Hey! My Box.net-Shared iCal Calendars Stopped Working

Just a follow-up to a recent, popular post. I recently noticed that my iCal calendars — the ones I share via my Box.net account — stopped publishing, displaying a warning badge over the broadcast icon.


WTF: My Calendar Share Stopped Working!
(click image for larger view)

So I tried seeing if I could still connect to Box.net via the web. Yup. Good to go. Next I checked to see if I could still connect via the Finder and WebDAV. Nope. No go. Just sits and spins. There's the problem: No WebDAV, no calendar share. (I. Can't seem. To stop. Talking in. Short. Truncated. Sentences.)


Connecting to https://www.box.net: Or Not
(click image for larger view)

After having no luck Googling a solution, I decided I'd try to figure things out myself. And after some poking around I found the problem. And solution. The problem is the "s". See it? The one after the "http"? There in the "Connecting To Server" dialog. There you go. That's the culprit. That "s" means you're attempting to connect using a variation on the http protocol (called https, if you can believe) that transmits over a different port (port 443) than that of standard http (port 80), and that uses an additional encryption layer for security. Seems Box.net has stopped using the protocol for WebDAV communications, and is, at least for now, using standard http. Removing the "s" from my calendar shares fixed them right up.

Best way I know to do that is to select the published calendar, choose "Change Location..." from the "Calendar" pull-down menu, and in the field marked "Base URL:" change the "http" in the URL to "https". Hit publish, and everything should be right as rain.


Fixed: Ahh! That's Better!
(click image for larger view)

I'm not sure why the good folks at Box.net decided to change the connection protocol for WebDAV, nor why they failed to inform anyone (as far as I could tell, anyway). WebDAV support is a beta feature at Box.net, apparently, so I suppose we should expect some changes from time to time. Either way I'm sure glad they haven't pulled the service altogether. Hard to get too mad when the price is so nice.

UPDATE:
About five minutes after posting this article I got a comment from someone named Aaron who appears to work at Box.net. Aaron wrote:

"Sorry for the scare. Dav should be back to normal in the next few hours."

That was last night. I'm still having some weirdness, but I have to admit to being far too tired to really do any serious investigating. Thus far, I'm unable to connect to Box.net with the Finder using https or http. Neither seems to work. Oddly, publishing via iCal using http does work, but still not with https. Strange. Not a big deal. Just strange. That's about all I've energy to try. Mainly I wanted to just point out that the Box.net folks seem to really be committed to the whole WebDAV thing, and that's great. And they appear to be listening, which is also great. Thanks, Box.net folks. And thanks, Aaron.

Now off to bed with me.

UPDATE 2:
Not sure when this started working properly, but publishing calendars via the https protocol is functioning normally again. Yay!
(Updated Sept. 4, 2006, 6:30 PM)

Filed Under: Internet Applications MacOSX Server

Sync Firefox Bookmarks with Google Extension

A few days ago I wrote about a method for publishing iCal calendars sans .Mac. In that vein, here's a quick plug for the Google Browser Sync extension for Firefox. The extension will allow you to save your Firefox cookies, saved passwords, bookmarks, history and tabs and windows — or any combination of these — to Google's servers. For the more security conscious, you can even opt to encrypt this information. The extension will then sync this information with any other Firefox browser that has the plug in installed and configured.


Google Browser Sync: Finally!
(click for larger view)

I've been using this for a few days now, and I'm loving it. For the first time in my life my home and work bookmarks are finally in sync. It's a thing of beauty, and something I've longed for for quite a while. Of course, if you're a Safari user, you're out of luck. But in my opinion, this is just one more reason you should really consider switching to Firefox. While Firefox may be slower than the others — and bear in mind that the Google Browser Sync will slow launch times down just a wee bit while it syncs your info — it's far and away the most full-featured and stable browser I use. It loads virtually everything and never, ever crashes. And now it syncs with itself via Google.

Don't bother getting me a Christmas gift; I have everything I need.

Publish iCal Calendars on the Internet for Free

Addendum: Aug 21, 2010

I wanted to let folks know that the information in this post is pretty old, and these days there are better options for sharing calendars. Most notably, Google Calendar sharing. The method used in the post you're about to read is a one-way share in which the publishing computer is the only one that can make changes, and all subscribing calendars have read-only access. This is limited, I know, but at the time it was readily available and plenty of functionality for most people who just wanted a free option for calendar sharing from their main machine. Nowadays, though, Google Calendar sharing gives the same level of ease-of-use and true, server-based, two-way calendar syncing, allowing you to edit you calendars from any computer (including iPhones). It truly is superior, and I highly recommend it.

So, if you're still interested in the one-way Box.net method, I leave it up for posterity. Otherwise, Google Calendar sharing is probably the way to go.

Happy calendaring!

Original Post

Ever want to share your iCal calendars on the 'net? Well, I have. Unfortunately, iCal publishing requires a server that runs the WebDAV protocol. Apple's .Mac offers such a service, and .Mac, indeed, uses WebDAV. But .Mac costs money, and I've never seen a compelling enough reason to pay for it. Setting up iCal on a Macintosh server is also fairly easy, but it's an awful lot of trouble to go to and a waste of resources if all you're interested in is sharing your iCal calendars. But today I've discovered an easier — and free — way to do just that.

Box.net offers 1 GB of online file storage for free. The data is accessible via the web, so you can get to it from any connected computer. They have a web interface for accessing you files. On Windows they also have client software that lets you access your data as though it were on a shared volume, right from the Desktop. But on the Mac you can connect to it right from the Finder using the ever-trusty "Connect to Server..." command (or command-k) in the "Go" menu. How is this possible you ask? Because the Mac Finder has WebDAV accessibility built right in. And because box.net shares it's data via the WebDAV protocol.

If you haven't put it together yet, this means you can use your free box.net account to host your iCal calendars. The process would go something like this:

  1. Sign up for a free box.net account. It's easy as pie, and faster than a bat out of hell. Give 'em your email, a password, and you are d-o-n-e, done. (NOTE: Obviously, to share the calendar with others, they'll need the URL and the box.net username and password, so you might want to make sure you set this account up with information you don't mind giving out. Use a second, private account for stuff you want to keep secure.)
  2. To access your box.net account via the Finder, click "Connect to Server..." and type "https://www.box.net/dav" into the URL field of the connection window. (NOTE: Some folks are unable to connect using the "https" protocol. If this fails for you, try it with "http" instead. Either one works for me.) You will be prompted for username (the email you used to register the account) and your box.net password. Enter these and your online data will appear on the Desktop in a volume called "dav" which will be pre-populated with a few default folders.
  3. But to publish your iCal calendar, just open iCal, select the calendar you want to share and choose "Publish" from the "Calendar" pulldown menu.

    (click for larger view)

  4. In the dialog box that follows, name your calendar (or keep the existing name if it suits you), for "Publish on:" select "Private Server," enter "https://www.box.net/dav/Documents" for the "Base URL:" and enter your box.net username and password in the "Login:" and "Password:" fields respectively. (NOTE: Here, too, secure http sometimes fails, so if you have trouble try using "http" instead of "https".)
  5. You might also want to check or uncheck some of the checkboxes at the bottom, depending on your needs.
  6. Finally, hit "Publish" to publish the calendar. You'll see your calendar now sports the "I'm Published" icon just to its right.
  7. To subscribe to this calendar (say, from another computer), choose "Subscribe" in the"Calendar" pull-down menu.
  8. In the URL field enter:

    "http://www.box.net/dav/Documents/YourCalendar.ics"

    (where "YourCalendar" is the name of the calendar you just published).

    (click for larger view)

    Be careful NOT to enter "https" here. Just use the "http" protocol to subscribe. Enter your box.net username and password at the prompt and you'll suddenly find yourself subscribed to your own calendar.

    (click for larger view)

  9. A final note: Updates to the calendar take some time. Hitting refresh too often (like every minute or so) on a subscribed calendar will generate an error. Just wait and let iCal do it's thing and it will keep everthing up to date. No pun intended.

I'm not sure if many people will find this useful. But to me it seems like a good way to share you iCal calendars, either between remote locations (like work and home) or between groups of people, like friends, family or members of an organization. And hey, it's completely free. How cool is that?

UPDATE 1:

A lot of people have written in with great suggestions, alternatives to and variations on this process, including a page for similarly configuring Sunbird. Please read the comments for more useful information.

UPDATE 2:

I have added a note to the publishing instructions in this article regarding the use of "https". In a nutshell, both publishing and subscribing sometimes fail because of problems with secure http. This is something I receive a lot of comments about and I just wanted to clear things up. If you are having trouble either publishing or subscribing, try doing so using "http" instead of "https". While somewhat less secure, it tends to be far more reliable.

Ugly-Ass Tab Bar

This is stupid, I know, but it's been bugging me for a long time, and I just can't hold it in any longer: Is Apple ever going to change that tab bar at the top of their web site? 'Cause, dude, it is so, like, Puma. So iMac G3. So Pinstripe.


Ugly-Ass Tab Bar: Time for a Refresh
(click for larger view)

Seems like Apple has redesigned almost every part of their site — from the black pages in the Final Cut Studio section, to the clean modular look of the iPod/iTunes and .Mac pages, the Safari-esque sidebars of the Apple Store, and the metallic look of the Quicktime section. But everywhere you go, that ugly-ass, 10.1-lookin', pinstripe-and-chicklet-button tab bar persists. Isn't it about time they updated that thing?

And please, no metal.

Thanks.

Yowsa! Browsers!

Yes, I know, that is the worst post title ever. Sorry.

Let's move on.

I've been playing with the beta version of Firefox. I must say, it's pretty cool. Lots of nice stuff. A few bad things as well. I've compiled a list of the systemsboy-specific pros and cons. In doing so, I've gone over what it is that makes me like certain browsers over others, and started looking at some additional options. Here is a loose, and very subjective, collection of ramblings and lists about browsers.

General
Browsers are a mixed bag. None seems to do everything you want it to do exactly how you like it. So I tend to use multiple browsers. For general surfing. I use Safari. It's the most comfortable for me to use, and the easiest on the peepers. Firefox, however, is the most full-featured. It will load just about anything properly. I use it for editing the blog, as well as whenever a site doesn't appear properly in Safari, but it's kind of slow and clunky looking. At this moment, I am using Camino, which I'm surprised to discover, actually supports Blogger's "Compose" mode. It's pretty, and I like the key commands. And, hoo-boy, it's fast. Camino, however, is one of those eternally-beta-level (okay, technically it's "alpha," but whatever) browsers, and I'm pretty sure it won't be able to totally replace Safari or Firefox for me. Even writing this post, I had a minor glitch. But I'd love to see Camino development continue to the point where the browser is as rock-solid and feature rich as Firefox, and as pretty as Safari. That would be great.

When trying out browsers, I tend to consider a few basic parameters that determine how much I like or dislike the browser in question. These parameters vary among users and are extremely subjective. The ones that affect me the most are:

  • Functionality -- the ability to load pages, web apps, forms, etc.
  • Appearance -- how the UI looks, as well as how pages render
  • Usability -- how well key-commands and UI elements, like preference panes, function and make the browser comfortable and easy to use

Now I'd like to take a quick look at the browsers themselves, and list some of my likes and dislikes for each.

Safari
Despite everything, this is my favorite all around browser. I use it for everyday surfing and most web-related tasks. Still, there are things I've grown to hate about Safari.
The Good:

  • Safari is pretty -- the UI is nice, and pages, when they load properly, look great
  • Safari is fairly fast, at least fast enough for me
  • Safari's key commands, for whatever completely subjective reasons, make the most sense to me
  • Safari is bundled with the OS, so I can use it on any Mac I may be on (lab, client, etc.)

The Bad:

  • A recent Safari bug is the window placement problem I've blogged about that drives me nuts, where Safari resets my window placement after quitting and relaunching the app
  • Another recent Safari problem has cropped up wherein pages don't load the first time, particularly when lodaing a group of tabs
  • Safari still lacks the ability to bookmark a group of tabs, a feature I've been waiting forever and a day for
  • This frickin' scroll-wheel jump is frickin' annoying
  • Blogger's "Compose" mode is not available in Safari

Firefox 1.0.6
Firefox is the most full-featured and configurable of the Mac browsers. I like it a lot, and I use it to post to this site as it works with Blogger's "Compose" mode. It features a "Multiple Home Pages" function that I could see coming in real handy someday. It's very stable, and works almost identically on Mac, Windows and Linux.
The Good:

  • Works across platforms
  • Can load just about anything
  • Stable and secure
  • Just about anything you can dream of is configurable (except, unfortunately, key commands)
  • Firefox is skinnable, which is great if you can find a theme you like, which is hard (I'm using "Brushed" right now, which I like, but not as much as "Pinstripe," which appears to no longer work with Firefox)
  • Firefox's key-commands aren't bad once you get used to them, which doesn't take long
  • Firefox can use Amazon's A9 online bookmark manager, which helps mitigate the ongoing problem of inconsistent bookmarks across multiple computers

The Bad:

  • Firefox is kind of ugly -- not butt ugly, but clunky and silly looking, comparatively speaking
  • Firefox is slow, both at launch and loading pages
  • Clicking in the URL field selects the entire link, instead of placing the cursor at the click-point
  • Firefox has no key-command to stop page loading (that I can find, anyway)
  • Opening a URL in a new tab requires a command- or control-click and can't be done from the middle mouse button
  • The enormous list of preferences is badly displayed and hard to manage from the clunky sheet interface provided
  • The key-command for said preferences window usually doesn't work, requiring a trip to the application menu

Firefox 1.5 Beta
The new beta version of Firefox shows real promise, and addresses a lot of my issues with the previous version. It's the impetus for this post, actually. The reason I've started looking at browsers again.
The Good:

  • Clicking the URL bar no longer highlights the entire field, but rather, puts the cursor right where you just clicked
  • Clicking a link with the middle mouse button now opens the link in a new tab
  • Tabs can be rearranged, which is just so cool
  • The new, tab-based, floating preferences palatte is nicely done and easy to navigate
  • The key-command for the preferences window now works consistently
  • There is now a key-command to stop loading a page (and it's the standard "command-period")
  • In fact, most key-commands now match those found in Safari

The Bad:

  • The tab selection key-command (which used to be "control-tab") has reverted to the one used for Mozilla (which is "control-page up/down", which sucks for people, like me, who switch between a PowerBook and a Desktop, as the PowerBook version of the command requires the use of the "fn" key, and, thus is a differnt key-command than it is on a desktop machine), which was the reason I stopped using Mozilla in the first place -- this is a deal breaker for me
  • This new version placed aliases of Firefox in my sidebar and on my Desktop without even asking -- like on Windows!

Camino 1.01a Alpha
Camino has gotten steadily better in recent months and years. It looks good, it feels good, and it's snappy as Hell. If it ever becomes stable enough to get out of alpha, I think it could be a contender. Right now, it is not what I'd call dependable. In fact it crashed in the middle of this post.
The Good:

  • Camino is fast -- it feels the fastest of the browsers I've tested, though this is not a scientific assesment by any means
  • Camino is pretty -- this latest version uses the "Unified" theme, which I personally think looks swell, and is aqua throughout
  • Very configurable -- more than Safari, though not as much as Firefox
  • Camino has good, easy-to-learn key-commands

The Bad:

  • Can you say, "Crashes a lot?" That's my major beef with Camino
  • Also, as it's perpetually in "alpha", there are probably lots of pages that don't load properly in Camino, but I haven'tused it as thoroughly as the others, so this is really only a cursory examination

So that's my take on the state of browsers for the Mac. I use a range of them for various tasks, which kinda sucks for the obvious reason that my bookmarks are in a state of total disarray, a problem only partially mitigated by the availability of services like Amazon's A9, or del.icio.us. Still, between Safari and Firefox I can get my work done without too much trouble. And I'm learning to let the bookmark thing go. Too many computers, too little time, and with the greatness that is Google, bookmarks are less crucial than they once were. I have to say, though, I'd love it if Google made an online bookmark manager. Or, Hell, a cross-platform browser with integrated, online bookmark manager. C'mon. You've got to admit, that would be sweet!

UPDATE 1:
Looks like there is a stable release of Camino after all. My bad. I've just been testing it. It has weird, centered, aqua tabs, and it's not nearly as fast as the alpha version. The alpha version is so fast, I get vaguely nauseous surfing with it. Dude. It's fast. But I found one other beef with Camino, and all the browsers I looked at: none of them renders text as nicely as Safari. Don't know why. All the non-Safari browsers render text slightly bolder. It makes everything look, I don't know, chunky and a little cheap, particularly on pages like MacFixit. I think this has a lot to do with my reasoning for using Safari for day-to-day surfing. It looks very nice. But if you need the speed, check out Camino 1.0a.