Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
- Subject: Re: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
- From: "Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:22:44 -0500
- Thread-topic: [Fed-Talk] "User" v. "Consumer" v. "Enterprise"
On 12/30/08 3:12 PM, "Timothy J. Miller" <email@hidden> wrote:
> Fletcher, Boyd C. CIV US USJFCOM JFL J9935 wrote:
>
>> For 20+ years prior to the mid 90s almost all email users used separate
>> standalone apps for email, ab, and calendaring.
>
>> We when apps that combined those functions came out users rapidly migrated
>> to them example include those above and program line Pine. We at worked at
>> university, we provide pine, unix mail, and a variety of other X Window and
>> ASCII based mail programs and users by a large amount chose pine because it
>> integrated AB and Email and it had a easy to use UI.
>
> While we had IMAP4 for mail and LDAP for directories, what we lacked was
> CalDAV/iCalendar for events and XMPP for presence--and simple hooks for
> applications to call one another. It was these gaps that made the
> integrated applications more palatable.
>
> That picture has changed (on some platforms, anyway :), so isn't it time
> to re-evaluate ancient design decisions?
>
ancient design decision was the mess the unix world left. lots of
disconnected poorly integrated applications. what we have learned from MS is
that integration is a far better approach. However, what we have also
learned from MS is there is a right way to do and a wrong way and on the
case of many of their products they implemented it the wrong way in the
backend. for example, It won't be until Exchange 2010 that its scalability
will truly reach enterprise level - they basically rearchitected the entire
backend so that it can broken up components - but the key here is the those
chunks are still tightly integrated and seemless.
in the Unix and Mac world that integration simply is not there and it makes
maintaining the those very time consuming and expensive.
>> you don't always need a formal study to determine trends. in the 1998
>> we use IMAP/POP3 for email and LDAP for AB and we made available a
>> variety of email/ab clients to users and almost all chose Outlook 98
>> over the others because of the tight integration and better UI.
>
> Not to determine broad trends, no; but to evaluate trends and make good
> sense of them, yes you do need formal studies for that.
>
> -- Tim
I disagree. users and IT folks have had a variety of choices for a long time
and they have consistently put the vast majority of their money into highly
integrated systems.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden