Slashdot Mirror

i love linux as much as everyone else but in reality there isn't a product yet out side of exchange that gives the amount of seemless intgration that exchange gives.

So what's wrong with the following products?
http://www.egroupware.org/
http://www.group-office.com/
http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/
http://www.scalix.com/
http://www.kolab.org/
http://www.opengroupware.org/
http://www.zimbra.com/
http://www.openconnector.org/
Non-free alternatives:
http://www.novell.com/products/groupwise/
http://bynari.net/index.php?id=7
http://www.stalker.com/CommuniGatePro/
http://www.officecalendar.com/
http://www.samsungcontact.com/
http://www.zarafa.com/
http://www.postpath.com/

I look forward to reading your reply.

Zimbra is a nice collaboration server with (web-based) email and calendaring. It's written in Java and has AJAX. I'm not sure how important it is to you to modify the calendar at the application level, but I'm sure you can at least export a (read-only) iCal feed from Zimbra.

Sunbird's goal is to support reading and writing of iCal via CalDAV, but Sunbird is very immature and highly unstable.

I haven't used these, but with Exchange server clones like Open-Xchange, you should be able to use Outlook. Not sure what Web interfaces they export, or what Web-based Exchange calendaring clients exist.

Of course, make sure you didn't dismiss Google Calendar prematurely. This should suffice if you don't need too many bells/whistles, and it relieves you of many burdens. If you really want an application to use, you can use CalGoo, but this (very early-in-development) program has always been excrutiatingly slow for me (and I tried their latest beta draft).

Albanach wrote:
What really astonishes me is that open source has made such great leaps in other areas yet there's no apparent replacement for Outlook & Exchange.

Um...

1. Outlook -> EVOLUTION. I use Evolution all day, every day at work to read email and calendars from our Exchange server.
2. Exchange -> SCALIX and ZIMBRA are the two front runners. We're about to evaluate Zimbra to replace our Exchange server (150 employees). Other possible candidates include: Bynari Insight Server, KerioMailServer, @Mail, and the venerable OpenXchange.

Those seem fairly apparent to me.

"that problem is the amazing lack of new and exciting software .. the Windows crowd has been using it for nearly a year or longer"

What new and exciting software are you refering. Please provide specifics. I don't mean some marketing phrase eg 'business ready' I mean what in functionality isn't represented on Linux.

"Take the Evolution vs. Outlook 2003"

Does Outlook work with Open-Xchange Server

http://www.open-xchange.org/

GPL and $ supported versions.

Yes, I did.. What are you, some kind of retard?

Recently I've seen arguments that the Creative Commons license is incompatible with Debian distribution, even if the code accompanying the CC content is GPL. That same argument seems to fault the CC license for its anticommerce clause.

Recently I've seen arguments that the Creative Commons license is incompatible with Debian distribution, even if the code accompanying the CC content is GPL. That same argument seems to fault the CC license for its anticommerce clause.

open-xchange.org

Open-Xchange(TM) is an collaboration and integration server enviroment with a continuous right management for modules and objects. The product is based on existing components like a web server, mail server, directory server, database ...

There are several interfaces (like WebDAV/XML interfaces) coming along with this software.
Try it out on http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/onl ine.htm

I prefer a 3-tier calendar, with standard presentation protocols in the UI layer (iCal, vCal, etc), arbitrary logic in the logic layer, and any storage server I want in the storage layer (RDBMS, filesystem, etc). Each in a separate component, with standard interfaces. I like Open-Xchange, open source, Java, Postgres, many APIs. But even OX has problems, like a contacts DB ghettoized in a separate BerkeleyDB storage layer for its OpenLDAP server, rather than storing it in the same Postgres. All these apps should have completely discrete components, with minimum functional redundancy, and easily addable objects (in Java, Perl, C/C++, whatever) that can access every API and dataflow. Since there are so many calendar clients, calendaring needs that utility the most.

Zimbra? Come on people, you want me to trust my user's email to a web2.0 company? what the hell?

Horde? For a user-base of this size? That's crazy! Where are you going to find enterprise-class support for a mediocre php web app framework?

The decent alternatives are Open Xchange, or Hula Server

But none of these compare to Sun's Messenging Server. Calendaring, IM, mail, all standards-compliant (even to the backend ldap server), all open-source. It integrates with outlook. It's backed up by a global corporation and is certified to run on Solaris, Red Hat, HP-UX and Windows. *

I don't understand why people even look at some of these other mail/calendar systems, let alone ignore this offering from Sun. Seriously, will someone answer that? (Sure it's not GPL'd, but Zimbra?)

*I do not work for sun.

try that.. or you could try squirel mail http://www.squirrelmail.org/ and a phpicalendar solution

Microsoft is best at locking up a market with its architecure, then convincing everyone in the market they have to buy into it. They're terrible at desiging that architecture to do more than lock in and work for the immediate release. So once everyone's locked in, they coast on momentum. Meanwhile the actual software sucks, and there's constant market demand pressure for others to fill the gap.

I like Open-Xchange, because it is feature-complete (though still somewhat buggy), supports open *DAV interfaces (and others like HTTP/LDAP/SMTP/IMAP/etc), and offers an Outlook "driver" that lets it drop-in replace Exchange without Outook (or even ActiveDirectory) even knowing the difference. Right now there's an opportunity for quality open (format, protocol, source, project) groupware apps to turn their niche beachheads into strategic assaults on Microsoft's complacency. The more the various open apps work together with the same open protocols, the more easily the Lilliputians will surround the hapless Gulliver, and take him (Microsoft) down to their level. Then commence to kick his ass at ground level, for the amusement of the onlooking market all dining on Lilliputware.

There has been ALOT of discussion on Calendars, and EXCHANGE. There was a comment made that EXCHANGE is the clear choice (and something only choice) for corporate informational exchange. Well, the company I worked for refused Exchange. What they are using is OpenXchange. http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community// Which is a open sourced version of novells Version http://www.novell.com/products/openexchange/screen shots.html/ For those who need a "Calendar" or "Email" Server without sticking your stuff into google.

The Open Sourced version is a little hectic to setup as it does not contain an administrative backend, so most of of the work is done through the command line... which is a small price to pay if you compare what is costs for MS Exchange. A Demo could be located here http://www.openexchange.com/EN/product/onlinedemo. html/ and here http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/onl ine.htm/
Plugins for OUTLOOK are available, seamless intergration.

There has been ALOT of discussion on Calendars, and EXCHANGE. There was a comment made that EXCHANGE is the clear choice (and something only choice) for corporate informational exchange. Well, the company I worked for refused Exchange. What they are using is OpenXchange. http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community// Which is a open sourced version of novells Version http://www.novell.com/products/openexchange/screen shots.html/ For those who need a "Calendar" or "Email" Server without sticking your stuff into google.

The Open Sourced version is a little hectic to setup as it does not contain an administrative backend, so most of of the work is done through the command line... which is a small price to pay if you compare what is costs for MS Exchange. A Demo could be located here http://www.openexchange.com/EN/product/onlinedemo. html/ and here http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/onl ine.htm/
Plugins for OUTLOOK are available, seamless intergration.

How about open-xchange or OpenGroupware?

Why bother using Exchange and crappy MS phones when you can use Open-Xchange and push messages with its SyncML Oxtension to a real phone, including a Blackberry or Treo?

Why bother using Exchange and crappy MS phones when you can use Open-Xchange and push messages with its SyncML Oxtension to a real phone, including a Blackberry or Treo?

Are you sure it isn't http://www.open-xchange.org/ ?

There are MS Exchange replacements that even MS Outlook users can use without even realizing they're not on "Exchange". The MS desktop monopoly can work against Microsoft when their servers don't compete well with others, and a single compatible server can then reach 90% of desktops. Once the MS Office formats no longer lock desktops to each other, because other apps can process them, the MS legacy can rapidly fade, except where it really is superior. Exactly where that is remains to be seen.

open-xchange is ok. It isn't Exchange but then again what is? I would really, really like to find a replacement for it.

There is a free version and a pay version.

What we need in our open projects is some people who have degrees in industrial design, or have experience with commercial software design. No one cares what is under the hood, they care about stability, ease of use, and ascetics. You got to have all three to push a good product. When you open a Microsoft product out of the box, the interface is always professional, and clean cut, (mind Windows XP and it's dog). I mean, look at this. The bubbly looking icons are out of style, and why the hell do you have a smile face as the calendar button? You can say that you can change it to however you see fit, but the problem is that people don't change things, and base their opinion based on the out of the box experience. If you want to look professional, you will have icons with the same color tone that aren't so huge, and you will have icons that relate to what they do. Consistency is another must. You can't have a professional looking program without it. Sadly, I think Windows 2000 is the peak of user interface design with Microsoft, and if you want anything that looks good, and acts right, you will be going with Mac OS X.

"If you don't talk Outlook, you're in trouble."

Open-Xchange is already a MS-Exchange drop-in replacement. But it "talks Outlook" with a proprietary MAPI driver you need to install in Outlook to connect to the OX server. Which costs money per license (the rest of OX is F/OSS). If Sun released such an Outlook plugin, for free, publishing its source, which translated the Outlook MAPI protocols to standard, open protocols (like IMAP/WebDAV/iCal), they could crank open the entire industry sector. Sun's groupware, OX, other players could offer a landscape that leverages Microsoft's early market building with their limited Exchange product into better group communications for everyone.

Oracle didn't write it. They bought a company called "Stettor", which bought the technology from Netscape when AOL bought Netscape. The result is that for the last 3 years, the software has stagnated as each company tried to re-write it for a new back end.

And oh dear, but it's awful. It's unstable: it randomly breaks users' configurations and requires re-installations of the "Connector", it pretends that the calendar notifications are email when they're really not and thus you don't see them in anything but Outlook, if you do set it up for email notifications it sends them in ms-tnef format even though they're plain text files, and trying to install Oracle in a typical server room computer setup is like trying to install a V8 engine in a moped. It is HUGE, and takes a lot of training to support. I don't recommend Oracle for calendar service: buy Oracle when you need a good industrial scale database and can afford at least one full-time employee to administer it, not a visiting consultant.

For example, the differences between web client, Windows client, Linux client, and Outlook client are clear and painful to deal with: each is missing at least one feature that most of the others have. Your users will whine and complain about being unable to do their work, and each will have a different complaint.

Instead, go directly to http://www.open-xchange.org/ and pony up a lot less money for much more stable and supported configuration which runs out of the box.

I prefer Open-Xchange to the MS product. The OX architecture runs Java servlets against a Postgres RDBMS. Adding features is a matter of installing new servlets. Dropping unnecessary features is a matter of tinkering with the open source. It integrates with my existing "Contacts" servers with LDAP, my existing SMTP/IMAP/POP servers, Apache. I integrated my own services by running other servers, like my streaming server, against the LDAPd for authentication and Postgres for metadata. Every service is scalable, in clusters, even geographically.

Oh, and MS Exchange sucks. Especially its data stores, with its impenetrable schema and flatfile legacy. OX doesn't suck like that, and I (or someone I hire, or someone checking their changes into CVS) can fix anything I don't like. OX doesn't lock me into any other specific SW: every component (server or client) has alternatives. Get rid of MS Exchange, and get behind the OX.

... which IMO is excellent, Open Source, has an optional Web Interface and is Java based for relatively easy customizing. See their site.

Features of OX that I dont see in Zimbra:

• Document management & versioning
• Projects comprised of tasks
• Can be installed with remote, and various MTAs, IMAP, POP3 Servers

And there are connectors for Exchange, Lotus Notes, Evolution, etc.

It takes a little bit of effort to get setup initially, but yes it is possible.

Public Folder functionality can be replaced with this:

Open Exchange Outlook Client

Outlook will publish a summary of it's free busy data to the internet as opposed to publishing it to an exchange public folder:

Outlook free / busy information for Outlook 2003

Overall if you do it right, the chances are actually that you will not only end up with a more robust system than what Exchange is. Especially if you buy it soon, you have the ability to go 64bit on your servers before Microsoft do! This means that you can run one server instead of 4 or 4000 (Depending really on the size of the organisation that you look after)

This interface looks like it will join onto anything. If you like it, it might even join onto OpenExchange.

Berny

It takes a little bit of effort to get setup initially, but yes it is possible.

Public Folder functionality can be replaced with this:

Open Exchange Outlook Client

Outlook will publish a summary of it's free busy data to the internet as opposed to publishing it to an exchange public folder:

Outlook free / busy information for Outlook 2003

Overall if you do it right, the chances are actually that you will not only end up with a more robust system than what Exchange is. Especially if you buy it soon, you have the ability to go 64bit on your servers before Microsoft do! This means that you can run one server instead of 4 or 4000 (Depending really on the size of the organisation that you look after)

This interface looks like it will join onto anything. If you like it, it might even join onto OpenExchange.

Berny

An scalable, open-source based email server particularly well suited if you have multiple domains etc. is Limacute, developed by Linpro, a Linux experts company in Norway. It is GPL and in use by at least one large mail-centric ISP.

There's also the Hula Project. It is based on Novell's NetMail. Novell used to claim that a single server easily could handle 100.000 users. The Hula project is adding calendar and other features.

Pity they completely overlooked Open-Xchange and its free open source cousin.

Where is the OSS answer to Exchange??
Maybe here? I personnaly perfer Novell's (SuSE's) OpenExchange, easier to set up and install. Been using it at the office for over 2 years now.

http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/ That is the link.. they call it xchange instead of Exchange. Thanks for the lead I will check it out.

I agree with Martin Taylor that transitioning software on a Linux platform can be difficult. I also believe transitioning software on ANY platform is difficult. If it wasn't, none of us would have jobs.

I also agree with Martin Taylor that going to a Linux platform may prove more costly than first expected. I also know from experience that Microsoft roll-outs have additional cost.

For Example: MS Exchange server compared to SuSE OpenExchange (now Netline OpenExchange). Similar Products. Exchange is cheaper out of the box until you add Spam Control, Virus Control, etc... Also, Exchange counts licenses by CAL connection, OpenExchange is Licensed by concurrent connections - much cheaper. If you want you can even download the Netline Open-Xchange for free with no license restrictions.

Martin Taylor is correct on many points. Unfortunately his logic breaks down because those points are universal and not specific to OSS.

What about Novell's OpenGroupware? Or its free, OSS platform, Open-Xchange? It even uses Outlook clients transparently.

I'm hacking Open-Xchange, the "drop-in" (if only...) transparent, open-source replacement for Microsoft Exchange. It uses an OpenLDAP server, which used to store its data in the Postgres DB used for the rest of its data. Recently the project has moved towards keeping more data inside the OpenLDAP server itself, rather than all in Postgres. Can I replace their OpenLDAP server with ApacheDS, in less than 8 hours of admin work, without specific expertise in either ApacheDS or OpenLDAP (except that I got OpenLDAP to work with O-X)? How ready for prime-time is this app? Of course, that's in the context of all these apps working more or less in beta right now.

"An NIH source says there are no plans to "unseat" Microsoft products, which are widely used throughout HHS."

Microsoft's got a huge lock on groupware, with Outlook/Exchange locking seats to Microsoft with each other's installation, and locking each to Windows (and vice versa) with each installation of Microsoft's OS.

Novell sells groupware that competes directly with Exchange. They even provide code, sales and frontline support services to Netline's Open-Xchange, the open source project upon which much of their high-end groupware is based. O-X connects transparently to Outlook, and natively to Evolution, Netscape, and other open source clients that run on SuSE Linux, which Novell supports to the same extent. And O-X is middleware that connnects to servers like Postgres, Tomcat, postfix, OpenLDAP (all of which are open source, or have swap-in replacement open source alternatives). O-X interoperates with all these apps via standard protocols and data formats, including Outlook, so all the other software we add to the system that uses those standards continues to work.

Novell's arrangement puts Linux into a giant organization, backed by serious support and development. It's the thin edge of a wedge backed by other apps that can further displace Microsoft's hegemony there. Just like all the Linux/Apache servers that mushroomed everywhere in the last 5 years, including HHS no doubt, without a plan, but which reduced the IIS grip on the market to an also-ran. HHS runs its webserver on Windows/IIS today - after this Novell contract is operational, that will probably change. How long after that will Exchange go the way of IIS? And with IT able to just call Novell for support, and Novell sales calling to sell their O-X line, how long will it take for wily HHS geeks to quietly replace Exchange without the suits even noticing? Then, once Novell and Netline have feedback from a huge paying enterprise customer like HHS, and all their vast array of extranet partners, how long before no one notices that the plug has been pulled on IIS for good, except Microsoft and Novell?

The higher-ups are attracted to the bells and whistles of Exchange Server and the familiarity of MS Windows. We have purchased many thousands of dollars of software which would not move over. Moreover, the loss of productivity to retraint our entire staff (keep in mind that I work at a church) would be devastating.

Most churches, NPO's, and small schools are in a lousy position today with regards to IT. They want to move forward, but they are entangled with a hodge-podge of expensive proprietary solutions. They don't have the resources or expertise to experiment with new approaches either. What is really needed is a complete Open Source web-based solution that integrates all basic functionality needed by these organizations -- email/groupware, membership or student records database, accounting / ERP, document production and management (including public web), etc. The potential for automation would be incredible. This is the vision of the InfoCentral project, which I lead. We are just getting back off the ground after a switch to Java, but if you're interested, check us out. http://www.infocentral.org/ More details about our future plans will be posted shortly.

In the meantime, also check out the Open-XChange project (started by Novell/SuSE). It's a complete email/groupware server solution that uses entirely open protocols, is written in Java, has a far superior web interface than Exchange2003, and even has a MS Outlook connector for those who are paranoid of immediate change. Commercial support is also available. http://mirror.open-xchange.org/

And it's the core of Novell's GroupWise suite, so it can be upgraded to a version supported by Novell's global staff.

It's not the core of Groupwise. Novell recently released Hula as an open source app, which open-xchange uses.
Hula is not based on Groupwise though. It was a separate project called NetMail designed separately from the ground up. I'm sure they would be somewhat compatible considering it was Novell that did it, but it is not the core of GroupWise. Novell is still testing the open source waters and wouldn't give away something like GroupWise...yet.

My favorite way to break the MS control of corporate groupware is the OSS project Open-Xchange. It's a Linux server that replaces MS-Exchange (without users even needing to know), with an Outlook plugin, and Evolution compatibility (through open standards). It is a hub server that uses standard interop with other server types, like Samba, SMTP, LDAP, HTTP, and SQL, so the services it bundles to the client can be delivered by existing servers, or the installer's choice of (standards) compatible ones. The source is open, and it's got a documented plugin API, as well as an open, documented data schema available to any additional apps. And it's the core of Novell's GroupWise suite, so it can be upgraded to a version supported by Novell's global staff. It runs on Linux, so its uptime and scalability are reliable. With O-X working, it's no longer necessary to rely on MS Exchange to get MS Exchange features.

FWIW, I'd love to see people take the Mozilla/Oracle code for improving Fire/Thunderbird, and improve their integration with O-X. That kind of cross-pollination is perfect for OSS, and leaves proprietary competition, like MS Exchange, standing behind like a stick in the mud.

Try Open-Xchange. It's a bit tricky to set up, but it works, does everything Exchange does, and it can even be made to work with Outlook.

Have you looked at things like Open-Xchange or if you don't mind paying.

They aren't perfect, and collaboration is not great in standalone clients, but if your users don't mind using a web browser for email, it works great.

http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/

From the news on their websites it may sound like the Hula release was actually intended to benefit this project.

It would be interesting to catch the differences between the two, Open Xchange has a few more collaboration engines in it, namely a project manager and bulletin board.

In full disclosure we plan on releasing OX in the office sometime soon after their .8 release. Especially now that it looks like they integrate with any IMAP server (freeing us from having to switch to Cyrus).

Palm also licensed the MS ActiveSync (Outlook/Exchange protocol). Now Nokia. How does an open source project, like Open-Xchange, license a product like that? Beyond the legal issues of GPL on software that depends on a (very) proprietary license (which can be overcome by partitioning the licensed SW over IPC APIs), how does the project negotiate with MS, and be trusted to honor the agreement? How to pay? If this is all doable, what are we waiting for?

It is open source and runs on your *nix servers. SUSE's pricing is MUCH lower than MS's pricing. You can use the same backend for free without SUSE support if you use OPEN-XCHANGE. The reason I chose to link to the former is that it is more likely it would be chosen by companies who had enough to afford MS Exchange.

1. Active Directory to Novell eDirectory, although that doesn't really give you much. No real Open Source functional alternative.
2. Exchange server to Open-Xchange
3. NTFS to perhaps XFS or Reiser, orOpenAFS, although OpenAFS is really lots better, and has tons more functionality

You'll find that Evolution provides connectivity to OpenGroupware.org, Groupwise, OpenX-Change, and yes, Microsoft Exchange. This in fact makes it remarkably vendor-neutral, in my opinion. Cheers, Michael

Your describing OpenXchange.

There is a prepackaged installer that even includes the OS. SUSE LINUX Openexchange Server They have a connector for MS Outlook. The price is still a bit more than many small companies can afford.

For the cheapest of the cheapies like me there is Open Xchange, the product that is the basis of SLOX. This is something my company would want to deploy once they get to a stable landmark release.

Regarding WebDAV as adequate for shared calendaring:

Suppose you have a 20 employee company and you hire #21. All 20 previous employees (read: clueless users) have to now subscribe to 21's calendar and clueless user #21 has to subscribe to 20 other people's calendars to have a truly shared calendaring system. A pain in the ass.

Now up that number to a 100,000 employee company. That becomes impossible. I very much want to replicate M$'s free/busy functionality w/out using M$ but haven't yet found a product, OS or commercial, that will do it to my satisfaction. I've evaluated CommuniGate Pro, Netscape (and iPlanet) Calendar Server, and Groupwise. All ok, but still none as seamless as Outlook/Exchange. I'd like to evaluate Suse/Novell's OpenExchange server, but was told by Novell that while they'd be happy to sell me a copy of it, that I could return w/in 45 days, they were "choosing not to lead with that product" so there was no way to evaluate it w/out buying it, which made me feel real comfortable about the support I'd get on it . Yes I'm aware I could try out the OS base of it from http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/dow nload.htm but I'm assuming there is some professional polish and extra ease of administration in the bought product. I'm sure I'll end up d/ling the OS version and evaluating that too even so.

If someone can tell me how to use current WebDAV technology to overcome indivdual subscribing thing, you can flame me in my stupidity as much as you like, and I'll take it and like it.

Also, re: shared contacts -- a read/write LDAP addressbook should be a no-brainer, and not that difficult to write (says the non-programming sysadmin, distributing grains of salt.) I've long wondered why some OSS email client (preferably my client of choice, Thunderbird) doesn't have it.