Quoting Maarten Stolte <maarten.stolte@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > would not be a good reason, since afaik, it is useable without it for > non-outlook users. > I do think its a weird sort of opensource, seems rather crippled, on > both client- and server-side. Huh? I didn't see that "crippling" at all. It seems to be a full-up, XML-RPC, WebDAV, HTTP collaboration server. What do you see is "crippled" on the server? They _only_ charge for the 100% client-side MAPI client. When do you need such? _Only_ when your client is Windows, and _only_ when it is running Outlook. Understand this isn't merely a "we charge for Windows" view. It's a "we charge for Microsoft" view. You _can_ use _other_ Windows clients for both WebDAV/XML- RPC/HTTP access to its collaboration and server-side storage solutions (e.g., Mozilla). > I'd advice to look at Kolab if such a server is to go in; it is much > more open, has closed and open clients, Again, I'm confused. I see OpenGroupware fitting the same bill. > and the only disadvantage I can think of is that the developers made > it for OpenPKG, which means it'd need to be 'ported' to redhat to > some degree. -- Bryan J. Smith, E.I. mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ [NT-based] Windows itself has never been the primary issue with security. Secure configuration of Windows prevents 98% of Windows software from working properly, especially Microsoft's own. Hence why a secure Windows is not an option for enterprises and consumers alike, since it would prevent them from working.
