Mainly related to buggy server or client or both I assume.. but connection would fail in the middle of retrival, or not retrieve some messages, or things would somehow get out of sync (despite that being precisely what it should prevent).

Even now, I use gmail and use getmail to backup using imap and I find I have to run my script several times to get all messages if there are a lot.

I tend to think they are linked well enough. I want to schedule a meeting, I email it out to people, they add it to their calendar. Most of my scheduling is a combination of email and adding stuff to calendar, makes sense to integrate it.

Outlook is one of the few things Microsoft does right (at least from the user perspective) imo.

Personally I've had terrible luck with IMAP.

Ultimately while I'm not usually a fan of web apps in general, they are a perfect solution for email (which is probably why webmail is so popular).

You can always run your own mail server with one of the free webmail scripts out there. Assuming you can find one that doesn't suck (I've been considering this.. does anyone have any recommendations?)

If it's any conciliation, this post did drop down to 0 at one point.

I wish slashdot provided a moderation graph over time. It's amusing to watch moderation go up and down throughout the day, especially on issues like this where the community is largely divided on the subject.

Never said extremism was a bad thing. Infact in many posts I've said that the world needs extremists tugging on both ends. That said I wouldn't go to one for a pragmatic opinion.

The way I see it, what we have are extremists like RMS who serve as discussion points.

You don't have to read too many of the comments to see that the RMS opinion is taken for what it is. An extreme view point. I doubt anything he calls for is going to happen, but this might start discussion about this issue for the rational masses.

I generally associate idealism with people who base their views on unlikly (future) or inaccurate (current) realities. That is, "in an ideal world... thus my opinion is..".
I generally associate pragmatism with compromise and choosing less favorable routes based on likely (future) or actual (current) realities.

I can accept that idealism pushes things in their desired direction, but if you make the argument that basing your opinions on something you are trying to achieve makes it non-extremist, then everything becomes pragmatic.

The RMS view that all software should be free is imo extremely unlikely to ever happen. Basing current decisions on that belief or goal to me takes one out of the realm of pragmatism.

Last box I built I really tried to find a card that would do what I need and not require propriatary drivers. Admittedly not because I care about them being propriatary, but because they are a pain in the ass to deal with.

Couldn't come up with anything :(

If anyone actually knows of something that can:
- handle 4 monitors (using 2 cards if necessary)
- do opengl and have reasonable performance
- cost less than my car

I'll be happy to use it :)

And it's _exactly_ that style of argument that drowns out the good arguments for privacy. Extremists get ignored. A reasonable, well thought out, and balanced view on privacy and how it relates to the internet and current society might actually get somewhere. "You're all complete idiots" generally gets you lumped in as a nut who's opinions should be ignored.

I guess it's hard to argue that one mans views are extreme to someone who shares the same extreme views :S

I will respond to this one. My argument was that people have _decided_ they don't give a shit. It's subtly different from not giving a shit. Obviously some have just gone with the crowd, but many users of social media understand the privacy implications, have thought about it, and decided that they are ok with the trade off.

As to the other stuff, no idea how to even respond. Arguing that RMS is a pragmatist throws an exception in my brain. I can't even mount a good argument that works within the mindspace necessary to reach that initial thought as it's contrary to every opinion I've developed about the man and my personal definition of pragmatism. Our views of reality are clearly incompatible, so I'm out!

Have a nice weekend :)

Which makes sense...

We are never going to have an RMS style "all software is completely free" world. Hell I wouldn't want one. I wouldn't want an Apple style "everything is locked down" world either.

What we have now, the compromise solution, works great. There is lots of free software out there. There are still areas which lack serious free alternatives, but you can run a desktop or server on mostly open source. There is also decent sized and co-existing industry of closed source and propriatary software. Many of us (myself included) make a living in it.

Would I love all the software on my desktop to be completely free, sure. Am I happy with most of my software being free, with say propriatary video card drivers... yup!

Oh come on. The FSF and RMS specifically are pretty much the exact opposite of pragmatic. "All software that isn't completely free (and we have to specifically clarify what we mean by free because the common definition of free isn't free enough) is pure evil". I've seen the man speak, he is a lunatic and definitely an extremist.

That's thin. They don't explicitly state that they are against child slavery but by that argument we should claim free software is about protecting children in third world countries?

The fact that you strongly believe in a view point doesn't make it correct. You only have to look around to see that society in general is becoming more socially open. Yes, sometimes it bites people in the ass, but by enlarge it seems to be enhancing everyones social life to a point where the slight risk is probably worth it. We are moving into a time when privacy is becoming less and less valuable to most people, and social connection (which is valuable to most people) is growing.

This is probably a good thing, but extreme privacy nuts are foaming at the mouth. Arguments like "well, they are too stupid to understand the privacy issue" just show how much they don't get it.

And if we just go a little bit further..

I’m not a fan of ubuntu nor RMS, and I definitely don’t like the sounds of this feature, but since when was "free software" equated with "respects your privacy".

Culturally most of it does, and by consequence of having access to the code any privacy concerns can easily be detected / removed by end users if desired, but I still don't see the connection between free software and assumed privacy. If anything this seems like a dangerous assumption.

Also the usual stuff here applies about pragmatism and user choice. RMS states that this feature is "malicious" as a matter of fact, and throws around spooky words like "surveillance" and "spyware" like he's doing a Fox news special report. I'm all for having opinions, but the way RMS spouts them as absolute irrefutable fact has always annoyed me (even when I agree with them). Obviously most users probably don't share this view. It's probably a useful feature to most, it can easily be disabled by the sounds of it, will bring in some money, and I suspect most users don't give a shit about being "spied on" in this manner. Remember this is the facebook/twitter/whatever else generation. A lot of people _like_ sharing all the minutia of their day with the entire world. I don't get it, but it's their choice.