Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yale Delays Move To Gmail

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-it's-in-the-cloud dept.

Communications 176

Mortimer.CA writes "The Yale Daily News is reporting that the move to Gmail has been postponed. After further consultations with faculty and staff, the concerns raised 'fell into three main categories: problems with "cloud computing" (the transfer of information between virtual servers on the Internet), technological risks and downsides, and ideological issues.' In the latter category, 'Google was not willing to provide ITS with a list of countries to which the University's data could be sent [i.e., replicated], but only a list of about 15 countries to which the data would not be sent.'"

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Know what... (4, Interesting)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692606)

I would be more than a little interested in that list too...

Re:Know what... (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692648)

It's probably most of the countries. Google has their own highly-redundancy file system that spans thousands of servers and even different datacenters and locations. Even data that is deleted could remain in the system for 9+ months. I think it's highly possible all of the data travels around the world and is stored in several locations.

Re:Know what... (4, Informative)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693062)

That would be correct, if you look at their BGP advertisements it would figure that Google would have to transit it's own data.

So if your request for data (YouTube video etc) isn't located in the DC that you connected to, they would have to transit that data across their own links. It would then make sense that they would replicate their own data over those same links during the night on that side of the world when the link is quiet.

Re:Know what... (1)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693652)

So if your request for data (YouTube video etc) isn't located in the DC that you connected to, they would have to transit that data across their own links. It would then make sense that they would replicate their own data over those same links during the night on that side of the world when the link is quiet.

If they're going to replicate it, and the data is traveling across their own network anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to store a copy locally while they're sending it to your browser?

Re:Know what... (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693856)

Yup especially if it's something like an email fragment which you could well re-request.

If you have enough bandwidth though..... After you have done the request for the data and it's been returned to the client, you would then have to update the master that the data is now stored on another location, which you then have to manage that data in another location. Nope, that doesn't make any sense. The front end would only get the data and that's it. If the master sees that the front end was too far away, it might ask another master to replicate the data. Again, if you had lots and lots of fibre and network bandwidth which Google apparently does, you might just wait for an intelligent sync during the off hours...

Whether it works this way or not, I haven't seen or heard anything either way.

Re:Know what... (4, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693098)

So if I'm Dutch and store my downloads from Seventeen in my Google account, and that data makes its way over to the U.S., does that mean I've committed a child porn crime?

Re:Know what... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693182)

What's Seventeen in Holland? When I hear that name, I think of an American magazine for teenage girls.

Re:Know what... (2, Informative)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693928)

When I hear that name, I think of an American magazine for teenage girls.

It's a Dutch magazine for men who like teenage girls.

Although, I'd wager that most of the "girls" have been around the track a few times since the last time that they were "teens" . . . or that anyone called them "girls," for that matter.

Re:Know what... (5, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693232)

> ...does that mean I've committed a child porn crime?

No, because _you_ have done nothing inside USA jurisdiction. It may mean Google has, though.

Re:Know what... (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693272)

> ...does that mean I've committed a child porn crime?

No, because _you_ have done nothing inside USA jurisdiction. It may mean Google has, though.

Even google's liability may be limited as they can claim common carrier.

Re:Know what... (3, Informative)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693372)

They might claim it, but that doesn't make it so.

 

Re:Know what... (0, Troll)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693766)

Even google's liability may be limited as they can claim common carrier.

Their ability to claim they are a common carrier is almost categorically absurd.

Re:Know what... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31694004)

Why? The basic principle is that a service provider is handling too much data to implement any sort of editorial review. It would be impractical to expect them to do so. If their motivation is to provide a service not explicitly meant to facilitate illegal activity then they shouldn't be held at fault for what they redistribute and link to.

Re:Know what... (2, Informative)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693274)

IANAL but if you then accessed / distibuted that in the US you could be in trouble. Given that your data wouldn't be re-assembled (And certainly not in your possession) till you accessed it in The Netherlands you should be fine. Aside from plausible deniability and all that.

Honestly, I would be more worried about the UK:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/24/extreme_pron_law_live/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Know what... (1)

vlokje (1703102) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693384)

Wrong! The USA claims their laws are applicable if the data passes trough a US based network

Re:Know what... (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693550)

OK, but he isn't a US citizen (Well doesn't indicate that he is). What are they going to do? Extradite him and charge him? If this was the case, why the hell haven't they done this to the rest of the world?

Re:Know what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693708)

Nah, extradition is too much of a pain.

But they will have cops waiting for him if he ever even flies through a US airport, and then he'll never see his home country again. Better check your transfers carefully on those international flights!

Re:Know what... (5, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693446)

I would be more worried about "If I'm Dutch, and doing something at a research lab at my university" whether its corporate funded, military, or maybe medical research with client data included... Would a nosy sheriff of a county with a large, competing university in the US be able to subpoena my emails, since it might be stored in the US servers?

Re:Know what... (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693686)

That one I don't know about, plausibly. I guess at that point of you have to think about your data retention laws and your requirements for keeping that data secure and whether putting it into the cloud is actually the right thing. Perhaps put it into the cloud encrypted?

While looking for another link earlier, the city of Los Angeles ran into similar problems with their police dept and they didn't move. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31967328/ [msn.com]

Whether Google is working with them on this one, or whether LAPD is keeping it internal is the question I guess.

Re:Know what... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31692694)

Why don't any of them mention privacy? Or is that what they are trivializing by calling them "ideological issues"? Why don't they just come out and say the word "privacy" and be done with it?

I think they forget the notion that i.e. "stealing is wrong" can also be described as "ideological" but it's quite evidently more than some theory. It really is better for everyone when that "ideal" is recognized. Privacy is no different.

Re:Know what... (4, Informative)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692910)

I was just thinking the same thing. Our law firm is considering GMail as a possible alternative to Outlook/Exchange, and this is one question I know we overlooked. Most of our debate centered around a) loss of control over the data (Federal Discovery Rules), and b) privacy.

Re:Know what... (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693088)

I hope you didn't consider it for long. If there's one area GMail or any other cloud provider should not be used, it's law firms.

Re:Know what... (4, Interesting)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693286)

If there's one area GMail or any other cloud provider should not be used, it's law firms.

Oh, you'd be surprised how many have already made the switch. My firm's a non-profit, so the costs alone, or lack thereof in GMail's case, are a huge incentive to make a switch. Couple licensing fees with sharp increases in demand for management of issues like retention policies that can vary with statutes of limitations, data loss, time-based archiving, and legal compliance and its easy to understand why a lot of firms are just giving up as the headaches just don't seem worth the effort.

Personally, I'm leery of the, but it's hard to go your boss with a proposed budget of close to $100,000 for an internally managed system versus $0 (and some geek's time) to drop the problem on someone else.

Re:Know what... (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693364)

100k? How many mailboxes do you need? 10 USD/mailbox/mth for exchange hosting.... I'm not trolling, but you do get what you pay for. If you want GMail and think it's good then great, but as you're already aware there are things you give-up for that $0.

Re:Know what... (4, Funny)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693474)

"10 USD/mailbox/mth for exchange hosting"

And this is different from Google how? Id much rather put my security in the hands of the best software company in the world with a stunning track record for security.

Re:Know what... (1, Interesting)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693590)

"10 USD/mailbox/mth for exchange hosting"

And this is different from Google how? Id much rather put my security in the hands of the best software company in the world with a stunning track record for security.

Apparently you missed the recent issues with the Chinese govt? That was only the most recent publicized breach they had.. No offense but if you consider Gmail's track record "stunning" I would hate to see what you consider awful.

Re:Know what... (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693862)

100k? How many mailboxes do you need?

Hosting is still a third party solution, which brings you back to the privacy aspects. It's not so much the number of mailboxes as it is the storage needs for retention and retrieval. Attorneys operate on the assumption that NOTHING can ever be deleted. EVER. Factor in server costs, line fees, mail server hardware, storage hardware, administrative add-ons like DLP boxes, search appliances, and compliance software and you climb the cost charts pretty quick.

Re:Know what... (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693910)

I totally understand the regulatory requirements you have - still, 100k is _a lot_. It all depends on the number of mailboxes and retention policies, but I'm positive there are solutions out there that are better than spending 100k.... I'm really not intending to turf here, but there are many companies that specialize in hosting complex regulatory services.

Re:Know what... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693436)

If there's one area GMail or any other cloud provider should not be used, it's law firms.

Oh, you'd be surprised how many have already made the switch. My firm's a non-profit, so the costs alone, or lack thereof in GMail's case, are a huge incentive to make a switch. Couple licensing fees with sharp increases in demand for management of issues like retention policies that can vary with statutes of limitations, data loss, time-based archiving, and legal compliance and its easy to understand why a lot of firms are just giving up as the headaches just don't seem worth the effort.

Personally, I'm leery of the, but it's hard to go your boss with a proposed budget of close to $100,000 for an internally managed system versus $0 (and some geek's time) to drop the problem on someone else.

I bet all of those terrible horrible complexities make you wish that it were a common, non-exotic, well-understood item like e-mail for which a wide array of tools and talent are available. Oh wait, it IS just e-mail and many thousands of other businesses manage it just fine...

Re:Know what... (3, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693186)

It seems like businesses aren't going to embrace cloud computing until/unless the security issues are solved. Email should be a relatively simple case, since the message content is simply copied from point A to point B and isn't processed in between. If google simply implemented client-side encryption, and opened the source for public scrutiny, it would do a lot to address these concerns. Yes, it would mess with content analysis, spam filtering, etc... but that will simply have to be accepted/paid for.

Re:Know what... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693256)

May I know the name of your law firm?

Re:Know what... (5, Insightful)

Flavio (12072) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693282)

It surprises me that you even discussed the option of having confidential documents stored on a system that makes little guarantees about security or privacy, and that by design distributes your data around the world.

Re:Know what... (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693906)

Surprises me as well, but the dollars can outweigh the sense when your entire budget is founded on someone else's goodwill.

Re:Know what... (2, Interesting)

terraformer (617565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693336)

Assuming you are in the US....

You need better lawyers in that firm. If you were concerned about privacy, you should have realized that the US government has very few privacy protections it must follow for snooping on overseas data. So if you store your stuff in Europe, the US government can get to it without much worry. They may not be able to *use it against you or your clients* in a domestic criminal or civil trial, but they can get access to it with little in the way of liability.

Re:Know what... (2, Interesting)

astrashe (7452) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693606)

Google owns a company called Postini that you can use to archive your email -- they can keep you in compliance with email retention rules.

Privacy is a big concern. I sort of feel like it's over anyway -- google already knows everything about everyone.

I found the admin tools to be a little lacking. If A is out of town, and B needs to get into their email, that sort of thing. It's harder to go in and tweak a user's settings for them than it is with our current system (notes).

Re:Know what... (1)

The Angry Mick (632931) | more than 4 years ago | (#31694010)

I found the admin tools to be a little lacking.

Surprisingly enough, this was actually fairly low on the totem pole of requirements. The assumption is that it'll be an administrator's job to create all the accounts and manage the passwords, so getting A into B's mail would be possible. Of course, that puts a lot of eggs into one basket, but that should give you an idea of how badly attorneys DO NOT want to be forced to think about the technology they use.

I've heard good things about Postini's solution, btw. Some of the firms that have gone over to GMail swear by it.

Easy solution (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31692622)

Google a list of countries... remove those 15, and there you go.

Re:Easy solution (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692672)

Maybe Google even sent them a link. [justfuckinggoogleit.com]

Re:Easy solution (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692814)

Google a list of countries... remove those 15, and there you go.

There is no fucking way there are google servers in 190 some odd countries.

I mean you really think they keep a server in the Vatican or Swaziland?

Re:Easy solution (2, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693114)

I mean you really think they keep a server in the Vatican or Swaziland?

Of course not! Those two were on the list :P

Re:Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693160)

The question "what countries could our data end up being sent to if we entered into a contract with you?" is not the same as the question "which countries do you currently have servers in?". Although it's unlikely that Google have a server in the Vatican there's no obvious reason for them to rule out the possibility of doing so. Most customers aren't going to insist they pick a list of X countries and stick to it. Those that do are better suited to a smaller scale supplier.

Re:Easy solution (2, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693284)

Google definitely doesn't run servers in catacombs deep beneath the Vatican. The rumors are completely false that they could have a distributed storage system hidden in the endless mists of Angel Falls. And it would be utterly absurd to think they maintain a datacenter at the L2 point 1.1 million kilometers beyond the Moon.

Re:Easy solution (2, Funny)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693768)

...yet.

Re:Easy solution (3, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693290)

There is no fucking way there are google servers in 190 some odd countries.

The cliche IT answer to "Where does your cloud store data?" is "Why do you want to know?" And it is with good reason.

Are you trying to avoid embargoed countries? The list of places it will not be stored should be pretty good. Are you trying to avoid a specific country? Again, the list of places it will not be stored will reveal enough.

If your customer (in this case, Yale would be Google's potential customer) wants data stored in a specific country, they gotta ask why instead of just caving. If you care WHERE your data is stored, then you don't really want Cloud storage. And I'm pretty sure Google would like to reserve the right to have servers in the Vatican if they got a sweet deal there.

This is kind customers with non-functional requirements ("you should use SQL Server, I saw an ad in InformationWeek magazine that says it costs less in the long run!").

Re:Easy solution (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693794)

mod parent up.

Re:Easy solution (1)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693810)

There is no fucking way there are google servers in 190 some odd countries.

No, but you'd be surprised how many places www.google.com is a 15ms ping from. I'm in a little middle-income country hanging off Asia's rear end, with not that many more people than metropolitan NYC, and we've got Google servers by the rackload just for the local audience.

Re:Easy solution (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693892)

Well I'm in Alaska and its a 278ms ping from here.

Re:Easy solution (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693980)

That's because your server is in Russia. They heard you could see it from the governor's home.

RAID (1)

JustinKSU (517405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692692)

Could they store the data in the cloud like a RAID 0 array is set up? Only half the bits are on one server vs. another making it harder to extract data if a single server is compromised? Are they already doing something like this?

Re:RAID (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31692784)

congratulations, that's officially the worst idea i've ever heard.

Re:RAID (1)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692846)

congratulations, that's officially the worst idea i've ever heard.

You don't get out much, I'm guessing, if that's the worse you've ever heard.

Re:RAID (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692920)

Actually storing the data like this with sufficient redundancy, error correcting, etc. would be a good way to ensure that your data survives large disasters. Not that I believe they actually do this.

Re:RAID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693706)

striping across data centers seems rather awful, but striping across racks is a different story.

Re:RAID (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692942)

Could they store the data in the cloud like a RAID 0 array is set up? Only half the bits are on one server vs. another making it harder to extract data if a single server is compromised? Are they already doing something like this?

Hmm, this may not be the best idea. It would definitely make it harder to extract the info if one server was down, in fact, it would make it impossible. With RAID 0, removing one-half of the storage will render the other half unreadable, due to the way it stores information.

You may have been thinking of JBOD, which doesn't split the information on the member disks, but rather "lines it up" disk after disk, so there is only a small risk that information will cross over onto a different disk.

Re:RAID (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693096)

depending on the data you want, usually strip size is in the 1-4k range sometimes larger sometimes smaller so while you may not be able to extract an entire database file you can get useful info out of that database.

Experiment for at home:
1. create a raid 0 stripe on 2 disks
2. write a large amount of text to a file on the volume. (like an entire book in plain text)
3. shut down system and pull out one disk
4. restart system and run '/usr/bin/strings' on the raw disk device. (you'll find large chunks of your text)

with this experiment it shows easily that some of the data is still there. If you're trying to recreate images or other things, a lot more knowledge of the data would be required but a partial reconstruction may still be possible.

Re:RAID (4, Informative)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692980)

Sorta, Google call them shards.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-141569.html [zdnet.com]

Shards can be located by different masters and different masters are located in different locations according to the data type.

So I think Japan (That's where they just dropped their Asia - US cable after all, so it makes sense) has a "complete" replication of all Google data. Some data is also replicated to containers (YouTube etc) for hosting at major ISPs. So all email data would be replicated in non-realtime. If you request something that isn't in that DC it's located in the US or wherever is closest (I guess).

There are multiple "complete" copies on the east and west coast as well as European hub sites or directly connected to European hub sites.

If you ask for a citation, I can dig something up for you....

Re:RAID (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693288)

Is it resident in plaintext in these offsite locations?

Re:RAID (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693580)

Umm, ask Google?

But honestly, would it make sense for it to be encrypted? I would think it would be too computationally expensive and increase the response time of the request to encrypt this data.

Presumably, plain text and binary data (Video / docs etc) would be stored as just that.

Re:RAID (4, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693458)

Only half the bits are on one server vs. another

While this is of course theoretical, if you put all the "zero" bits on one server and the "one" bits on another, you could also achieve fantastic compression ratios.

Come to think of it, this gives me a great idea for a defragmentation program...

So Cloud Computing is unsafe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31692704)

Wait a second, you mean all my emails and documents stored at Google are actually being stored in places where they can be examined by anyone?

Re:So Cloud Computing is unsafe? (3, Informative)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692950)

Yeah, they just print them out and leave them in the lobby.

Re:So Cloud Computing is unsafe? (1)

bernywork (57298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693168)

If you could get into one of their data centres, find a master (Hope it's got the index you are after) break into it, then break into the boxes (Online or offline) then re-assemble the shards, sure.

Wouldn't it just be easier to threaten you or someone you care about and just say that something bad is going to happen unless you hand over the password?

Honestly, if they want access to the data that badly, installing a keylogger / screendumper when your not looking would be a shitload simpler.

Quick Dyslexia... (0, Offtopic)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692746)

And I saw

Yale Moves to Destroy GMail

Which would probably make a somewhat more interesting read.

Good for them (2, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692786)

I would delay the move for aesthetic and functional issues like:

1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.

2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!

3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!

4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!

Re:Good for them (1)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692876)

You know, as a side note, I often find myself saying "I figured it'd be better now...it's freakin' 2010!!!"

Times are a-changin'...just not that quickly.

Re:Good for them (2, Informative)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692880)

http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=7190 [google.com]

If you run a search for "sarah sextapes found" and then realize you have too many e-mails and only one you want has an attachments, go back to the search bar (which still has your filter) and add "has:attachment", then click search again.

If you want to filter incoming e-mail, add options like "AND has:attachment" to the end of fields your already using. Such as From: "bill AND (has:attachment OR subject:more pr0n)"

Re:Good for them (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693046)

If you want to filter incoming e-mail, add options like "AND has:attachment" to the end of fields your already using. Such as From: "bill AND (has:attachment OR subject:more pr0n)"

By the way, I meant filtering search results. Your suggestions work beautifully but the question is...they work for who? For the "power user", yes but for the Joe Six Pack, or my mother, I doubt this approach is more efficient than Yahoo's.

Who is going to go back and add strings like has:attachment when for YahooMail, these search criteria are already implemented, are available and usable by a click and provide results on the fly? Even better, the has:attachment is further organized by attachment type. Who can say this is a wrong idea?

Come-on...this is why I "reminded" Google that it's 2010.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693352)

Joe Six Pack can click "Show Search Options" and your mom can STFU. Seriously, that wasn't cool last week.

Re:Good for them (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692944)

4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!

'From:{sender}', 'subject:{subject}', 'after:{mm/dd/yy}' or 'before:{mm/dd/yy}'. Problem solved?

Re:Good for them (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693086)

'From:{sender}', 'subject:{subject}', 'after:{mm/dd/yy}' or 'before:{mm/dd/yy}'. Problem solved?

No sir/madam!

By just looking at what you have written, I can conclude that it will not sort! Or will it?

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693332)

Why do you want to sort, when you can filter?

Re:Good for them (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693946)

I guess not, although I've never personally missed the feature. While you're right that many common tasks take too long to perform (for me, I want to easily bookmark an 'is:unread in:inbox' search), saying GMail is behind the times ignores its other benefits. For example, I'm to busy enjoying the convenience of threaded conversations, I've rarely ever needed the other searching features.

Re:Good for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693428)

You realize GMail is 100% IMAP compliant...right? You need a powerful interface, use a fucking desktop client and stop whining.

Re:Good for them (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693604)

Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent!

Just use your favorite IMAP client to access GMail. Personally, I use GMail via IMAP too, because GMail's web interface won't display mails in non-proportional fonts, basically ruining any ASCII diagrams I get or send (or I haven't yet figured out how to configure GMail to get rid of those proportional fonts).

Re:Good for them (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693772)

There's a Google Labs feature for that. Just activate it on your user settings.

Re:Good for them (1)

herksc (1447137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693990)

1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.

You can and it does. Not sure why this is not working for you. It brings up a pop-up that says: "Your message has not been sent, do you want to discard? OK/Cancel". You can also click "save" at any point to put it in your drafts folder.

2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!

This is subjective. Much better than any other web interface in my opinion. As others have said, you can use IMAP if you like. Also, the education edition which Yale would get can use an Outlook MAPI plugin (very fast!)

3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!

Again, this is a subjective interface preference. I would prefer it wait until I click "search" again.

4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!

Try the "show search options" link. All the features you mention are included. No need to know complicated codes. I'll grant you that searching by exact hour or minute is more difficult (requires manually structuring your query), but that is a small issue easily solved by education.

I hope my school doesn't switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31692930)

There have been talks at my college, Dartmouth, of scrapping our email system, Blitzmail, and moving to Gmail. I personally like Blitzmail, though I do agree it needs to be updated to meet the needs of the 21st century.

For those who don't know, Blitzmail was one of the first email clients and is almost instantaneous.

Re:I hope my school doesn't switch (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693876)

Never heard of Blitzmail, good read thanks. But..

Email IS instantaneous, especially these days. Unless you use a client that checks your mail with intervals or when triggered, like POP.

If you didnt know - FYI:
Gmail is a ajax enabled web client and shows updates almost immediately, although most times my Android phone beats it by a second or so.
I guess this is because it doesnt preload the new email before alerting me to its presence.

Potential support issues (4, Interesting)

dave562 (969951) | more than 4 years ago | (#31692988)

I was considering a GAPE deployment for a much smaller organization (about 150 users) and ran into real problems finding answers to some questions. In my particular case I was considering a migration off of Exchange. The exact specifics involved were really vague and often times the suggestion was, "Talk to a solutions provider." I went ahead and talked to two of them. When I pressed them for specifics about GAPE replication of Exchange features (Public Folders for example), I got a lot of vague answers along the lines of either, A. "Well, it can kind of do that." or B. "You don't need to do that because the Google way is better."

The major consideration that turned me away from Google was their support (or seeming complete lack of it). I had a terrible time getting my pre-sales questions answered when I went directly to Google. The "premiere partners" (companies that are trying to make a business based on deploying GAPE for organizations) were just as vague. One of them even admitted to me that they have problems getting answers out of Google about new features, or the status of outstanding issues.

I am subscribed to a thread on Google's forums that details people's real world problems with Google support.

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Google+Apps/thread?hl=en&tid=384dd0d72db87c6d [google.com]

Some of the people are obviously idiots who can't read the documentation. The large majority of them have serious problems that are ignored. Just recently someone mentioned that Google quoted them 5 days to recover an accidently deleted mailbox.

I don't doubt that Google Apps could very well be a great product. The key is that it "could" be a great product. Great products require great support. Great products require a certain ease of implementation and use. As it stands currently, GAPE is more like a beta framework that requires a lot of heavy lifting on the part of an IT department. It is hardly a production ready, polished product that can be sold as a service.

Re:Potential support issues (2, Interesting)

m93 (684512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693388)

What you outline here makes me think that Microsoft will have an edge in cloud based email. Say what you will about MS, but they do have tremendous support resources from their company on down to solutions providers. If they are successful in putting exchange in the cloud, it will have a lot to do with them taking advantage of the current old-school knowledge base. I couldn't imagine Google trying to port my company's (complicated but works well) exchange system over to Gmail. It would be a nightmare.

Re:Potential support issues (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693840)

I think the problem is that Google is trying to get in to a new kind of market and they aren't ready for it. They are used to providing free, no tech support kind of services. You access their site and do what you want, but if you can't figure it out, too bad, there's no number to call. Everything is very much a system where they internally decide what to provide, put it out there and see what people do with it.

Fine for free web services, not fine for businesses. Businesses have specific needs for their enterprise applications and are going to expect them to be met, especially when there's money involved. That's going to necessitate having a support staff on hand to address that, and that the staff has the power to talk to the devs and so on if changes need to be made.

Google is toying in a new market, but they really aren't ready for it.

So which countries does Yale consider "bad?" (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693008)

Google was not willing to provide ITS with a list of countries to which the University's data could be sent [i.e., replicated], but only a list of about 15 countries to which the data would not be sent.

Okay, so did ITS compose a list of countries it felt were unacceptable (along with logical reasons for why)? And if so, which countries, specifically, were on ITS' list that weren't on Google's list? Serious, I'd love to know which countries Yale has a beef with that Google doesn't.

Re:So which countries does Yale consider "bad?" (1)

raju1kabir (251972) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693718)

I'd love to know which countries Yale has a beef with

I don't "have a beef" with most random people on the street, but if my bank is proposing to distribute bits of my money to them, I'd like to know who they are.

Re:So which countries does Yale consider "bad?" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693932)

Wait.. you do know how banks work, right?

Re:So which countries does Yale consider "bad?" (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693818)

The US government decides who's naughty or nice. Google "us export restricted countries" and you will find the list.

The government usually lets companies, universities and whatever ship products and stuff around the world without much ado. In other words, your company does its own control, and just sends a list at the end of the year to the government and says, "I exported X widgets to Spain. However, your are NOT allowed to ship to the countries "on the list" without special permission. If you are caught doing that . . . welly, welly, welly . . . well, well, well little Alex!

The government can slap you with a penalty that requires you to get an export permit for every printer cable, or whatever that you want to send anywhere in the world. In other words, the government will now do the controlling. This would bankrupt a large, international company really fast. Which is why large, international companies require that their employees complete and sign off on an US export restrictions education course.

This applies to software and services, as well.

Google's "list of 15" is probably just the US government list. Google stays out of there to keep that meddling government out of their plans for world domination.

Oh, and for US citizens, a violation of the export restrictions can win you a charge of treason. If you get caught selling plutonium to Iran, you might want to cash in your life insurance, because the policy probably doesn't cover execution.

Re:So which countries does Yale consider "bad?" (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693970)

It's much more plausible that they simply don't want their data (silently) crossing any borders.

I suck at parsing (0, Offtopic)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693016)

I hope the Yale Delays that Gmail now has doesn't affect my account!

Memo To Prospective Gmail Users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693102)

You better make backups of your Gmail.

What do you do when Google is purchased by China [youtube.com] .

Yours In Astrakhan,
Kilgore Trout

Gmail wouldn't be their weakest link (1, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693118)

If you forced a login with a quick time out for all of those gmail accounts, that's a hell of a lot more secure than storing the documents on your laptop, which can be stolen and broken pretty easily. (These kids aren't going to password protect bootup and encrypt the hard drive. ) If you need an e-mail even if the internet is down, it should probably be in your notes in your word processor anyway. And unless you're not going to use WiFi, you are already sending your data over insecure connections.

And if you think other ISPs don't give up your data already... well, you're just not paying attention. [eff.org]

If you want to use and share data on the internet, there are risks. If you want to remember something that cannot possibly be intercepted by a third party, write it down on a piece of paper, put it in a safe, and hope no one steals the safe.

Re:Gmail wouldn't be their weakest link (1)

fluffernutter (1411889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693402)

So basically you're saying go with google or we are all screwed? I sincerely hope you are not an IT consultant.

Scratch that, you're probably Yale's IT consultant.

How about delaying due to .... FERPA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693292)

The Family Educational Right to Privacy Act.

Seems to me that Yale is under the purview of this law, and therefore must have control over the disclosure of student records.

Does Gmail still do grepping of the emails for targeted advertising in these corporate-agreement hosting situations? If so...big problem. At my college, I can't even send an email to a student unless its sent from/to an address in our internal, private (https only) webmail system.

Re:How about delaying due to .... FERPA (1)

dkuntz (220364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693714)

In my use of Google Apps Premium, there were no ads at all, and thats because they are getting money from you already. Probably not as much as the advertising, but still, $50 per mailbox per year.

If someone really wants their email to stay private, have it sent encrypted... decrypt it, read it, delete it, and use a secure wipe on the blocks that contained the data. Then take out the hard drive, crack it open, take a dremel to the platters, then bend them all into funky angles. But save the magnets! Those are good magnets.

point 11 on the google tos ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31693514)

How about the point number 11 on the tos ???

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

I want a Google App Appliance. Please? (1)

DdJ (10790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693608)

So, if you use Google for search, you can buy a "Google search appliance" and install it in your machine room and use that to provide your service.

I really, really want the same thing for Google Apps. The question of whether storing a document in "Google Docs" violates FERPA or something simply doesn't come up if the box is sealed in a room on a private network that you have tight control over. Running our own GMail and Google Calendar server appliances in our machine room just wouldn't make the lawyers nearly as nervous as a move to "the cloud".

And what about their current system? (1)

Qwavel (733416) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693738)

The concerns about the Google cloud need to be weighed against Yale's current system. Every system has vulnerabilities.

Whatever countries they are worried about, are they sure that people from those countries can't hack into their systems and find what they are after more easily then they can do same for Google's systems?

What about the danger from someone within Yale's organization (one of the most common threats)? Is that worse with Gmail or with their current system?

Re:And what about their current system? (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693900)

It's not about hacks - it's about evil foreign governments physically seizing servers. Redundant or not, secure or not, try telling the Pentagon that your nuclear research is in the hands of evil foreign powers.

Sure, they'll reply "Yeah, we know. Our is too! LOL!", but your ass is still going to the gulag.

Same Thing Here (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693800)

One of the big points of contention for [MAJOR UNIVERSITY I HAPPEN TO WORK FOR] is getting the vendor to guarantee data stays on US soil.

The bottom line is that if people buy into Google now, we won't get the guarantee. If people hold out, or go to other vendors that can promise that, Google will cave.

Good on Yale. Now stop making your students kill themselves.

Finally some common sense (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693854)

It would be pathetic if Yale, one of the richest schools, can't spare some fund to maintain its own email system. Tuition there is, what, approaching 40k a year?

Apps Gmail lacks features: SHARED Inbox!? (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31693958)

Other reasons hold me off:
The gmail solution in Apps doesn't allow for shared inboxes. Does anyone know a way around this??

Say some public email address that 4 people (a team) has access to, without duplicating *shudder* emails 4 times and losing track.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?