http://www.hula-project.org This looks promising. On Feb 23, 2005, at 3:38 PM, Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote: > BTW, what sort of clients have you hooked up to this yet? I am > particularly > intersted in the collaborative calendering. > > On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Craig White wrote: > >> On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:36 -0700, Kevin wrote: >>> On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 23:15 -0700, Craig White wrote: >>>> from time to time people ask about free source alternatives to >>>> Exchange >>>> server. >>>> >>>> I thought I would post up my impressions of the new versions of >>>> Horde/IMP and some of the other packages >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nice review. Thanks for the extra effort. It's good to see >>> progress in >>> the Open Source enterprise messaging arena. Reading your review >>> reminds >>> me how complex and thorny enterprise messaging really is. It's >>> difficult enough with commercial packages that can force proprietary >>> schemes on us. It's an order of magnitude MORE difficult when >>> trying to >>> operate completely within open standards (the "Right Way" IMHO). As >>> this area of Open Source software continues to evolve, the benefits >>> of >>> interoperability will be worth the pain. At least I hope! ;-) >> ---- >> I think that I tried to make the point of the 'pluses of knowledge' >> for >> things like sql, ldap, imap server as sql backend and imap server are >> pretty much required and ldap in my opinion required for full >> featured >> operations. >> >> I guess that the problem has always been my lack of knowledge in >> most of >> those arena's and I have significantly 'upped' my understanding of >> each >> of them which greatly simplifies the entire setup process. >> >> If you don't understand setting up say a postgresql or mysql and >> cannot >> interact with it from command line, you cannot troubleshoot >> connection/usage problems and you have to just be lucky or >> persistent to >> make it work. Likewise, if you can't work through ldap with >> ldapadd/ldapmodify/ldapsearch, you are gonna be sucking wind to make >> it >> work through tools that you don't understand. Of course then, the >> issue >> of making something as diverse as apache, php, imap c-client stuff >> integrate with stuff that you don't fully understand is likely to be >> a >> painful process. >> >> I see the same thing on the samba message list - where people are >> trying >> to integrate samba with ldap and they haven't the first bit of >> understanding ldap and somehow samba is supposed to magically make it >> work for them. >> >> In reality though - this really doesn't change much if you opt for >> the >> proprietary versions for things like groupwise or exchange server >> since >> the infrastructure for those servers has to be dealt with too. For >> example, exchange server integrates into the sam accounts of the >> domain >> controller and the ldap, kerberos, dns, IIS services as well. >> Groupwise >> has to integrate into NDS and similar services. The difference being >> that since the other services are single source, the wizards are >> designed towards the single provider of these sources. >> >> Then of course, with those proprietary versions, you have vendor >> lock-in >> to the point that if you wish to extend with things like spam >> control or >> virus control over the mail queue and mail store, you either >> implement >> prior to delivering mail to the mail store or purchase certified 3rd >> party programs that are compatible - clearly making a stronger >> argument >> for open source alternatives. >> >> Horde/IMP etc. can be set up to use an Exchange Server or GWIA >> backend - >> I actually once set up turba (the horde address book module) to use >> NDS's LDAP server for addresses and IMP to use GWIA's IMAP server. >> This >> is really testimony to the greatest reason to use the open source >> software than the proprietary products since it allows the user the >> flexibility to change their backend implementation rather than >> further >> lock them in. >> >> When it comes down to it, lack of knowledge is always the problem >> whether it is open source or proprietary. Open source encourages us >> to >> try to do things that we don't understand and vent when we get >> frustrated because we don't. Proprietary software gives us wizards to >> skate us through stuff we don't understand and typically give the >> user a >> partial implementation and the semblance of it working but rarely do >> users make enough enough effort to understand the implications of >> what >> isn't working until we are forced to do something about it. >> >> I just don't think the gulf is as wide between open source and >> proprietary apps as many people profess it to be. >> >> Craig >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: >> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss