Great article Danny, as per usual, always love reading your stuff over at roughly drafted, but I can never be bummed to register and comment that I do!
Btw, any of you guys interested in SL server Dan, has written an opus on it, should be tons helpful to anyone wanting to go apple server, check it out at amazon amongst other places.
The Exchange support in Snow Leopard is minimal, at the very least.
Others have commented that Public Folders support is lacking.
Worse still, Mail.app can't manipulate Exchange Server-Side Rules. Without them, concurrent mobile access is a terrible experience: if you have an iPhone or Blackberry, EVERY email you receive will appear in your Inbox. For those of us who receive many messages per hour, even during the middle of the night, and sometimes from automated systems, this is intolerable.
Waiting for the client side to sort them (e.g., in Mail.app) is not an acceptable alternative in this circumstance.
"Apple makes its money almost exclusively from selling hardware, it has opened up its own Snow Leopard Server applications, Address Book Server and iCal Server, as open source Darwin servers that can be compiled to run on Linux."
I'm yet to see Apple release the CardDAV/Address Book server as open source, like Apple has released the Calendar Server under the Apache 2.0 License.
Please confirm this information - On the MacOSforge site, no mention of the Address Book server exists as an open-source project.
I think Apple are playing their cards close to their chest here, I would not trumpet Apple as contributing their entire server platform as open-source, more they use "open source protocols"
My company uses the Apple Calendar server with our server product for Linux at http://atmail.com/ - One thing we notice with Apple engineers for the Calendar server, it's written beautiful and leveraging much of Python's object-orientated nature - But, code looks aside, runs extremely slow and unoptimized. We have had to refactor much of Apple python code to make the Calendar server even scale past 1,000+ users. Good luck hosting over 1,000 accounts with Apple Calendar server as-is ( check the Apple forums for users screaming for performance too )
Overall, I'm a strong supporter of open-source protocols, so thumbs up for Apple promoting this, vs trying to become an Exchange server using Activesync
Btw, dan, was reading some of your earlier articles and my jaw gapped at reading this, back when the current form factor of the imac hadn't been introduced, Feb. 20 2004:
Quote:
Apple evidently knows less is more. Steve, just take a Cinema Display and slap three inches of Mac on the back. Nobody cares how thin the Cinema Display is; it takes up the same space with or without that Mac backpack attached anyway. Schools would love it; designers would love it; shoot, anyone with a desk and no desire for a large tower underneath it would love it.
The Cinema Display iMac.
It costs virtually nothing to develop. Just slap an Xserve or PowerBook logic board on the back, with a full size hard drive and an optical drive that ejects the CD out the side of the display. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's a machine worthy of the iMac name.
His terminology *is* wrong. Exchange ActiveSync, WebDAV and EWS are very different technologies.
Exchange ActiveSync is a push-capable sync protocol for Exchange using a very convoluted, high cost technology.
WebDAV uses free protocols (i.e. no licensing) but has many limitations.
EWS is the new Exchange 2007 Rollup 2 technology that replaces everything before it (minus EAS for push) that provides much better integration than WebDAV, but not as good as EAS.
One major limitation of EAS is it was designed with Exchange functionality from 2003. EWS is designed with Exchange 2007/2010 tech, but it also eschews older tech and deprecated functionality like Public Folders.
Entourage uses WebDAV today.
Entourage EWS Edition uses EWS.
Snow Leopard uses EWS.
iPhone uses Exchange ActiveSync.
That explains why my iPhone gets my work Exchange emails well before my Mac with SL & Exchange.
it's not apple's fault. Exchange 2003 is 7 years old and about to enter extended support which means almost no new patches except emergency hotfixes. Exchange 2010 is coming out next year. and i bet MS had something to do with it to get people to upgrade
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. This is more like Apple considering anything older than 5 years to be obsolete and thus not bothering to support it.
Bit like dropping support for Power PC chips. Amazing how Apple could bring out the iMac G5 (which I recommended to someone to purchase) and advertise how it had a 64bit processor in it and was thus really future proof, only to have support dropped from new versions of OS X before they even finish converting the OS completely to 64bit.
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. This is more like Apple considering anything older than 5 years to be obsolete and thus not bothering to support it.
Bit like dropping support for Power PC chips. Amazing how Apple could bring out the iMac G5 (which I recommended to someone to purchase) and advertise how it had a 64bit processor in it and was thus really future proof, only to have support dropped from new versions of OS X before they even finish converting the OS completely to 64bit.
Every major software vendor has these policies. IBM will sell you support for products that are decades old but it will cost. And apple will need dev support from Microsoft to fix bugs in their code and all of microsoft's debs are working on newer products
Do you believe every thing you read in a newspaper? A magazine? A blog? A book?
Is it correct just because it is printed on paper?
Here is another source of Snow Leopard information. Parts of it are more technical than this article. And, there are some inaccuracies (some things did not make it into the first release).
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. ...
You seem like you have a big anti-Apple axe to grind here, but I have to say this is the dumbest statement I've read here in a while.
It's patently ridiculous to suggest that all companies support all their products as long as they are in business and even if it wasn't, it's just not reality at all. No company does this, no company has even done this and if they did it would put them out of business on costs. Computer companies are even less likely to do this because the computer business changes far more rapidly than any other business.
I have a twenty year old motor-scooter that still works but the company doesn't still support it for repairs or make any new products for it, nor would I expect them to. Since the thing came out, the company in question switched (ten years ago), to metric. Even if I still had a contract with the company that allowed for servicing of the thing, the garages that all do the servicing don't have the tools to open it up.
This situation with my scooter is very similar to the switch to intel from PPC in the computer world. Everyone knows that computer technology rapidly advances and that computers obsolesce orders of magnitude quicker than any other product. A four or five year old computer like that G5 is the same as a twenty year old car or motorcycle relative to the technologies involved.
On a side note, why is everyone being so negative about this article? The author seems to have misused some terminology by some accounts? Mixed up a name for another name? Yet he's being ripped to pieces here as if he was a baby killer or something, and mostly by accounts made in the last month or two with a dozen or so posts.
Every time there is an article that says something negative about windows we get inundated with Trolls. Nuff said.
On a side note, why is everyone being so negative about this article? The author seems to have misused some terminology by some accounts? Mixed up a name for another name? Yet he's being ripped to pieces here as if he was a baby killer or something, and mostly by accounts made in the last month or two with a dozen or so posts.
Every time there is an article that says something negative about windows we get inundated with Trolls. Nuff said.
I'm not going to defend any trolls here, but I will express my frustration with Daniel's recent work. The first 'Prince McLean' articles here were stellar pieces of technology reporting, both in terms of historical context and depth of the subject matter at hand. His opinion pieces at the time remained separate on his personal blog, where it's no secret that Daniel carries an anti-Microsoft agenda (and for the most part I agree with it, although it gets repetitive after a while). But lately every piece has carried that same Microsoft bashing over to the AppleInsider pieces, at which point people here have every right to call him on wrong details or stretched analogies.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
This is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on these forums.
In the 90s it could be argued that Microsoft was evil, at least in terms of its Machiavellian business practices, but with subsequent government scrutiny they seem to have toned that down. I think nowadays they are merely incompetent. But again, that doesn't have to be brought up in almost every article.
I'm not going to defend any trolls here, but I will express my frustration with Daniel's recent work. The first 'Prince McLean' articles here were stelar pieces of technology reporting, both in terms of historical context and depth of the subject matter at hand. His opinion pieces at the time remained separate on his personal blog, where it's no secret that Daniel carries an anti-Microsoft agenda (and for the most part I agree with it, although it gets repetitive after a while). But lately every piece has carried that same Microsoft bashing over to the AppleInsider pieces, at which point people here have every right to call him on wrong details or stretched analogies.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
I used to be an avid follower of Dan's posts, here, and on roughly drafted. I enjoyed his research and presentation skills, but noticed that he sometimes manipulated, or ignored facts, to further the case he was presenting. It was good reading, I mostly agreed (albeit a little uncomfortably), so what's the harm?
Then he began publishing things that I (and others) disagreed with. When challenged, he would misinterpret or ignore the facts in his response and sometimes resort to name-calling.
Hmm... Was he wrong, or was it me? Actually, I was as guilty as he, because I went along for the "ride" (ignoring the facts) when they got in the way of his story... as long as I agreed with the premiss. My bad.
Then, I went back and reread some of Dan's many articles that I had enjoyed in the past... to see if I could determine why I had been so "easy". One thing I noticed is that almost every article Dan writes, he cites references references to support his views. Mostly, Dan links to articles by Prince McLean or Daniel Eran Dilger (one in the same). If you follow one of these links, you will be presented with a story with some other links to, guess what, articles written by himself. ...so, Dan is citing himself as a reference. What better way to further your point of view? Done properly, I have no argument with an author "padding his portfolio" in this way. But, to use these fora to denigrate or promote companies or products is bad practice, at best. Disguising the presentations as objective journalism is not acceptable.
Or, at the minimum, each article should have a disclaimer stating any biases or prejudices that the author has for the companies and products included.
I dislike Microsoft because of business to business dealings in the past. I prefer other manufacturers products to most of their offerings! Are they all bad? No.
I like Apple and have dealt with them since 1978 as: an individual customer; reseller; a vendor to them; co-developer on a joint project; developer. Do I like everything Apple does? No way!
As to Dan's articles-- I regard them as a interesting point of view, but don't expect them to be, necessarily, factual... fool me once...
I used to be an avid follower of Dan's posts, here, and on roughly drafted. I enjoyed his research and presentation skills, but noticed that he sometimes manipulated, or ignored facts, to further the case he was presenting. It was good reading, I mostly agreed (albeit a little uncomfortably), so what's the harm?
Then he began publishing things that I (and others) disagreed with. When challenged, he would misinterpret or ignore the facts in his response and sometimes resort to name-calling.
Hmm... Was he wrong, or was it me? Actually, I was as guilty as he, because I went along for the "ride" (ignoring the facts) when they got in the way of his story... as long as I agreed with the premiss. My bad.
Then, I went back and reread some of Dan's many articles that I had enjoyed in the past... to see if I could determine why I had been so "easy". One thing I noticed is that almost every article Dan writes, he cites references references to support his views. Mostly, Dan links to articles by Prince McLean or Daniel Eran Dilger (one in the same). If you follow one of these links, you will be presented with a story with some other links to, guess what, articles written by himself. ...so, Dan is citing himself as a reference. What better way to further your point of view? Done properly, I have no argument with an author "padding his portfolio" in this way. But, to use these fora to denigrate or promote companies or products is bad practice, at best. Disguising the presentations as objective journalism is not acceptable.
Or, at the minimum, each article should have a disclaimer stating any biases or prejudices that the author has for the companies and products included.
I dislike Microsoft because of business to business dealings in the past. I prefer other manufacturers products to most of their offerings! Are they all bad? No.
I like Apple and have dealt with them since 1978 as: an individual customer; reseller; a vendor to them; co-developer on a joint project; developer. Do I like everything Apple does? No way!
...
I agree with most of this, and I must say it's nice that you thought out your response.
The thing that really bothers me is the vehemence of the "anti-Daniel" crowd here and the fact that most responses are *not* thought out, but more like personal attacks.
Daniel propagandises a lot, but makes no bones about it. I also think that the "references" he uses (to himself) are not so much references in the classic sense but just pointers to more detail on that topic.
I've had to slowly stop using most of the bigger Mac forums just because there are so few that are willing to keep things rational and not go too overboard with the attacks, and this place is pretty much the last one I have left. There are some really smart people here, but that doesn't seem to stop them from just jumping all over things when a mistake is made by the author and it just drags the whole debate down.
The bigger point he is making with this article for instance is pretty much spot on in terms of differentiating between the two approaches (Apple and MS), but because he got some detail wrong, people are acting like it's a personal affront to their sensibilities.
I'm not saying this kind of behaviour is not understandable, or even that I don't do it myself from time to time, but people need to actively govern their emotions a bit more IMO. Daniel is a smart guy that provides valuable insight into some of this stuff. He often provides a perspective that had never occurred to me until I read his articles, and I'm a pretty smart person myself.
I just don't see the point in jumping all over him the first time he makes a mistake, and in making it so personal as many have. Especially when (as in this case), the mistake is small, and it doesn't detract from the basic point he was making.
These articles maybe need to be labelled a bit differently to indicate that they are more personal reviews than objective analysis but otherwise I have no problem with them and find the insight valuable as I said.
I just don't see the point in jumping all over him the first time he makes a mistake, and in making it so personal as many have. Especially when (as in this case), the mistake is small, and it doesn't detract from the basic point he was making.
maybe it is due to the fact that every article Daniel writes he attacks people for making mistakes?
Comments
Btw, any of you guys interested in SL server Dan, has written an opus on it, should be tons helpful to anyone wanting to go apple server, check it out at amazon amongst other places.
Others have commented that Public Folders support is lacking.
Worse still, Mail.app can't manipulate Exchange Server-Side Rules. Without them, concurrent mobile access is a terrible experience: if you have an iPhone or Blackberry, EVERY email you receive will appear in your Inbox. For those of us who receive many messages per hour, even during the middle of the night, and sometimes from automated systems, this is intolerable.
Waiting for the client side to sort them (e.g., in Mail.app) is not an acceptable alternative in this circumstance.
"Apple makes its money almost exclusively from selling hardware, it has opened up its own Snow Leopard Server applications, Address Book Server and iCal Server, as open source Darwin servers that can be compiled to run on Linux."
I'm yet to see Apple release the CardDAV/Address Book server as open source, like Apple has released the Calendar Server under the Apache 2.0 License.
Please confirm this information - On the MacOSforge site, no mention of the Address Book server exists as an open-source project.
I think Apple are playing their cards close to their chest here, I would not trumpet Apple as contributing their entire server platform as open-source, more they use "open source protocols"
My company uses the Apple Calendar server with our server product for Linux at http://atmail.com/ - One thing we notice with Apple engineers for the Calendar server, it's written beautiful and leveraging much of Python's object-orientated nature - But, code looks aside, runs extremely slow and unoptimized. We have had to refactor much of Apple python code to make the Calendar server even scale past 1,000+ users. Good luck hosting over 1,000 accounts with Apple Calendar server as-is ( check the Apple forums for users screaming for performance too )
Overall, I'm a strong supporter of open-source protocols, so thumbs up for Apple promoting this, vs trying to become an Exchange server using Activesync
Btw, dan, was reading some of your earlier articles and my jaw gapped at reading this, back when the current form factor of the imac hadn't been introduced, Feb. 20 2004:
Apple evidently knows less is more. Steve, just take a Cinema Display and slap three inches of Mac on the back. Nobody cares how thin the Cinema Display is; it takes up the same space with or without that Mac backpack attached anyway. Schools would love it; designers would love it; shoot, anyone with a desk and no desire for a large tower underneath it would love it.
The Cinema Display iMac.
It costs virtually nothing to develop. Just slap an Xserve or PowerBook logic board on the back, with a full size hard drive and an optical drive that ejects the CD out the side of the display. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's a machine worthy of the iMac name.
To say "good call" would be an understatement.
His terminology *is* wrong. Exchange ActiveSync, WebDAV and EWS are very different technologies.
Exchange ActiveSync is a push-capable sync protocol for Exchange using a very convoluted, high cost technology.
WebDAV uses free protocols (i.e. no licensing) but has many limitations.
EWS is the new Exchange 2007 Rollup 2 technology that replaces everything before it (minus EAS for push) that provides much better integration than WebDAV, but not as good as EAS.
One major limitation of EAS is it was designed with Exchange functionality from 2003. EWS is designed with Exchange 2007/2010 tech, but it also eschews older tech and deprecated functionality like Public Folders.
Entourage uses WebDAV today.
Entourage EWS Edition uses EWS.
Snow Leopard uses EWS.
iPhone uses Exchange ActiveSync.
That explains why my iPhone gets my work Exchange emails well before my Mac with SL & Exchange.
it's not apple's fault. Exchange 2003 is 7 years old and about to enter extended support which means almost no new patches except emergency hotfixes. Exchange 2010 is coming out next year. and i bet MS had something to do with it to get people to upgrade
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. This is more like Apple considering anything older than 5 years to be obsolete and thus not bothering to support it.
Bit like dropping support for Power PC chips. Amazing how Apple could bring out the iMac G5 (which I recommended to someone to purchase) and advertise how it had a 64bit processor in it and was thus really future proof, only to have support dropped from new versions of OS X before they even finish converting the OS completely to 64bit.
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. This is more like Apple considering anything older than 5 years to be obsolete and thus not bothering to support it.
Bit like dropping support for Power PC chips. Amazing how Apple could bring out the iMac G5 (which I recommended to someone to purchase) and advertise how it had a 64bit processor in it and was thus really future proof, only to have support dropped from new versions of OS X before they even finish converting the OS completely to 64bit.
Every major software vendor has these policies. IBM will sell you support for products that are decades old but it will cost. And apple will need dev support from Microsoft to fix bugs in their code and all of microsoft's debs are working on newer products
Do you believe every thing you read in a newspaper? A magazine? A blog? A book?
Is it correct just because it is printed on paper?
Here is another source of Snow Leopard information. Parts of it are more technical than this article. And, there are some inaccuracies (some things did not make it into the first release).
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews...-os-x-10-6.ars
Jump ahead to page 19 for a discussion of exchange.
HTH
o k
I stand corrected.
thanks for the link.
What has the age of a product got to do with anything? If it works, people like it, already have it and don't need anything new, why should they have to upgrade it. ...
You seem like you have a big anti-Apple axe to grind here, but I have to say this is the dumbest statement I've read here in a while.
It's patently ridiculous to suggest that all companies support all their products as long as they are in business and even if it wasn't, it's just not reality at all. No company does this, no company has even done this and if they did it would put them out of business on costs. Computer companies are even less likely to do this because the computer business changes far more rapidly than any other business.
I have a twenty year old motor-scooter that still works but the company doesn't still support it for repairs or make any new products for it, nor would I expect them to. Since the thing came out, the company in question switched (ten years ago), to metric. Even if I still had a contract with the company that allowed for servicing of the thing, the garages that all do the servicing don't have the tools to open it up.
This situation with my scooter is very similar to the switch to intel from PPC in the computer world. Everyone knows that computer technology rapidly advances and that computers obsolesce orders of magnitude quicker than any other product. A four or five year old computer like that G5 is the same as a twenty year old car or motorcycle relative to the technologies involved.
On a side note, why is everyone being so negative about this article? The author seems to have misused some terminology by some accounts? Mixed up a name for another name? Yet he's being ripped to pieces here as if he was a baby killer or something, and mostly by accounts made in the last month or two with a dozen or so posts.
Every time there is an article that says something negative about windows we get inundated with Trolls. Nuff said.
On a side note, why is everyone being so negative about this article? The author seems to have misused some terminology by some accounts? Mixed up a name for another name? Yet he's being ripped to pieces here as if he was a baby killer or something, and mostly by accounts made in the last month or two with a dozen or so posts.
Every time there is an article that says something negative about windows we get inundated with Trolls. Nuff said.
I'm not going to defend any trolls here, but I will express my frustration with Daniel's recent work. The first 'Prince McLean' articles here were stellar pieces of technology reporting, both in terms of historical context and depth of the subject matter at hand. His opinion pieces at the time remained separate on his personal blog, where it's no secret that Daniel carries an anti-Microsoft agenda (and for the most part I agree with it, although it gets repetitive after a while). But lately every piece has carried that same Microsoft bashing over to the AppleInsider pieces, at which point people here have every right to call him on wrong details or stretched analogies.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
This is probably the most sensible thing I've ever read on these forums.
Microsoft aren't evil - they're just crap!
Microsoft aren't evil - they're just crrrap!
Well, they certainly aren't Scottish!
In the 90s it could be argued that Microsoft was evil, at least in terms of its Machiavellian business practices, but with subsequent government scrutiny they seem to have toned that down. I think nowadays they are merely incompetent. But again, that doesn't have to be brought up in almost every article.
I'm not going to defend any trolls here, but I will express my frustration with Daniel's recent work. The first 'Prince McLean' articles here were stelar pieces of technology reporting, both in terms of historical context and depth of the subject matter at hand. His opinion pieces at the time remained separate on his personal blog, where it's no secret that Daniel carries an anti-Microsoft agenda (and for the most part I agree with it, although it gets repetitive after a while). But lately every piece has carried that same Microsoft bashing over to the AppleInsider pieces, at which point people here have every right to call him on wrong details or stretched analogies.
I dislike Microsoft as much as the next Apple user, but their activities shouldn't frame every bit of reporting on Apple technology as an epic battle against the Evil Empire. Go ahead and ridicule MS when they deserve it (and there's no shortage of opportunities), but don't make it an obsession that colors every article about anything else.
I used to be an avid follower of Dan's posts, here, and on roughly drafted. I enjoyed his research and presentation skills, but noticed that he sometimes manipulated, or ignored facts, to further the case he was presenting. It was good reading, I mostly agreed (albeit a little uncomfortably), so what's the harm?
Then he began publishing things that I (and others) disagreed with. When challenged, he would misinterpret or ignore the facts in his response and sometimes resort to name-calling.
Hmm... Was he wrong, or was it me? Actually, I was as guilty as he, because I went along for the "ride" (ignoring the facts) when they got in the way of his story... as long as I agreed with the premiss. My bad.
Then, I went back and reread some of Dan's many articles that I had enjoyed in the past... to see if I could determine why I had been so "easy". One thing I noticed is that almost every article Dan writes, he cites references references to support his views. Mostly, Dan links to articles by Prince McLean or Daniel Eran Dilger (one in the same). If you follow one of these links, you will be presented with a story with some other links to, guess what, articles written by himself. ...so, Dan is citing himself as a reference. What better way to further your point of view? Done properly, I have no argument with an author "padding his portfolio" in this way. But, to use these fora to denigrate or promote companies or products is bad practice, at best. Disguising the presentations as objective journalism is not acceptable.
Or, at the minimum, each article should have a disclaimer stating any biases or prejudices that the author has for the companies and products included.
I dislike Microsoft because of business to business dealings in the past. I prefer other manufacturers products to most of their offerings! Are they all bad? No.
I like Apple and have dealt with them since 1978 as: an individual customer; reseller; a vendor to them; co-developer on a joint project; developer. Do I like everything Apple does? No way!
As to Dan's articles-- I regard them as a interesting point of view, but don't expect them to be, necessarily, factual... fool me once...
If that makes me a troll, so be it!
I used to be an avid follower of Dan's posts, here, and on roughly drafted. I enjoyed his research and presentation skills, but noticed that he sometimes manipulated, or ignored facts, to further the case he was presenting. It was good reading, I mostly agreed (albeit a little uncomfortably), so what's the harm?
Then he began publishing things that I (and others) disagreed with. When challenged, he would misinterpret or ignore the facts in his response and sometimes resort to name-calling.
Hmm... Was he wrong, or was it me? Actually, I was as guilty as he, because I went along for the "ride" (ignoring the facts) when they got in the way of his story... as long as I agreed with the premiss. My bad.
Then, I went back and reread some of Dan's many articles that I had enjoyed in the past... to see if I could determine why I had been so "easy". One thing I noticed is that almost every article Dan writes, he cites references references to support his views. Mostly, Dan links to articles by Prince McLean or Daniel Eran Dilger (one in the same). If you follow one of these links, you will be presented with a story with some other links to, guess what, articles written by himself. ...so, Dan is citing himself as a reference. What better way to further your point of view? Done properly, I have no argument with an author "padding his portfolio" in this way. But, to use these fora to denigrate or promote companies or products is bad practice, at best. Disguising the presentations as objective journalism is not acceptable.
Or, at the minimum, each article should have a disclaimer stating any biases or prejudices that the author has for the companies and products included.
I dislike Microsoft because of business to business dealings in the past. I prefer other manufacturers products to most of their offerings! Are they all bad? No.
I like Apple and have dealt with them since 1978 as: an individual customer; reseller; a vendor to them; co-developer on a joint project; developer. Do I like everything Apple does? No way!
...
I agree with most of this, and I must say it's nice that you thought out your response.
The thing that really bothers me is the vehemence of the "anti-Daniel" crowd here and the fact that most responses are *not* thought out, but more like personal attacks.
Daniel propagandises a lot, but makes no bones about it. I also think that the "references" he uses (to himself) are not so much references in the classic sense but just pointers to more detail on that topic.
I've had to slowly stop using most of the bigger Mac forums just because there are so few that are willing to keep things rational and not go too overboard with the attacks, and this place is pretty much the last one I have left. There are some really smart people here, but that doesn't seem to stop them from just jumping all over things when a mistake is made by the author and it just drags the whole debate down.
The bigger point he is making with this article for instance is pretty much spot on in terms of differentiating between the two approaches (Apple and MS), but because he got some detail wrong, people are acting like it's a personal affront to their sensibilities.
I'm not saying this kind of behaviour is not understandable, or even that I don't do it myself from time to time, but people need to actively govern their emotions a bit more IMO. Daniel is a smart guy that provides valuable insight into some of this stuff. He often provides a perspective that had never occurred to me until I read his articles, and I'm a pretty smart person myself.
I just don't see the point in jumping all over him the first time he makes a mistake, and in making it so personal as many have. Especially when (as in this case), the mistake is small, and it doesn't detract from the basic point he was making.
These articles maybe need to be labelled a bit differently to indicate that they are more personal reviews than objective analysis but otherwise I have no problem with them and find the insight valuable as I said.
Microsoft has responded with the announcement that it will now be delivering a real (but still scaled back) version of Outlook for the Mac again...
Where in any of the press releases has it been said that the upcoming Outlook will be "scaled back" still?
Where in any of the press releases has it been said that the upcoming Outlook will be "scaled back" still?
I think that's why there are brackets in the statement.
I just don't see the point in jumping all over him the first time he makes a mistake, and in making it so personal as many have. Especially when (as in this case), the mistake is small, and it doesn't detract from the basic point he was making.
maybe it is due to the fact that every article Daniel writes he attacks people for making mistakes?