OStatic

Want to hear an odd little theory (or perhaps more of a personal hang up) of mine? I don't own a Mac, and have never owned a Mac -- and I can say without reservation that many Macs I've worked with have been great, robust little machines. I also have never owned any Apple device (iPod, iPhone, or even a Newton). There are a few reasons on that front, one being that I don't have a Mac, and historically I've seen that these devices just don't play as well on other platforms as they do on Macs.

Here's the rub: Macs are nice, contained sorts of bio-domes, technological terrariums of sorts. The hardware and software all work together by design (which makes computing pleasant when all goes to plan and frustrating when it doesn't). When you need (or want) to use an outside service, problems ranging from aesthetic annoyances to complete non-communication arise.

Open-Xchange is an open source groupware and email alternative to Microsoft's Exchange Server. Though Open-Xchange previously supported Mac systems to some degree, it wasn't truly a cohesive, native experience.

If you're running OS X and use Open-Xchange, syncing your calendar, email, tasks and appointments between desktop, server, and mobile device just got a lot more functional, and much easier.

I can't help, when hearing more of the details about the EFF and OdioWorks joint lawsuit against Apple, thinking that the whole situation is just broken from any angle. The DMCA isn't without issue and the fact that it was applied to an online discussion about reverse engineering possibilities is a disturbing first. Even more backwards is the idea that a company producing wildly popular devices that are unsupported on an operating platform that's attracting an increasing number of tech- and gadget-happy people would not expect (or tolerate to some degree) discussion about reverse engineering.

Let's put the legal issues aside for a moment -- or the idea that any copy protection systems were going to be stripped and copyright laws would be violated left and right. Wouldn't having a device your company produces but will not (or can not) support on some platforms reverse engineered so that it is able to work on (and with) a larger pool of software going to make your device more desirable?

Sometimes porting a bit of code to another platform or piece of hardware isn't about the ported code delivering new features to the device. Sure, sometimes it's about opening the device to a specific application, and sometimes it's just about opening the device up to a new development approach. Sometimes the idea is to push the code (and the device) further, to learn -- because you can.

Sometimes these ports don't get all that far. Four years ago I managed to get Linux running on an iPAQ through online tutorials. I've long since sold the hardware, and running Linux meant a command line, and a basic X windows environment. Functional? Not really. Fun? Wouldn't have done it otherwise.

More recently, the 2.6 Linux kernel has been ported, and is running with some basic functionality on the iPhone. The Linux on the iPhone Project says that while this port is a first draft missing many drivers, the kernel boots on first and second generation iPhones and first generation iPod Touches.

When Microsoft announced it was planning to offer lightweight, web-based versions of some of its Office components, there was some speculation that maybe it could be used with alternate browsers. It seemed Firefox would be a likely candidate beyond IE, and some ventured to wonder about Safari.

Even if Firefox was supported, it didn't seem likely this suite would be specifically web based, so it would need Windows, right? According to a few sources it seems as if that might not be the case. Though the source is a Microsoft Community member blog (and not a pronouncement from corporate sources) the concept of this service on Mac and Linux is fascinating because it suggests so much about what Microsoft might be thinking.

Mark Shuttleworth, the man at the helm of Canonical and Ubuntu, went into greater detail last week about his thoughts on making future Ubuntu releases more user-focused. In the past, Shuttleworth has made no pretense that he feels Apple has, historically, offered a superior user experience.

Shuttleworth's comments have elicited striking reactions, ranging from enthusiastic support to concern about what innovation really means.