On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Maarten Stolte wrote: > If OOo's project takes off, and Evolution or Mozilla gets open/complete > OGo implementations, then, and only then, can OGo be considered a full > product. You're missing my point. If I want to, I can use evolution for my email and, say, the web interface for OGo and go with OGo. I can't do that with Kolab. To work with Kolab from the MUA even just using simple MUA functionality, without calendaring, etc., every existing IMAP client must be modified to realize that some IMAP folders are special contact folders, and not normal IMAP folders to be displayed as emails. That's unavoidable -- it's inherent to the design of Kolab.... With OGo, in contrast, MUA functionality is straight, non-extended IMAP, and the format that's used for accessing calendaring, etc. is WebDAV. It's already supported by some clients (Mozilla), others are adding it (Evolution), and it doesn't break existing functionality in existing clients. This means that until clients support the protocols needed for calendaring, they can still function just as MUAs using the existing standards that they support, like IMAP. In contrast, point any random IMAP client at a Kolab server and watch the sparks fly as you try to switch back and forth.... What that means is that you can introduce OGo into an organization gradually. People can use existing MUAs and still function at the same level they always have. With Kolab, you really need to cut over completely both client and server.... later, chris
