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
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.horde.org>
>>>
>>> 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
(text/plain)