On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 14:31 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote: > > perhaps you need to adjust the thought pattern a bit here. > > I don't think so. I know what I want - why do you insist that I need to > change? > > > Maybe it's justifiable to have to pay for the right to integrate a > > proprietary product (Outlook) into an open system. After all, Outlook > > really exists to sell their Exchange server and it is a really poorly > > behaved beast on IMAP. The thing that seems to be the seducer is that it > > integrates a PIM and exhanges with handhelds as opposed to separately > > endowed applications which are often better and more flexible solutions. > > The thing that "seduces" is that in an Exchange environment, Outlook Just > Works(TM) with a ton of features. Additionally, an Outlook workalike or > plugin would decrease the need for retraining. I am curious what you are > looking at that you consider to be better and more flexible than Outlook > on Exchange. Remember that at this time Linux on the desktop is not an > option - I am looking at a Windows desktop for now. > > > The Toltec connector (as recommended by Kolab) is cheaper than the > > OXLook connector on openXchange. > > Yup - it's actually not too expensive at all, and I am looking at > evaluating it soon. > > > IMAP and LDAP aren't really the big issues - the issues seem to more > > like the interconnects for various handheld devices and variety of > > protocols for the various daemons such as WebDAV as you have not only > > the IMAP & LDAP server but you have data storage for tasks/calendar/memo > > objects. > > Exactly! It's in the feature set that I'm interested - that's what I've > been saying all along. If I could get the same features out of Outlook or > an Outlook workalike without having to pony up for Exchange (and the > associated AD infrastructure and CALs and so on), it would be Heavenly. > > What I want is to be able throw up a fairly simple Linux box running, say > Dovecot or Cyrus or Courier IMAP and OpenLDAP and maybe MySQL. Then I > want the customer to be able to use a client on their desktop - either > Outlook with a plugin or an Outlook workalike like Evolution. I think > Outlook with a plugin is the best way because there is *so* much out there > for Outlook (i.e. handheld sync connectors). > > > One of the more interesting aspects of openXchange is that it supports > > open standards and thus allows you to use various calendar programs, > > etc. > > No argument there. It's just not soup yet. It smells good, and I'm > hanging out in the kitchen waiting, but it's not there yet. ---- All this is well and good - it is discussed frequently and obviously there are a lot of potential users for a GPL type licensed 'exchange server' I guess the thing that bothers me most is those who insist on Outlook as the client which completely ignores the fact that Microsoft primarily offers the Outlook program as a front end to their Exchange Server and for all other purposes, it is crippled. That they toss it in for free with their Office suite is really no different than the drug dealer giving away drugs until you are hooked. Their Outlook Express is a better MUA and it's a news reader. Outlook LDAP integration is deliberately crippled on non ADS setups. Outlook IMAP support is deliberately crippled. So the insistence on using Outlook as the client application and getting open source to remedy deliberately crippled features on a program whose API's are deliberately not made available seems to ignore the reality of the marketplace. There are other options out there and the rules seem to be, if you want to use Outlook as the client app...you will have to pay. Seems fair enough. Craig
