Macs in the Enterprise

For all those doubters / MS shills that claim Macs are no good in the enterprise. Here's a ComputerWorld Article that details the switch. This is the same company that the Microsoft Goon squad - Microsoft Software Asset Management Engagement Manager - targeted in a shakedown last year.

As always, ALL bullies are cowards, and when Frantz refused to buckle and took the matter to his lawyers, Microsoft backed off.

The great part of this story is that as Frantz said, he is NOT doing this out of vengeance.

Instead, AWC's new strategic enterprise technology plan is the direct result of proof-of-concept testing that indicates that the company can cut costs, increase system reliability and security, and provide expanded IT support services by porting a major portion of its IT infrastructure to Apple. Extricating itself from its exclusive dependence on Microsoft is simply the cherry on top.

Whoops! there goes the "Macs are expensive toys" tagline. Time for another Microsoft sponsored "Study" on TCO. As an added plus, the iPhone turned out to be the ideal vehicle for "live production data" and

After his little backyard experiment, Frantz has another plan in the works: order iPhones for the 50 or so traveling managers and give them anywhere/anytime access to VIPS data via Internet access furnished under an enterprise contract with AT&T Inc.

Kudos to Dale Frantz for not succumbing to the "We have to buy Microsoft" because everyone else does mentality.

iPhone FUD

So here we go.
Now the MS Exchange team has weighed in with their own iFUD piece disguised as an article on IMAP and it's so called lack of security features. This one is almost "Enderlesque". Someone needs to educate these morons on what a messaging protocol (which is ALL that IMAP is) is supposed to do or not do. And also explain to them the difference between a Mail Transfer protocol and a Mail Client!
Here's an example.

The IMAP protocol only supports email

Wow! And my Apple car strangely doesn't float on water while a Microsoft branded boat does.
John Welsh does a good job ripping this FUD piece apart.

Independence Day

Celebrate, Teach, Remember.

Vengeance is mine

I usually stay away from two topics on this blog – Religion and Politics. That might be the cowardly approach mainly because these are two contentious topics but in my case it is more so that I consider these topics very personal. That being said, in one of my recent Bible readings I delved into the book of 1st Samuel, and was deeply disturbed by something. Now many of us already know this story, but what got me thinking specifically was 1 Samuel Chapter 15. In this chapter Samuel instructs Saul to wage war and destroy the Amalakites because they ambushed Israel during the Exodus from Egypt. Indeed in Exodus 17, after Joshua defeated the Amalek armies, the Lord said to Moses that he would utterly “blot out” the memory of Amalek from Heaven.

The Old Testament is replete with stories of war and killing, and much has been discussed about the differences/contradictions with the New Testament teachings of Jesus – of forgiveness and loving your enemies. But this contradiction of a Vengeful God and a Loving God is one of the hardest things for me to reconcile.

We all have asked the question – why do innocent people have to suffer? and we see innocent people die in wars every day. But this was NOT a case of God letting people die in the crossfire. That is something I can learn to accept, because we as humans choose to wage war. In this chapter, Samuel specifically instructs Saul to kill every living thing of and related to the Amalakites – men, women, children, suckling babies, cattle, and sheep – Everything. This was a vengeful God ordering the utter annihilation of an entire tribe of people. And this "revenge killing" was to take place 500 years (?) after the initial crime was committed by the Amalakites of the time. To put it in perspective, this would be the equivalent of an American General dropping a dozen hydrogen bombs on Berlin tomorrow and wiping it off the map in retaliation for what happened during the holocaust. The absurdity of it just astounds me, and would probably not fly with anyone you meet on the street today. And we are only 65 years removed from the slaughter of the Jews in WW2, not 500 years.

Saul of course lost his right to the kingdom because he disobeyed God and kept the “spoils” of war. And I know the lesson in this chapter is about obeying God instead of trying to please him with offerings. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Saul disobeyed because he didn’t think(as I do) that the women and children of the Amalakites – a hundred generations removed from the ones that attacked the Jews leaving Egypt – deserved the punishment being meted out to them.

The chapter ends with Agag the captured Amalak king saying to Samuel “Surely the bitterness of death is past”. But Samuel hacks him to pieces before the Lord, proving that the blood lust still hadn’t been satisfied.

Now some people I know when reading this would come back with what I call the “that’s old testament – Jesus freed us from all that” excuse. But that to me is a cop-out. Jesus clearly states in Matt 5:17 that he didn’t come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill it. I find this example of God seeking revenge on people “unrelated to the event” (I don’t want to fall into the argumentative trap of calling them “innocent”) very disturbing. And when I compare it to the life of Jesus, or even the common terms of Justice, I find this very hard to reconcile.