of $225/incident. Either way it takes time (read: money / hour) to implement and there are training costs - either way.
On Windows with 1.0.x that was a bit of a problem, sure. With >1GB of RAM you don't hit that too often though.:)
On Linux? Not so much.
1.5.x should eliminate those issues.
Incidentally I don't think the user was trolling - it is definitely a legitimate issue in some cases, but I prefer minor annoying memory leaks (Mozilla/Firefox <=1.0.x, JRE < 1.5) to huge gaping security holes.(MSIE any version, ActiveX any version)
Uh, I worked there supporting the damn OS, I know how it works. The DOS reference above was a passing reference and I was mentioning Win32 more directly (and again, the Win16 was an aside - there are still some apps today which make Win16 calls. Why they do it other than total laziness, I have no idea). It needs to be dumped due to the baggage coming from Win95 because by continuing support for the legacuy API leads to developers not changing their ways - witness say, Quickbooks, which won't run unless one has local administrator rights. At some point Microsoft HAS to cut the cord to backwards compatibility.
Why should Quickbooks require local administrator rights? Microsoft should isolate those apps in a virtual machine where they can imagine they're Administrator all day long but still maintain only limited access to the filesystem. Then, virus and worm problems run in isolation, cannot affect any but specifically designated areas of the filesystem.
Why must AC trolls pounce on incidental/tangental references and flame users based on those references, as if they were the primary thrust of the post?
Microsoft claim in 1999: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows 2000. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- turned out to be patently false.
Microsoft claim in 2002: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows 2003. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- turned out to be patently false.
Microsoft claim in 2005: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows Vista. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- hopefully they're right this time, but if not I won't be affected. Punting Exchange for Scalix Real Soon Now(tm) if testing goes fine.
Much of the problem stems back to the very thing which creates the security holes in Windows - the need for maintaining backwards compatibility. At some point Microsoft needs to make the deliberate choice to cut the cord and say "Sorry guys, but your old software will either need to be upgraded or run under emulation. To help users with the migration to our brand-new rewrite of Windows, we've decided to contribute to the WINE software project and include WINE in the new Windows and it will run most of your old software seamlessly under the new environment. By doing this we have finally put an end to traditional Windows security and stability problems.:"
I know, wishful thinking, but really, does Windows STILL need to support Win16 and does it STILL need to support Windows 9x applications? Does it STILL have to natively support DOS apps? Surely they can have a translation layer or include virtual machine support so that legacy apps can run in a fully protected memory segment and be prevented from writing to key system directories? If hobbiests can achieve it on Linux, BSD, etc. via wine and related projects, why can't Microsoft do this with their access to all of the undocumented system calls?
Well, ical requests containing textual information are not sent via email (well, for non-exchange solutions)? The requests do not consist of requests sent from one client application through a server to another client? If that is not what happens, then you're right, they are not similar in any reespect. Even if SMTP is not the transport mechanism for a solution, the principle is still very similar to that of email. The difference comes in where the server manages scheduling conflicts and processes the data very differently than simply forwarding requests to the client, but from the user perspective and the client respective there are enough similarities to justify centralizing that data management and transport mechanism. Hell, Microsoft recognized this and came up with Exchange. Corporations recognized this and bought into it. Others bought into it and released similar solutions.
Heck, I worked at a company which made a single-purpose group scheduling application for enterprise environments, and one big complaint was it didn't integrate with email. At all. You could send requests via SMTP but once that request was sent it was essentially in the bit bucket. Sure, the user had it on his schdule, but what about the response to that request?
Besides, it's all about centralizing corporate processes. So one part speaks ical and another SMTP and another a nonstandard protocol (for say, tasks, notes, etc.). It still makes sense in the corporate world to centralize this in one solution rather than have your staff be trained on 38 different programs. It is bad enough that they have to learn a word processor AND a spreadsheet AND a presentation app. Like centralizing and integrating document management (office suites - M$ Office, Lotus Smartsuite, Corel Office, StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice, etc.) it makes sense to centralize and integrate collaboration.
Having worked in the corporate world, when I started my own company I immediately implemented Exchange because I had experienced several different solutions at various companies (e.g., standalone group scheduling vs. Exchange vs. pure web apps vs. Lotus Notes) (incidentally other solutions weren't quite there yet. Heck, last time I checked out Scalix it didn't look good at all, I hate Lotus Notes due to administrative and implementation headaches, now I am checking Scalix out again and it looks great, and since we're still under 25 users, it's free, to boot!) and it has helped us immensely but now I am looking at getting away from Exchange and into a solution where maintenance can be done while live (so I don't have 1-2 hours scheduled downtime per week) and be fully automated.
If you haven't worked in a large corporate environment where you have to coordinate many departments and staff members and resources, perhaps that will explain why you don't have an appreciation for groupware apps. Your view strikes me as the pure geek "one tool, one purpose" mentality and while it may work great in theory, in practice it can be downright inconvenient.
Heck, that's why Photoshop and The Gimp grew to where they are. By your view Photoshop|Gimp should support NO vector objects, NO text objects (everything should be rasterised) and heck, why should it resize or convert image files when "convert" from imagemagick is perfectly good, if not better, at resizing and converting image formats?
Also, by your logic, why should a word processor offer spellcheck capability? that's what ispell/aspell is for. Save the file to ascii and run either of those against it. After all, ispell is probably a better spellchecker since it was designed solely for checking spelling, right? Let's not integrate ANYTHING. Heck, let's all go back to the 1970s and throw away the GUI. If you want to use a computer, learn rm, mv, ed, and email? Who needs email when one can send a perfectly good paper memo to someone?
Hey script kiddies and virus creators (I know at least SOME slashdotters are. Come on, admit it, you're out there!), want to help kill DMCA?
In your next trojan horse and virus releases, implement some sort of DRM which will make it illegal for anyone to remove the utilities. You can then prosecute Symantec, etc. citing DMCA violations. This will show just how evil the DMCA really is.
Re:Trusted Computing could actually FIX this probl
on
RIAA vs Linux and DVDs
·
· Score: 1
Nobody plays DVDs for free. You paid the CSS and codec license(s) when you purchased the DVD.
How's that for an end-around on those consortiums' logic?
Don't be so obtuse. You simply refuse to see that:
Email is information Tasks are information Meeting schedules are information
Information is exchanged through a network and displayed in this program called a "client"
People in companies like to organize the information.
IT departments like centralized management of the information transport and storage back ends.
Ergo, email, tasks, meetings, etc. are related. Since the mechanism for scheduling meetings is very similar to sending emails or assigning tasks, why invent the wheel and have a multitude of clients, servers, and databases to manage, not to mention the many user accounts one would require?
Otherwise, I would argue, by your logic, that email should never be tied into LDAP because: what the hell does LDAP have to do with email?
When you buy a copyrighted work, you own it; you do not license it. Do what you want. Rip it if you please. Reverse engineer to your heart's content. Just don't infringe copyright by distributing copies of it.
I'd argue against the "unstable" and "unreliable" claims because I've set up many standalone Exchange servers and a couple of clustered servers and they're all reliable.
The keys to Exchange reliability:
- choose reliable hardware
- choose hardware which offers reliable drivers
- make sure the OS you're installing Exchange on is reliable
- Schedule downtime for recommended maintenance (Note: Microsoft's TCO and uptime claims do not count scheduled maintenance downtime as downtime). Learn ESEUTIL and ISINTEG. If you keep up with ESEUTIL you will never, ever need to use ISINTEG. ISINTEG is your last-resort tool for Exchange (well, since Exchange 2000).
I've seen Exchange go belly up. I've dealt with disaster recovery with Exchange (that's how I've picked up some of our clients). The root cause in each case (RAID/Disk failures aside) has been from a TOTAL lack of maintenance. In one severe case, Exchange 5.5 was running nonstop from installation until May of last year. There was ZERO scheduled downtime for maintenance of the information store. None. ISINTEG was never run, and ESEUTIL was not there because they didn't apply any service packs to the server. An alternative they had for defrag was creating new IS databases and moving accounts over (this would have achieved in effect a defrag) but they never even did that. 1000+ user accounts with some accounts in that IS holding well over a gig of data each. Well, needless to say running ISINTEG after all that time (exhausted all other possibilities first) chucked quite a bit of data but resulted in an IS which could at least be mounted and then the last month's worth of data could be retrieved for key people. Then, reverted to an older backup to retrieve older email that was lost - but of course the restored data was inconsistent as well, but fortunately some more data could be recovered from that as well. A big problem, but entirely due to neglect. Can sendmail or Postfix go that long without maintenance? Most likely, but is it recommended?
FWIW I want to move away from Exchange and reexamining Scalix.
If you're fortunate enough to have a working combination of Evolution, Connector, and libsoup then the GAL, contacts, and calendar do all work - but the GUI just plain stinks.
Make sure your GAL is pointed at your PDC (I've found this is key, if it's pointed at another catalog server it's flaky). When you go to contacts search for a single letter and you will find results based on that letter.
It's a horrid workaround and can slow you down when trying to find contact info, but it's a horribly bad implementation. I think the key for making Evolution truly ready for prime time is to dump the OWA interface and use Exchange's native interface - or connect via IMAP and interpret each folder's contents correctly (e.g., if a public folder is a calendar, read it as a calendar and not as email).
Slashdot Mirror
It's a damn good thing that license plates can't be swapped for stolen ones, then! ;)
If it is implemented as a voluntary system, I see no problem with it. Parents should be able to do this to keep their nutty teenagers under control, or have control over how their cars are used when they lend their vehicles to other people.
No way will I let anyone install such a system in my car but I'm very selective about who I let drive my cars.
I'd like to see this in SuSE (Retail as well as Open). SuSE does have some LDAP management tools but it's not really an alternative to Microsoft's Active Directory yet (blasphemy, I know, but it's hard to argue against point-and-click management of a hierarchical directory service). This is something Linux sorely needs - a strong directory and centralized authentication service that is easy to deploy AND manage, and if a Windows client will work with it, it will be very, very hard to justify paying for Windows server and the gazillion CALs for each server when the same could be had for free on *nix. As long as they keep the CLI for maintenance tasks and mass import/migration of users, they'll have a winner. I hope every major distribution backs one of the tools and works to make it really, really solid.
I don't think this would kill off RHEL or SLES or Novell Linux, because larger organizations will want bundled support and value-added items like subscibed centralized deployment tools, consulting time, and so forth.
Mod parent up. That's hilarious!
:), especially since damage was limited to a couple of downed trees and power lines. I'm glad New England rarely ever gets large tornadoes. A couple have crossed my parents' property over the years (and caused almost a million dollars in damage in downed trees on a neighbor's property) but what we'd call a tornado, folks in say, Kansas would probably say "oh that's just a big dust devil."
Funny thing though - last summer a small tornado touched down the next town over from my office, and it crossed over into our town for a few minutes. I was joking that I don't understand how this town could have a tornado, considering that there are no trailer parks here.
Well, I thought it was funny
I know you're trying to make a funny, but let's be fair here.
FEMA (and the Federal government at large) was blocked by law from responding until the local government (be it state or municipal) requests assistance, and when it was offered, the local authorities denied assistance, stating that it it was being handled by local authorities. Were FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers to step in despite local government's objections, it would be a major violation of Federal laws, including The Constitution. Unless the local govermnent is incapacitated, the Federal government is supposed to heed that. I suppose that one could argue that when New Orleans was under >12' of seawater that the government was incapacitated, but that would really be stretching things and encroaching on States' rights in a major way.
(note: I am no fan of FEMA or any other disorganization or individual who claims that there is ANY justification to EVER suspend the Constitution of The united States of America. I dislike FEMA in particular.)
Based on what I see, judges need to start respecting copyright law as well - especially the Fair Use clause.
Maybe he got the idea from Happy Days whre the student (Potsie) sings - anyone remember this episode?
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/themesonglyrics.html
(scroll down to "Pump Your Blood")
Gilette files suit against Sun Microsystems citing trademark infringement (confusion on part of the customer) and also for infringing upon their business model. When token minority Faux News corrrespondent Virginia Washington questioned Gilette CEO regarding the validity of the suit, he responded "It is well known that we established the business model by selling inexpensive razors with expensive proprietary razor blade refills. It is clear that Sun Microsystems is attempting to capitalize our trademarks and trade names with their newly-announced product line. We believe the public is comprised of idiots and may begin to associate in their minds affiliation between Sun Microsystems and Gilette. Besides, we're bigger than Sun Microsystems. The law means nothing when you have enough money to buy off judges."
Various bloggers who are open source proponents web sites sharply criticised both Gilette and Sun Microsystems, claiming that the design for both both kinds of razors should be open, to avoid vendor lock-in issues. Richard Stallman issued a statement demanding that not only should the design be open, but freely given away because when he ran out of razor refills he was forced to buy a different brand along with its expensive refills because the store he went to was out of Gilette razors. When Faux news inquired what the hell that has to do with anything, Stallman replied "I already have plenty of money in the bank myself, so I don't think that there is any need for anyone to make money off of razors. After all, I'm all set, who gives a rat's ass about anyone else?" FAUX Correspondant Virginia Washington pointed out that many razor choices exist and no one forced Stallman to choose Gilette, to which he responded "Didn't I mention I already made my money? I no longer see any need for razor manufacturers to charge for their products or block others from producing identical products for free."
(this has been a weak attempt at humor poking fun at both FOX and current patent and trademark cases and how the law often goes ignored in such cases. Roll your eyes and move on, or chuckle a bit)
The DRM should be managed by the cable card itself, the software shouldn't care. That is why I am asking.
Check "No Karma Bonus" when posting (can that be made the default?)
Hubert Farnsworth already did that, about 900 years from now.
{if you don't get it, you need to watch Futurama}
How could even n00b mods miss the obvious joke here?
(hint to the n00b who modded it down - click your username at the top left, click on fans, if you have no fans it says you're lonely. The post was obviously a funny and is very topical because it's a pun on a quote from the article. Duh.)
I think they've fallen for Microsoft's Get the Facts FUD campaign.
support costs for open source in China could yet derail the plans
How could that be? Does Google charge per search result in China or something? Are "man" and "info" unavailable in Chinese distributions? Is censorship so strong that users cannot get to related messageboards and mailing lists? *just kidding*
Seriously though - it seems to me that they'd still come out ahead if they have to pay for support. After all with a proprietary/closed source platform you not only have to pay for the OS, you have to pay for each OS and in many cases per-user licenses as well, and then support costs extra in many cases - to the tune of $225/incident. Either way it takes time (read: money / hour) to implement and there are training costs - either way.
But if they rent you the cards, will the cards be Windows-only or will Mac and Linux and *BSD users have options?
On Windows with 1.0.x that was a bit of a problem, sure. With >1GB of RAM you don't hit that too often though. :)
On Linux? Not so much.
1.5.x should eliminate those issues.
Incidentally I don't think the user was trolling - it is definitely a legitimate issue in some cases, but I prefer minor annoying memory leaks (Mozilla/Firefox <=1.0.x, JRE < 1.5) to huge gaping security holes.(MSIE any version, ActiveX any version)
Uh, I worked there supporting the damn OS, I know how it works. The DOS reference above was a passing reference and I was mentioning Win32 more directly (and again, the Win16 was an aside - there are still some apps today which make Win16 calls. Why they do it other than total laziness, I have no idea). It needs to be dumped due to the baggage coming from Win95 because by continuing support for the legacuy API leads to developers not changing their ways - witness say, Quickbooks, which won't run unless one has local administrator rights. At some point Microsoft HAS to cut the cord to backwards compatibility.
Why should Quickbooks require local administrator rights? Microsoft should isolate those apps in a virtual machine where they can imagine they're Administrator all day long but still maintain only limited access to the filesystem. Then, virus and worm problems run in isolation, cannot affect any but specifically designated areas of the filesystem.
Why must AC trolls pounce on incidental/tangental references and flame users based on those references, as if they were the primary thrust of the post?
Microsoft claim in 1999: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows 2000. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- turned out to be patently false.
Microsoft claim in 2002: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows 2003. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- turned out to be patently false.
Microsoft claim in 2005: "Most configuration changes will not require reboots in Windows Vista. Reboots are a thing of the past."
- hopefully they're right this time, but if not I won't be affected. Punting Exchange for Scalix Real Soon Now(tm) if testing goes fine.
Much of the problem stems back to the very thing which creates the security holes in Windows - the need for maintaining backwards compatibility. At some point Microsoft needs to make the deliberate choice to cut the cord and say "Sorry guys, but your old software will either need to be upgraded or run under emulation. To help users with the migration to our brand-new rewrite of Windows, we've decided to contribute to the WINE software project and include WINE in the new Windows and it will run most of your old software seamlessly under the new environment. By doing this we have finally put an end to traditional Windows security and stability problems.:"
I know, wishful thinking, but really, does Windows STILL need to support Win16 and does it STILL need to support Windows 9x applications? Does it STILL have to natively support DOS apps? Surely they can have a translation layer or include virtual machine support so that legacy apps can run in a fully protected memory segment and be prevented from writing to key system directories? If hobbiests can achieve it on Linux, BSD, etc. via wine and related projects, why can't Microsoft do this with their access to all of the undocumented system calls?
Well, ical requests containing textual information are not sent via email (well, for non-exchange solutions)? The requests do not consist of requests sent from one client application through a server to another client? If that is not what happens, then you're right, they are not similar in any reespect. Even if SMTP is not the transport mechanism for a solution, the principle is still very similar to that of email. The difference comes in where the server manages scheduling conflicts and processes the data very differently than simply forwarding requests to the client, but from the user perspective and the client respective there are enough similarities to justify centralizing that data management and transport mechanism. Hell, Microsoft recognized this and came up with Exchange. Corporations recognized this and bought into it. Others bought into it and released similar solutions.
Heck, I worked at a company which made a single-purpose group scheduling application for enterprise environments, and one big complaint was it didn't integrate with email. At all. You could send requests via SMTP but once that request was sent it was essentially in the bit bucket. Sure, the user had it on his schdule, but what about the response to that request?
Besides, it's all about centralizing corporate processes. So one part speaks ical and another SMTP and another a nonstandard protocol (for say, tasks, notes, etc.). It still makes sense in the corporate world to centralize this in one solution rather than have your staff be trained on 38 different programs. It is bad enough that they have to learn a word processor AND a spreadsheet AND a presentation app. Like centralizing and integrating document management (office suites - M$ Office, Lotus Smartsuite, Corel Office, StarOffice/OpenOffice, KOffice, etc.) it makes sense to centralize and integrate collaboration.
Having worked in the corporate world, when I started my own company I immediately implemented Exchange because I had experienced several different solutions at various companies (e.g., standalone group scheduling vs. Exchange vs. pure web apps vs. Lotus Notes) (incidentally other solutions weren't quite there yet. Heck, last time I checked out Scalix it didn't look good at all, I hate Lotus Notes due to administrative and implementation headaches, now I am checking Scalix out again and it looks great, and since we're still under 25 users, it's free, to boot!) and it has helped us immensely but now I am looking at getting away from Exchange and into a solution where maintenance can be done while live (so I don't have 1-2 hours scheduled downtime per week) and be fully automated.
If you haven't worked in a large corporate environment where you have to coordinate many departments and staff members and resources, perhaps that will explain why you don't have an appreciation for groupware apps. Your view strikes me as the pure geek "one tool, one purpose" mentality and while it may work great in theory, in practice it can be downright inconvenient.
Heck, that's why Photoshop and The Gimp grew to where they are. By your view Photoshop|Gimp should support NO vector objects, NO text objects (everything should be rasterised) and heck, why should it resize or convert image files when "convert" from imagemagick is perfectly good, if not better, at resizing and converting image formats?
Also, by your logic, why should a word processor offer spellcheck capability? that's what ispell/aspell is for. Save the file to ascii and run either of those against it. After all, ispell is probably a better spellchecker since it was designed solely for checking spelling, right? Let's not integrate ANYTHING. Heck, let's all go back to the 1970s and throw away the GUI. If you want to use a computer, learn rm, mv, ed, and email? Who needs email when one can send a perfectly good paper memo to someone?
(everyone else, please pardon my rant)
Hey script kiddies and virus creators (I know at least SOME slashdotters are. Come on, admit it, you're out there!), want to help kill DMCA?
In your next trojan horse and virus releases, implement some sort of DRM which will make it illegal for anyone to remove the utilities. You can then prosecute Symantec, etc. citing DMCA violations. This will show just how evil the DMCA really is.
Nobody plays DVDs for free. You paid the CSS and codec license(s) when you purchased the DVD.
How's that for an end-around on those consortiums' logic?
Don't be so obtuse. You simply refuse to see that:
Email is information
Tasks are information
Meeting schedules are information
Information is exchanged through a network and displayed in this program called a "client"
People in companies like to organize the information.
IT departments like centralized management of the information transport and storage back ends.
Ergo, email, tasks, meetings, etc. are related. Since the mechanism for scheduling meetings is very similar to sending emails or assigning tasks, why invent the wheel and have a multitude of clients, servers, and databases to manage, not to mention the many user accounts one would require?
Otherwise, I would argue, by your logic, that email should never be tied into LDAP because: what the hell does LDAP have to do with email?
No, the record comnpanies want to dictate to you how you use YOUR PROPERTY. See the right of first sale doctrine. Here is a good summary:
http://www.answers.com/topic/first-sale-doctrine
When you buy a copyrighted work, you own it; you do not license it. Do what you want. Rip it if you please. Reverse engineer to your heart's content. Just don't infringe copyright by distributing copies of it.
Mod parent up +5 funny. Please! I'm still laughing. :)
I'd argue against the "unstable" and "unreliable" claims because I've set up many standalone Exchange servers and a couple of clustered servers and they're all reliable.
The keys to Exchange reliability:
- choose reliable hardware
- choose hardware which offers reliable drivers
- make sure the OS you're installing Exchange on is reliable
- Schedule downtime for recommended maintenance (Note: Microsoft's TCO and uptime claims do not count scheduled maintenance downtime as downtime). Learn ESEUTIL and ISINTEG. If you keep up with ESEUTIL you will never, ever need to use ISINTEG. ISINTEG is your last-resort tool for Exchange (well, since Exchange 2000).
I've seen Exchange go belly up. I've dealt with disaster recovery with Exchange (that's how I've picked up some of our clients). The root cause in each case (RAID/Disk failures aside) has been from a TOTAL lack of maintenance. In one severe case, Exchange 5.5 was running nonstop from installation until May of last year. There was ZERO scheduled downtime for maintenance of the information store. None. ISINTEG was never run, and ESEUTIL was not there because they didn't apply any service packs to the server. An alternative they had for defrag was creating new IS databases and moving accounts over (this would have achieved in effect a defrag) but they never even did that. 1000+ user accounts with some accounts in that IS holding well over a gig of data each. Well, needless to say running ISINTEG after all that time (exhausted all other possibilities first) chucked quite a bit of data but resulted in an IS which could at least be mounted and then the last month's worth of data could be retrieved for key people. Then, reverted to an older backup to retrieve older email that was lost - but of course the restored data was inconsistent as well, but fortunately some more data could be recovered from that as well. A big problem, but entirely due to neglect. Can sendmail or Postfix go that long without maintenance? Most likely, but is it recommended?
FWIW I want to move away from Exchange and reexamining Scalix.
If you're fortunate enough to have a working combination of Evolution, Connector, and libsoup then the GAL, contacts, and calendar do all work - but the GUI just plain stinks.
Make sure your GAL is pointed at your PDC (I've found this is key, if it's pointed at another catalog server it's flaky). When you go to contacts search for a single letter and you will find results based on that letter.
It's a horrid workaround and can slow you down when trying to find contact info, but it's a horribly bad implementation. I think the key for making Evolution truly ready for prime time is to dump the OWA interface and use Exchange's native interface - or connect via IMAP and interpret each folder's contents correctly (e.g., if a public folder is a calendar, read it as a calendar and not as email).