[Python-il] [slightly OT] Meeting to coordinate cooperation of FOSS community with "Mimshal Zamin"
aronovitch at gmail.com
Fri Feb 19 00:10:31 IST 2010
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Meir Kriheli <meir at mksoft.co.il> wrote:
> On 02/17/2010 02:08 PM, Amit Aronovitch wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Meir Kriheli <meir at mksoft.co.il
> > <mailto:meir at mksoft.co.il>> wrote
> > When reading the discussion @hamakor, the fact that Drupal was auto
> > selected (without considering others) turned off any will I had
> > the cause. Am I wrong ?
> > First of all, we do not know if they considered other options. Only that
> > they did not ask US (which is kind of a turn-off).
> So, why ask now ? To get some free consulting or leverage against the
> chosen proprietary solution (see OpenOffice in gov).
They don't. They just meet with Doron to discuss future cooperation,
whatever that might be. He asked in Hamakor list if anyone wants to join,
and I forwarded here.
And why should we care about their motivation anyway? If its good for us,
take it if not - not.
I believe it is good to give some feedback to anyone trying to reach the
community. You do not have to do "free consulting" or help them solve any
problem if that would not benefit you (and I don't think they'd want that
> > Second, supposing the infrastructure is already a lost cause, don't
> > think of it as helping THEM.
> > Rather, we are helping the writers of future scripts and aggregators
> > (all pure Python of course) by getting early information and maybe
> > affecting the choice of supported API's.
> And there's no need for our input, the standards in that area are well
> defined, choose one or more of RSS, RDF, ATOM, SOAP, XML-RPC, JSON etc.
> and call it the day.
I sincerely hope you are right.
But I have my reasons to be skeptical regarding such issues. If you recall
my example (reinserting snipped text):
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Amit Aronovitch <aronovitch at gmail.com>wrote:
> ... For example (this was long time ago, do not know if relevant nowadays)
> - MS Exchange server theoretically supports imap and nntp, but clients using
> these protocols are severely crippled for several reasons - a major one is
> that the CONTENT sent via imap is pre-translated from Rich-Text to html,
> slightly messed up on the way, and loses some of the information (as
> compared to outlook client, that gets the original Rich-Text via some
> internal Exchange protocol).
> We need to verify that standard protocols provided are standard enough AND
> that they carry the full information.
> IMAP, IMAPS, NNTP also were all well defined protocols at the time. Even
Exchange's implementation created valid output (I'm not sure 100% compliant,
but at least good enough to be used by standard unix clients). Still, the
data provided using these protocols was severely corrupted, compared to data
served via the proprietary Exchange protocol.
At the time when the move to Exchange server was considered, *nobody
checked* if the IMAP solution really worked. They just saw IMAP and NNTP
listed in the feature list and ticked the checkbox. After the move, internal
mail and news access from Unix stations was practically killed off (in favor
of remote access to windows servers, which had its own share of problems).
Of course we tried to report the bug, but I would not be surprised if it
never even got to Microsoft (nobody believed that a problem that only occurs
in a "remote nieche" - like serving certain kind of hebrew messages via the
imap protocol, would get a high enough priority there to be fixed in
Bottom line, I generally dont trust feature reviews based on check-lists.
However, since I guess you have much more experience with the relevant
protocols at hand, I'll have to take your word on it. Since my experience
with the relevant web technologies is practically zero, I would not join
that meeting myself anyways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-il