I hate to sound pushy but it's already in egroupware: Synchronisation Overview <http://www.egroupware.org/index.php?page_name=sync&lang=&wikipage=synchronisation+overview> This is your documentation starting point for all things syncing with eGroupWare. There is a wide range of synchronisation protocols <http://www.egroupware.org/index.php?page_name=sync&lang=&wikipage=synchronisation+protocols> which are used by the wide range of different (groupware clients)? <https://www.egroupware.org/egroupware/index.php?menuaction=wiki.wiki_ui.edit&page=groupware+clients>.Thus, the topic /synchronisation/ is a bit complex. We try to keep this information up to date. If you know somithing which should be listed here / corrected PLEASE let us know! Overview: eGW applications, sync protocols and groupware clients *Kontact <http://www.egroupware.org/wiki/synchronisation%20kontact>* *Evolution <http://www.egroupware.org/wiki/synchronisation%20evolution>* *Outlook <http://www.egroupware.org/wiki/synchronisation%20outlook>* *Thunderbird lightning / sunbird <http://www.egroupware.org/wiki/synchronisation%20mozilla>* **iPhone* <http://www.stylite.de/feature_news?category_id=180&item=179>* *PDA / Mobile <http://www.egroupware.org/wiki/syncml%20supported%20devices>* On 07/02/2011 02:34 PM, Dale Probst wrote: > Hey Dave, > What I was told is that the app is still under construction in beta testing. As you know, the smart phone market is a > rapidly changing technology, particularly in operating system preferences. I don't know if that is the reason for the > delay but that would be my best guess. > The other DP, > Dale Probst RPT > Registered Piano Technician > Ward & Probst, Inc. > www.wardprobst.com <http://www.wardprobst.com/> > dale at wardprobst.com <mailto:dale at wardprobst.com> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *David Porritt > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 12:21 PM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Dale: > > I checked the HL web site after I got the email from Phil that there is a Smartphone app. Their web site touts the > IPhone app and says comparable apps for Blackberry, Android etc. will be out “the 4^th quarter of 2010”. Since > we’re already in the 3^rd quarter of 2011 I searched for it on the HL site, then on the Blackberry site and it > appears to be vaporware so far. A Smartphone app would be a big plus. > > dave > > *From:*pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Dale Probst > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 11:35 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Thanks Will, > > I think that #1 can be accomplished assuming volunteers to maintain the old system can be found. Usually the > admins took it for a week at a time. If we can get 10 people who will commit to doing that it should be a > relatively light load. Should those folks step up, I'll prepare a request for action to the board and submit it. > > #2 is in process through Phil Bondi. He has been working with Higher Logic to make the system fit us better. One > change I submitted (and I'm sure others did also) was to be able to see what new posts had been sent. There are > buttons for 24 hours, 7 days and 30 days that will pull up all the posts in the areas you are subscribed in for > those time periods. It's not exactly what I wanted but it helps. > > #3 I think this is ongoing also as we evolve in the digital landscape. More people are accessing things by mobile > devices now than ever before and that has changed the way we participate. As a shop guy, I'm on a desk top (an old > clunky one sort of like me) when I access HL. But the folks that prefer to access via mobile devices are the ones > that seem to have had the most issues. I know HL is working on a beta version app for this but it's not ready for > prime time yet. > > I think integration with Member Max is pretty critical but from what I've been told, the Board is taking the > issues raised here seriously and looking at everything. > > On a piano related subject- hitch pins from a 1911 O Steinway are drilled at angle but there is not enough room > for the remnant to clear between the newly finished plate and soundboard. Don't ask me how I found this out, just > tell me it will all work out..... > > Best, > > Dale > > Dale Probst RPT > > Registered Piano Technician > > Ward & Probst, Inc. > > www.wardprobst.com <http://www.wardprobst.com/> > > dale at wardprobst.com <mailto:dale at wardprobst.com> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Encore Pianos > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:55 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > It’s great to continue the discussion in this spirit. I am finding out that we have more areas of common > ground than I previously thought. And I understand what you are trying to say better because you have worked > to clarify it. Thank you. I hope I have been able to do the same for you. Good communication is hard work > sometimes, isn’t it? It is good to hear that several board members are open to going in another direction if > HL finally proves to be inadequate. I know that part of my fear was that everything was a done deal and we > were going to be stuck with something that does not serve us well and ultimately pulls us down. > > I think we are in agreement that we should move forward from the old list. If we can find the right program, I > believe most people would migrate without too much complaining, and we could all move to better things. > > Tell me if you think this is reasonable: > > 1.Keep the old list going a bit longer /in the near term/ just as we are doing now. > > 2.Compile a comprehensive list of problems, bugs, complaints with the HL e-mail server (no doubt you are doing > this already) and have our agent (Phil Bondi?) go at it with HL and establish where we are at now, what can be > fixed and when, and where we are going to end up at the end of that. Report back to the committee. (It would > be great if he has enough time to do this before council so that it could be part of the discussion). At which > point, ask ourselves if that is enough, or do we need to explore other options to best serve PTG and the list. > > 3.Concurrently, have some person(s) begin exploring other options for an e-mail server that we could agree > would be better than the old list or HL. If HL proves to be more workable than it is now, then it would be > academic. But we would have other things to compare it with, and if it proves that we need to move to > something else, we have a head start and a better perspective. > > I understand the desirability of have an e-mail server that integrates with Member Max and why that should be > part of the decision as to what to use. But is it a deal breaker if we can find a great e-mail server that > does not integrate with Member Max? Particulary if our projections of the workability of HL are not > encouraging? I hope that will not be the tipping point when making a choice between HL and something else. > > Fruit only, no cabbages? J > > Will > > *From:*pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Dale Probst > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 10:41 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Will, > > One last clarification- I didn't say I"believe that the Higher Logic program is sufficient to meet our needs > and encourage large participation by the membership". As far as I'm concerned that is yet to be proven. I am > open to other programs and have been assured by several board members that if we can't get HL to work for us > we will go another direction. I am on several woodworking forums: Woodnet, Sawmill Creek and BT3Central are > the ones I monitor regularly. They mostly use VBulletin which is a pretty good package. But it doesn't do any > of the other things that HL does by integrating with our Member Max database. It's an email handler and that's > it. > > As usual, when you really dig into issues, there is more to it than appears on the surface. When your issue is > your only concern you are apt to miss parts of the larger picture and that applies to me also. What I've been > trying to point out is that if you want more posts on this list serve, the best way I know to encourage that > is to post piano related content and volunteer to do the work necessary to keep the creaky old Mailman > software going. You do have the option of doing that on HL also which is something we didn't have before. You > can do one or the other or both. I think that is a good thing but as I said before, I'm used to being in the > minority. > > Thanks for the good luck and I only wish we could have a beverage together in KC, I'm better in person than on > email....at least I think I am 8~} > > I'll be at the Pianotech Live meeting for any of you who wish to throw fruit, I prefer softer varieties. > > Dale > > Dale Probst RPT > > Registered Piano Technician > > Ward & Probst, Inc. > > www.wardprobst.com <http://www.wardprobst.com/> > > dale at wardprobst.com <mailto:dale at wardprobst.com> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Encore Pianos > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:16 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Dale: > > Thanks for your further clarification about the purpose of ptg-l. I did misunderstand what you were trying > to say in your earlier post. Patrick Draine was kind enough to contact me privately and correct my > misunderstanding. > > I don’t want to keep making the same points over and over, nor do I think you do either. We both have > pretty much presented our case. > > Given the content of the discussion we have had about the Higher Logic program I think it would be very > timely and useful for Phil Bondi to write a post to both forums where he updates us on his interaction > with the folks at HL, and progress on the problems with the program that so many have experienced. > Regardless of where we sit on the issue, it would be to everyone’s benefit to know more about what is > going on. > > I am all for having a better software system to manage the Pianotech Forum. Really. The old format is long > in the tooth and has its own set of foibles, as we all know. Call me naïve, but I can’t help believe that > there is something out there that is much better at doing this than the Higher Logic program. And > affordable. No one would be happier than I to find a program that is better than the Higher Logic program > and the old format, and that allows us to do more. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that you > believe that the Higher Logic program is sufficient to meet our needs and encourage large participation by > the membership, and I say no on both accounts. > > Good luck with your class, and enjoy yourself in KC. > > Will > > *From:*pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Dale Probst > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 8:16 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Will, > > I'm going to try once more to explain. PTG-L is NOT limited to Council delegates it is open to every > member of PTG. It was set up for discussion of membership issues such as dissatisfaction with Higher > Logic, doubling dues, instructor reimbursement, what ever. I realize that there are non members and former > members on the list and yes their concerns are important too. But the members will decide what happens > with the organization because they pay the freight with their dues and volunteer contributions. > > Second point- technicians will go where the content is- period. I'll concede that they will can be > dissuaded by the difficulties of using software. I'm no computer whiz but I have had very few problems > accessing the discussions on Higher Logic. I do it from my home computer and it does what I need. Would I > like to see improvements? You bet and I've submitted my punch list to my RVP and Phil Bondi. My point is > very simple- if you want this list to continue you and all people who agree with you need to submit > technical posts to list and volunteer to maintain it. We are using an old version of mailman and spam and > virus protection is a real problem. It requires admins to go through the grey lists and forward posts that > are held up by the anti spam/virus software we use. > > Third point- list access will change over time. As I said, I used to access it via a bulletin board, then > in real time and finally through the archives. As a sitting officer on the Board, I was reading every > list- PTG had 66 of them at the time. The volume of off topic and me too posts on pianotech made it > impractical for me to continue in real time. If I had not adapted to a less than perfect method of reading > pianotech I would have lost out on the discussion. So I adapted. > > Fourth, you can blame HL for the loss of community but HL did not change anything on this list. It only > gave those of us who needed another way of participating an option. If you don't want to change over, > don't. Sign up to maintain this list and send all the posts you want here. I'm good with that. Just don't > blame the other site for reducing participation here. Nothing has changed here. > > I hope that explains my position adequately and apologize for my inability to communicate better. I'm > trying to get a rebuild out before I leave for KC and have class presentations to polish. Not to mention > that I'll be a delegate for my chapter. That's why I'm participating here but I still believe we should be > on ptg-l where more delegates would see the discussion. > > Adios, > > DP > > Dale Probst RPT > > Registered Piano Technician > > Ward & Probst, Inc. > > www.wardprobst.com <http://www.wardprobst.com/> > > dale at wardprobst.com <mailto:dale at wardprobst.com> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Encore Pianos > *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:45 AM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hi Dale: > > May I call you Dale? Please call me Will. > > I wasn’t making any statement comparing quantity and quality by sharing the statistics that I garnered > from the archives. I didn’t have time to reread 5000 messages in the time period quoted and compile > content lists piano and non-piano. Even surveying the subject titles and doing that would not be > accurate, as we both know how the subject can change from one thing to another (both piano and non > piano related), yet the title remains the same. That has been a problem of message discipline for > years and will likely not change no matter what the format for e-mail server. > > But my point about the decline in participation still stands, I think. The reason for that is that the > statistics I quoted reflect both Pianotech Lists, the old and the new. And the very significant drop > coincides with the implementation of the new forum software. Further, the overwhelming number of > comments by List participants in the last few days – where they are articulating their concerns and > feelings – support the contention that decline in participation is in response to the inadequacies of > the new system. > > I suggested moving it to ptg-l because that is what that list is for- discussion of PTG policies and > procedures. That list is limited to members who will have opportunity to change things at Council. > Discussing it here is contrary to the stated purpose of this list which should be about piano technology. > > On the one hand, I understand your point about topic segregation and what the various lists are for. > In and of itself, that is not a bad thing and may be useful to help manage the list topics better. I > am not unsympathetic to that aspect of it. But, like subject headings and message content, it is > subject to the vagaries of member self-discipline as compliance is voluntary. Some will bother and > some wont. That’s just the way it is. > > I find the second sentence quoted above telling. You want me to have this discussion on ptg-l. But > ptg-l is limited to council delegates, as you state here. Since I am not a council delegate, I cannot > have this discussion on ptg-l. But I cannot have it on Pianotech either, since that is for piano > related topics only. The logic of your argument then, is that there is no forum for my voice. Nor, > more tellingly, for the hundreds?of messages in the last few days, no voice either, since most of them > are likely not council delegates. The net effect of our voluntary compliance with your dictum is that > we should swallow our widespread dissent and shut up. > > I am troubled by some of your characterizations about what software is in vogue at the time, and > people wanting to adapt. As if our complaints are based on mere personal preference and we are too > lazy to adapt to new ways of doing things. When things change, we should make the effort to adapt. But > I think you are barking up the wrong tree. > > The key here is that the Pianotech Forum is based entirely on voluntary participation and compliance. > If you want us to do things in a certain way – meaning those of you who will effect changes related to > this forum – then you have the task of persuading us to do things in a new way, since I do not believe > you want the forum to be used by only 10 members instead of 1000. And certainly one of the strongest > measures of success would be how widely the Pianotech Forum is used by members. That means that those > encharged with the responsibilities of finding and implementing new software should be looking for > something that the members will like and want to use. That’s not an easy task, as you are going to > have to second guess what we will want to do. That said, some things will bring about a greater chance > of success. > > The interface is where it all starts. Ideally, the software would be easy to use, consistent, > reliable, and not buggy. Good interface design allows you to get from here to there in the fewest > possible steps, when we are talking about the basic functions that all of us are going to do most of > the time. There should be a consistent internal logic that makes usage seem easy and intuitive. The > more you have to use Help to navigate a program, the less successful its design is. And the fewer your > chances are for widespread adoption by a membership that will have to be persuaded that it is worth > bothering. > > The Higher Logic program throws up roadblocks at the most basic levels of functionality. It’s a damn > pain in the ass to use, it’s poorly designed, and has too many bugs – particularly for a program that > should be mature and stable by now. And, acknowledge this or not, too many people have voted with > their feet and ended or greatly reduced their participation in the forum. By that measure, it’s a > failure. But don’t blame the victims. > > Yes, I am blaming the loss of community on the difficulty of using the Higher Logic Software. If I > were only one voice, that would make my dissent insignificant. But, change a few details, so have said > the vast majority of respondents in the last few days. We are merely reflecting a very real problem > with bad software, and we are complaining because we want a great forum that we fear the new software > in effect is taking away from us. > > Dale, I appreciate you taking the time to respond and hope this discussion can continue between you > and I, and others as well. > > Most respectfully yours, > > Will > > *From:*pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On Behalf Of *Dale Probst > *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2011 9:40 PM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [OT] Stuff Which Should Really Be on PTG-L > > Hello Mr. Truitt, > > I think you are equating quantity with quality both in the statistics on number of posts and on the > larger audience here on pianotech. I suggested moving it to ptg-l because that is what that list is > for- discussion of PTG policies and procedures. That list is limited to members who will have > opportunity to change things at Council. Discussing it here is contrary to the stated purpose of this > list which should be about piano technology. You are free to disagree but if you want to implement > changes in PTG, I suggest that you follow the policies and procedures that have been developed by the > membership for implementing those changes. You may get a lot of "attaboy" and "me too" here but unless > those folks follow up with their delegates to Council, this is as far as you will get. > > I know I'm in the minority here, it's fine, been there before. I' started on the list before it was > even a list and was still on a bulletin board. I've seen a lot of people come and go. I've didn't post > much when I was on the Board because I was reading the list from the archives and it was a pain. So, I > know what it feels like to be shut out from the list by software I could not deal with. > > Pianotech as a community will exist no matter what the software is in vogue at the time. People will > come and go, things will change and some won't bother to adapt. But if it's truly a valuable > community, which I believe it is, it will prosper no matter what inconveniences pop up. If you want to > keep this list stasis indefinitely all that is needed is a group of volunteers to deal with > administrations issues and a request for action to the board. But be careful what you ask for, it's > been relatively easy so far but then you would be getting into real work. Work that Andy Rudoff, Ron > Berry, Phil Bondi, Kent Swafford, Dave Porritt, Brian Lawson, John Baird and others have done on their > own time for years without complaining. > > You are putting the blame for the loss of community on the difficulty of using the Higher Logic > software. Just consider for a moment that the blame may equally lie on the lack of substantial piano > related topics on this list. People will go where the content is, that's human nature. There have been > some decent discussions on the HL site and I hope to see more. And any of you can go there and review > them whenever you want. Or you can stay here and do the work necessary to maintain this list. Or > something else can happen. But this community won't die because of a software issue. It will only die > if it becomes irrelevant to the people involved. > > Mr. Truitt, whether that happens would be up to you and the other members of this community, no one or > thing else. > > Dale > > PS- I didn't respond to your post earlier because I wanted to think about it before I replied, sorry > it wasn't on your timetable. > -- Duaine Hechler Piano, Player Piano, Pump Organ Tuning, Servicing& Rebuilding Reed Organ Society Member Florissant, MO 63034 (314) 838-5587 dahechler at att.net www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com -- Home& Business user of Linux - 11 years
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC