Comments on: Don’t call my baby ugly, and other Mark Crispinisms http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/ Thoughts of a minor lunatic Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:55:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: petrilli http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/comment-page-1/#comment-50158 petrilli Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:19:15 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/#comment-50158 First, Microsoft doesn't follow standards for, I believe, two reasons. One, it allows market dominance when they control the de facto standard. Second, often the standards do not actually solve the problem they're trying to solve, and their underlying driver won't let them participate in fixing the standard. If I were to extrapolate from my experience in small, medium, large businesses and government, I would say that MAPI represents upwards of 90% of the market. Perhaps it doesn't represent the hobbyist very well, nor does it represent certain organizations, but the reality is quite different than the perception from some corners. MAPI sucks, having had to reverse engineer large chunks of it, but it does work. Mostly. As for offline access, my experience with Mail.app, Thunderbird, and others, is that they often lose sync with things, and status, and that resyncing often causes emails to disappear and appear that have long since been dealt with. Now, is this the client's fault? Perhaps, perhaps not, but people don't accept that "oh, it's the server's fault". It's the solution's fault, and the combination of server and clients that I've had to work with (including Mark Crispin's work) don't work smoothly in a lot of cases of disconnected work. First, Microsoft doesn’t follow standards for, I believe, two reasons. One, it allows market dominance when they control the de facto standard. Second, often the standards do not actually solve the problem they’re trying to solve, and their underlying driver won’t let them participate in fixing the standard.

If I were to extrapolate from my experience in small, medium, large businesses and government, I would say that MAPI represents upwards of 90% of the market. Perhaps it doesn’t represent the hobbyist very well, nor does it represent certain organizations, but the reality is quite different than the perception from some corners. MAPI sucks, having had to reverse engineer large chunks of it, but it does work. Mostly.

As for offline access, my experience with Mail.app, Thunderbird, and others, is that they often lose sync with things, and status, and that resyncing often causes emails to disappear and appear that have long since been dealt with. Now, is this the client’s fault? Perhaps, perhaps not, but people don’t accept that “oh, it’s the server’s fault”. It’s the solution’s fault, and the combination of server and clients that I’ve had to work with (including Mark Crispin’s work) don’t work smoothly in a lot of cases of disconnected work.

]]> By: jd http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/comment-page-1/#comment-50154 jd Sun, 28 Oct 2007 13:55:02 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/#comment-50154 LOL - MAPI "dead for a while"? Last I checked, Exchange has complete and total dominance in the enterprise, medium, and small business spaces. IMAP didn't just lose, it got utterly stomped. LOL – MAPI “dead for a while”? Last I checked, Exchange has complete and total dominance in the enterprise, medium, and small business spaces. IMAP didn’t just lose, it got utterly stomped.

]]> By: ed http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/comment-page-1/#comment-50151 ed Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:15:08 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/#comment-50151 Maybe this is why Microsoft never follow standards? They all sucks and have less functions Maybe this is why Microsoft never follow standards? They all sucks and have less functions

]]> By: Brianary http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/comment-page-1/#comment-50149 Brianary Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:57:22 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/#comment-50149 Thunderbird and Evolution work fine offline, too. Never run into a problem with offline support for MAPI. MAPI's been dead for a while. Where have you been working that IMAP "lost" to MAPI? Thunderbird and Evolution work fine offline, too. Never run into a problem with offline support for MAPI.

MAPI’s been dead for a while. Where have you been working that IMAP “lost” to MAPI?

]]> By: John Bergmayer http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/comment-page-1/#comment-50148 John Bergmayer Sat, 27 Oct 2007 23:44:11 +0000 http://blog.amber.org/2007/10/27/dont-call-my-baby-ugly-and-other-mark-crispinisms/#comment-50148 To name just one program, Mail.app is very good at offline access. Messages are downloaded in their entirety, not just headers, and local copies can be kept of everything. I can send emails offline and have them sit in an outbox until my laptop gets WiFi. If you're going to say that IMAP is too complicated, compare it to a like protocol. You cite MAPI. Is MAPI simpler or manageable than IMAP? Which has more implementations? My understanding had always been that MAPI succeeded because of market forces, not technical ones. To name just one program, Mail.app is very good at offline access. Messages are downloaded in their entirety, not just headers, and local copies can be kept of everything. I can send emails offline and have them sit in an outbox until my laptop gets WiFi.

If you’re going to say that IMAP is too complicated, compare it to a like protocol. You cite MAPI. Is MAPI simpler or manageable than IMAP? Which has more implementations? My understanding had always been that MAPI succeeded because of market forces, not technical ones.

]]>