Ximian Connector 1.0 Available

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Ximian Connector is out! Regardless if you don't like open source and Microsoft playing together this will let me ditch my Win2k box at work! Here is the press release. Of note, MS Exchange 2000 has a nice HTTP interface to it as well, works wonderfully in Galeon." kittenslietome adds a link to the license under which it's released as well: Connector is not Free software, but rather software Ximian hopes will pay for further Free software development.

Comments

Great day for the working stiff...

[3nd3r]

Well for me it is going to replace my w2000k machine and outlook. I am so looking forward to quashing Microsoft from my machine permanently. Great work gang. And I will gladly pay for it...

It's not just proprietary software

[Florian Weimer]

It's proprietary software with an extremely obnoxious license. Quote:

4. Security: CUSTOMER understands and agrees that the Software contains trade secrets belonging to XIMIAN, and will take all reasonable steps to protect its confidentiality. CUSTOMER acknowledges that the Software is the property of XIMIAN and contains confidential information. CUSTOMER agrees that, other than to its employees, it will not provide a copy of the Software nor divulge any details of it to any person without the prior consent in writing of XIMIAN.

This means that you must not talk about security problems in Connector with your hired security consultant. You can't even share information with other Ximian customers.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means you can't reverse engineer it and make your own program that does the same thing. You have to do all the hard work on your own.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[larien]

That may well have been the intent, but the license reads like "you won't tell anyone anything about our software unless we say it's OK" which could be used to block security disclosures. Note that it says "divulge any details"; I think that's a broad statement.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[Anonymous Coward]

It's snuggled up next to the windows world,
just like vmware. Amazing samba is free. Most
stuff that touches the MS world is infected,
almost as though it were 'viral' or something.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[[AraGorn]]

The first rule of Ximian Connector Club is you do not talk about Ximian Connector Club.

The second rule of Ximian Connector Club is you do not talk about Ximian Connector Club.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[germinatoras]

With a clause like that, one might wonder how Ximian themselves came up with the interface to Exchange.

Did Microsoft give / sell the interface documentation for Exchange server to Ximian, or did they reverse-engineer it? In the case of the former, Ximan has every right to make this request. In the latter, well, sounds kinda hypocritical to me.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[laserjet]

well, you know how that pesky GPL is! once it infects things, you can't stop it. It's like a virus!

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[DrusTheAxe]

The first rule of Ximian Connector Club is you do not talk about Ximian Connector Club. You cannot talk about the second rule of Ximian Connector Club.

Re:It's not just proprietary software

[Fat Casper]

This means that you must not talk about security problems in Connector with your hired security consultant. You can't even share information with other Ximian customers.

So you can't freely redistribute it? Wah. Not everything can be the GPL, and not everything should be. Your take on how it restricts you is inaccurate, too. A consultant, while not an employee for tax purposes, is still someone that you hired. Other Ximian customers, having the source code themselves, already have those details that you may not divulge- so discuss away.

Come on folks, GPL is OSS, but OSS is not necessarily GPL. License agreements like this are the biggest strength of OSS. The customers get the source and the companies still make money. There's nothing "extremely obnoxious" about that.

Exchange 5.5?

[RicoX9]

Wish they'd started with Exchange 5.5. I would guess that there are FAR more Exchange 5.5 installs out there than Exchange 2000. (At least in my neck of the woods, everyone runs 5.5)

Have been using Evolution with IMAP successfully for about 4 months now. The lack of calendaring has been a thorn in my side.

Re:Exchange 5.5?

[Strog]

I've only seen a couple Exchange 2000 installs around here but several 5.5 installs so I would have to agree. I was making good progress at replacing a 5.5 install with Openmail when the announcement came. I' have to say that Exchange is Microsoft's best product out there though it has its share of issues. I'll be happy when there is a solid replacement for it.

Re:Exchange 5.5?

[Cola Junkee]

I actually asked them about whether they would be supporting 5.5 in the future. They said "3 months from now" (of course, that was at least 3 months ago)..

But needless to say, they have plans to release a connector for 5.5.

Re:Exchange 5.5?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. In the 5000 employees company I work in, it's also 5.5 sp4.

I'd love to have a 5.5 connector to get rid of windows altogether on my laptop.

Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Brento]

There's a big catch: it only works with Exchange 2000 servers, not 5.5, and it requires that the OWA (Outlook via Web) is installed on the Exchange server. Wish my employer wasn't still on 5.5, then it'd be a lot more exciting.

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Anonymous Coward]

it requires that the OWA (Outlook via Web) is installed on the Exchange server.

That's awfully scary. I hope that doesn't mean it actually downloads and parses web pages.

Ick.

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Sc00ter]

When I worked for MediaOne they wouldn't even turn on WebOutlook.. So I'd be out of luck if I was still there (now AT&T).

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[dzym]

So wait, why shouldn't we just use whatever web browser we prefer to view the OWA page?

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[ethereal]

No, what it does is present your mail and calendar as a web-based interface. So, like hotmail, but also with a calendar app too.

Your local web browser actually does the downloading and parsing of web pages.

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Brento]

So wait, why shouldn't we just use whatever web browser we prefer to view the OWA page?

Because most of OWA's cool features, like inline formatting, spell checking, and drag & drop only work with IE6 and above (or could be IE5.5, can't remember for certain).

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't. It uses Exchange's WebDAV interface, which happens to be enabled and disabled by the same switch as the OWA interface. It doesn't actually use OWA itself.

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[Sabalon]

Cause they are all implemented as activeX controls.

Basically, you have all the stuff on your machine to run outlook, but you run IE instead of Outlook and the web pages pretty much call all the controls outlook would call.

so, you just don't have to setup a profile.

Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA

[chetohevia]

Outlook Web Access does parsing and displaying of all the data via a web page.

As others have pointed out, Ximian Connector doesn't parse the HTML (shudder-- what a terrible idea!) it uses WebDAV as the interface-- that just happens to be turned on at the same time as OWA.

What do you get for your 70 bucks? Better performance, not having to use a web browser to check your mail, a native application, no Windows license, no VMWare license, no need for an extra computer or rebooting just to check your calendar....

It's a good deal.

We will NOT stand for this!!!

[somethingwicked]

MS Exchange 2000 has a nice HTTP interface to it as well

AC or no AC, we demand to know the true identity of a Slashdot poster who would DARE make such a positive M$ comment. And on the front page? Timothy must have been duped... Sacrilege!!!

---Your friends, the Slashdotologists---

Re:We will NOT stand for this!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Yankovic

Just to make it clear

[FooBarWidget]

While Ximian Connector is not Free Software, Evolution *is* Free Software.
Connector is just a plugin to be able to access Exchange servers, and you are in no way required to buy it.
Lots of people don't know that for some reason...

I think this is a good tactic, because:
1) They have some sort of business model now (nobody can complain about that they don't have a business model).
2) Companies that depend on Exchange servers can now use Evolution.
3) It encourages open standards, because you don't have to pay for Connector if you convert your servers to use some open standard that's supported by Evolution by default.

Re:Just to make it clear

[cadfael]

I couldn't agree more with you. Its a good case of tying a (possibly) viable business model to the production of software for the open source market (even if the software *gasp* costs me some cash). I fully expect Ximian to be panned by the more rabid open source folks, but I see this as a natural step in the (pardon the pun) evolution of the business model that folks like Ximian will have to make work to stick around.

Re:Just to make it clear

[Cyclops]

Yes, finally they have a business model!
I'm running to the stores to buy some proprietary junk that costs more than a copy of RedHat.

Re:Just to make it clear

[ambrosius27]

You said: "3) It encourages open standards, because you don't have to pay for Connector if you convert your servers to use some open standard that's supported by Evolution by default.
"

Doesn't it seem strange that their business model depends upon people using proprietary software; yet, your point is that their business model would encourage them not to buy the service?

Re:Just to make it clear

[FooBarWidget]

Ximian Evolution is not Free

Oh yeah? Gimme some proof. But wait, you don't have proof! Well I guess that makes you a dumb troll.

Re:Just to make it clear

[swillden]

I think this is a good tactic, because: 1) They have some sort of business model now (nobody can complain about that they don't have a business model).

Oh, yes, by all means they must make sure that no one can complain about their lack of a business model. All of those complaints from armchair CEOs do immeasurable damage to the future and viability of Ximian. Finding a way to become a viable, self-sustaining and profitable business can wait, as long as they can appease the loudmouths.

Re:Just to make it clear

[FooBarWidget]

They're trying to convert the business to use Linux for now. With Connector, companies are more likely to switch to Linux because they can still use Exchange servers.
Ximian can always make more proprietary software later.

Re:Just to make it clear

[bhsx]

Remember, Ximian doesn't depend on the linux server market at all. They are strictly desktop, though I personally would like to see them working on a full-blown backend to replace Exchange in all its glory (i.e. full-featured web integration and shared address books like tying PHPGroupWare or something to that extent)... hint, hint, Miguel.

Re:Just to make it clear

[praxim]

Bias disclaimer: I don't much care either way about free software or not (though I have a slight bit of opposition to it for reasons too complex to explain here).

I don't see how having a proprietary software portion of a business aids the free software portion. Only one half of that company is going to bring in any serious cash, and I'll let you guess which. What would the point be of sustaining the free half, then?

Re:Just to make it clear

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't a business model. This is just more proof that selling free software is not a viable business model. We will see the shit hit the fan fairly soon, I'm sure. Once the VC cash supply starts running low, and the VCs get nervous and start throwing their weight around. Depending on the level of ownership the VCs have at stake in Ximian determines the outcome of running out of cash. If VCs control a good portion of Ximian (enough to actually use their control and turn Miguel into a puppet, much like Jim Clark of SGI) then Evolution could become non-free software. It isn't that hard to simply change the license since Ximian is still the copyright holder and make further releases proprietary. And this could also happen later, too. Once enough users become dependent on Evolution they could simply change the license because they want more profit. Miguel has proven he will go the proprietary route now. His reasoning for bashing Qt was because it was a "major component of the desktop." Is Evolution a "major component of GNOME?" I think not. Which is why he has no problem selling this proprietary adapter now. It's not a "major component."

What comes around goes around, Miguel.

Re:Just to make it clear

[khuber]

No shit. Why don't they just go commercial if it's the only viable business model?

I can use Outlook through its own web interface. I don't want to pay $70 for the privilege of turning Linux into yet another commercial OS. Whoopee.

-Kevin

Re:Just to make it clear

[Waffle Iron]

What would the point be of sustaining the free half, then?

Cheap publicity. You would have never heard of this company if they weren't involved with their free software projects.

Public awareness is very hard to create or buy, and it's a huge advantage in the marketplace.

Who cares if it's not Free?

[tom_newton]

Firstly, if you're using this, then you're by definition also using some other non-Free software. Just because this is from a developer that works primarily with Free software doesn't make it any worse. In fact, quite the opposite.

This (small) piece of proprietry s/w could open the door for thousands of gigs of totally Free software being installed - eventually obviating the need for itsself, perhaps?

Finally, if it pays for more Free software (lets face it, everything has a cost, if not a price) then i'm all for it...

Re:Who cares if it's not Free?

[Anonymous Coward]

F00L! NOT EVERY COST COMES UNDISGUISED. I WILL PITY YOU WHILE YOU STUMBLE DOWNWARD INTO THE SEVEN HELLS OF THE UNDERW0RLD! THEN I WILL LAUGH LIKE A CR0W FEEDING ON YOUR BURNT-OUT RIBCAGE. CRAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAAA!!!

- AFSD

It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed

[hillct]

This looks like a neat pieve of software, but it's outragous that it's needed at all. In this instance, Microsoft has created a new software development business - the business of conforming to 'Microsoft Standards'. It's discraceful that we've let this go on. Companies should not be able to find it profitable to create interfaces into Microsoft's proprietary protocols. Instead, Microsoft should find it unprofitable to ignore standards and go out on their own. While I have no objection to Ximian as a whole, they are facilitating this behavior, by providing interoperability products. Really, though, at it's core this is our fault. Clearly sufficient pressure has not been aplied to Microsoft to force them co conform to the standards that the rest of the software world now uses.

--CTH

Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed

[Anonymous Coward]

What standards would those be? Face it: there is _no_ good open-source alternative to the scheduling features that exchange provides. NO ALTERNATIVE. got it? Microsoft has provided the superior solution in this instance.

It is sad that no one has put any time or effort into a decent open source iCal server, but don't blame MS or Ximian for that.

Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed

[mshiltonj]

Read the press release. This is us invading them, not us throwing in the towel:

"The challenge in connecting decentralized Linux workgroups with larger Windows-based enterprises has been a barrier for Linux desktops to make inroads into the corporate world.... Ximian Connector for Microsoft Exchange is designed to
break down those barriers... The overwhelming customer response to Ximian Connector for Microsoft Exchange shows that we have clearly struck a chord with companies increasingly adopting Linux for desktop use. By providing this key missing ingredient to interoperability with office document and messaging standards, Ximian is helping companies support their Linux users without compromise while eliminating the costs normally associated with the purchase of second PCs or mail systems."

It makes the slow (and, for some, fearful) migration from windows to linux possible, instead of requiring a clean break. There is a lot of resistance to "clean breaks". Slow migrations don't get much resistance, especially if said migration doesn't show up on budget outlines or requisition forms.

Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed

[hillct]

I don't blame Microsoft for there being no good OSS alternatives to their product. I blame them for not enabling standard protocols like IMAP, and iCal out-of-the box. Granted, there are a lot of incompetant admins out there that don't realize they can enable these protocols, but in every other arena, Microsoft has catered to the lowest common denomicator in the way of user intelligence, so why not here? The answer is simple. They want their protocol to become the defacto standard (which has pretty much already become) and the creation of software that facilitates this use of non-open standards, where equivelent open standards DO EXIST, is shameful; especially from a company that preaches the virtues of OSS.

--CTH

Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed

[hillct]

Although I'd say your interpretation of the press release is just a matter of spin, I'd have to agree with your statement regarding slow migrations. Here you make a vary good point. One of the few other examples of software that facilitates this slow migration might be OpenOffice. Interoperability is a dangerous thing though. You have to adopt the ways of the enemy in order to use it effectively. Provide interoperability, but provide greater (and non-compatible) functionality which encourages the user to migrate away from the product to which you originally provided interoperability. The problemwith this is - since we are preaching open standards - we must extend an open standard such that it provides the greater functionality, rather than implement in a closed way. This means the only advantage possible is in a feature development race, where Microsoft has greater resources to draw upon and so will certainly win such contents. Granted, this is a rather gloomy analysis. I hope I'm wrong.

--CTH

No such luck for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I just started a new job. It turns out we're forced to use Outlook and IE (and a bunch of other corporate approved crap) for all email. But we're the QA dept for a cross-platform product! Solution: let's put THREE computers on everybody's desk... the "Corporate Environment" machine runs remote desktop and tons of spyware, apparently corp. IT CAN and DO monitor these for "unauthorised software" (like, say, the latest moz build, Cygwin, and emacs-NT. nio, sir, I've no IDEA how they got on my machine - perhasp the security guard installed them overnight... ;)

Sadly this sort of paranoid "you can't run anything except what we've regression tested and approved, and it takes forever to get teh std build changed, or approval to run anything NON-standard" attitude has been standard at most large coprs I've worked at (BP, Logica, Bain,..) I can see their point... sort of... but here it's almost beyond the pale -- the doc on "other s/w under evaluation" includes things like "security patches to IE 5.01" (yes, folks, IE 5.01 is NO LONGER SUPPORTED BY MS...) And to top it all, this is a SECURITY company. A very, very big one, based in the US, with software on LOTS of corporate desktops.

Dammit, I just realised I'll have to post this anonymously...

Re:No such luck for me

[afidel]

Damn it when will CTO's realize that IT is a SERVICE, and a very costly one. IT is not the damn ruler of the computer!! It is IT's job to keep people productive, not dictate their whim's to every client. I realize that standardization is meant to minimize counterproductive downtime, but it sounds like your companies policy is way over-restrictive. Here we have a set of "approved" applications and a number of approved machines. If you install something that is not approved and I have reasonable doubt that it is causing the problem, and I am unable to fix things in a reasonable amount of time then you get your data backed up and your machine returned to pristine form. If you don't want the distraction of re-imaging then don't install software that fubar's your machine. This way the client (yes users are IT's clients) has controll and flexibility, but it comes with a bit of responsibility.(wow we treat our client's like adults, isn't that a novel idea)

Re:No such luck for me

[Strog]

I worked at the datacenter of a fair sized bank and everything had to be installed by IT and every setting was documented. It was a stressful place to work because they didn't want to put much into a budget to have this degree of control.

I now work at a college and things are way more lax. We use VLANs to segment the network into student, admin, etc. You can install whatever you like on the student network(labs, etc.) but your hard drive will be reimaged if you blow it up too bad. You can install Linux, XP, OS/2, etc. but IT doesn't support it and you are on your own. The admin network is a little more strict. There is a standard OS, apps, etc. and trying to deviate from this is strongly discouraged. Of course the politics of it means that there is some deviation but you blow your computer up with it then it will be reimaged.

Re:No such luck for me

[sphealey]

Damn it when will CTO's realize that IT is a SERVICE, and a very costly one. IT is not the damn ruler of the computer!! It is IT's job to keep people productive, not dictate their whim's to every client. I realize that standardization is meant to minimize counterproductive downtime, but it sounds like your companies policy is way over-restrictive

To quote Richard Feynman, concerning the first head of computing for the Manhatten Project (note that this involved the use of both human computers and mechanical computing devices): "but he succumbed to the disease which has since become well-known: the desire to play with the machine rather than doing useful work".

I have had the misfortune to specify and install about 10,000 personal computing devices in three different corporations of different sizes since 1986. Of the 1000 or so requests for non-standard configurations that passed my way, about 3 were justifed based on business analysis. The same analysis that the requestors would demand be done on any project presented to them for budget approval.

When you get a company car, if you are high enough in the organization you get to specify the color and seat coverings. You don't get to pull the engine out and replace it with a new one at your whim. Somehow people manage to get from place to place in those "crippled" vehicles.

sPh

Re:No such luck for me

[ethereal]

Here's the three-step process, in brief:

1. "The corporate standard for mail and scheduling is now Outlook, so we're going to park this PC on your desk next to your real development machine so that you can still see your schedule." (The "embrace" phase)
2. "We need to contain support costs, so we're discontinuing support for all clients besides Outlook and shutting off non-standard service protocols like IMAP. Since you required a PC that runs Outlook, you greedy developer bastard you, you can't complain about that, now can you?" (The "guilt" phase)
3. "We've just realized that we're averaging 1.4 computers per worker, which is .4 too many. Since you need the PC for everything we mandated that you need it for, we'll be taking away your good development machine." (The "knocking down the straw man that we set up" phase)

And that is how IT shows you that it ownz you, a little bit at a time :)

Re:No such luck for me

[afidel]

A computer is NOT a car, it is a general purpose device. Telling the guy that he can't install his development environment is pathetic. He is a coder, it is his JOB to code, whatever tools he needs to get that job done is what IT should be providing, not some "pristine" environment that is useless for him to get his job done.

Re:No such luck for me

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yeah well but...pulling the engine would be analogus to pulling the cpu and changing the rom-bios, yes? Running emacs would be more like putting a music CD "from an unapproved band" into car's sound system. If it makes no changes to the registry it should be ok.

Re:No such luck for me

[jd142]

If you are in a large company, why are you using a non-standard development environment? Everyone should use the same development environment.

People who have complained seem to think it is strictly IT's decision as to what is supported, and to a degree it is, but don't forget management also wants to keep everyone on the same program. When you take time out from your work to install software that is non-standard for your company, then you decrease the time you spend doing your job. And if your software is incompatible with other software that people use, you increase the amount of time fixing those incompatibilities. Days have been lost fixing differences in complex documents that were saved in Word 95 and then converted to Word 2000. Just because someone wanted the latest version. Don't even get me started on the differences between WP and Word. Just installing a different printer can change document formatting, throwing long, complex documents off by pages. Management doesn't want that hassle anymore than IT does.

Re:No such luck for me

[borgquite]

Over restrictiveness is a pain, but don't forget that licensing issues are also at stake. It's far too easy for a company employee to install some 'less than legal' software on their work computer, and when the BSA come round visiting the company has to take the blame and the fine.

Re:No such luck for me

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are in a large company, why are you using a non-standard development environment? Everyone should use the same development environment.

Original anonymous coward here again. Well, the PHBs don't really care what we run on our dev network/boxes. It's just that we have to have a NT4 Windows box with Outlook and IE for mail and intranet. Apparently I was taking a big risk installing emacs, Cygwin and mozilla. So far no come back but... we shall see.

Anyway, as soon as I've finished fixing this horrible stuff that they thought were "programs" and making them, uh, work, I'm downing tools to move the DEV box from W2K to OpenBSD. (My team leader claimed I had to use W2K on the dev machine, too, but it turns out that he only said that cos he doesn't understand anything else... :) )

Re:No such luck for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Programs are sets of explicit computer instructions, kind of like routes are sets of explicit driving instructions. Now manage that car like IT would: Specify exactly which routes it may be driven on. Come up with a list of company "approved" explicit routes from which users are not allowed to deviate, even to avoid obstacles. Watch travel times increase considerably.

Wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

With this outrageous price - I wish them luck..

Actually - I hope they'll manage to sell well..

Fact is - that during the following 3 months there will be 3 competing products, ALL of them at the less price..

So, good luck Ximian

reminds me of something my father used to say...

[let the storm]

my papa always said, ..."if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." :)

Ximian Connector is a unique client software extension that allows Linux and UNIX users of the Ximian Evolution groupware suite to manage personal information and collaborate with Windows-based co-workers using Microsoft Exchange 2000

Microsoft is to blame for possible security flaws

[FooBarWidget]

It is Microsoft Exchange after all.
Besides, if you don't like the way Ximian is doing this, then get rid of Exchange and use open standards.

$69.00?

[gamorck]

Anybody who would pay $69.00 just so they can get rid of Microsoft on their computer is pretty much clueless. Lets at least try to encourage companies to produce better more price competitive pieces of software rather than supporting every piece of crap that happens to have a price tag on it.

And people wonder why Microsoft isnt going anywhere anytime soon. I mean if a $69.00 is the absolute best Ximian can do when pricing this piece of crap - then they are bound to fail. Thats a third of the cost of windows and more than half of the cost of the Outlook XP upgrade sold seperately.

The fact that this thing requires OWA (Outlook Web Access) to be installed should make you wary as well. Its not even directly connecting using exchange protocols (if that was the case it would work with Exchange 5.5) its simply making a slow ass HTTP connection to the server and parsing the output. What a pathetic hack.

Either way, anybody who buys this deserves to be laughed at. So rest assured I will be putting in my portion on that front. Hahahahahahahahaha...

J

Re:$69.00?

[chetohevia]

I suspect you're not actually interested in hearing a response to this, and I know that other responses have already been posted in other threads. But, just for the heck of it, I'll reply:

If you would like to see a cost-benefit analysis of Ximian Connector vs. Two PCs' on your desk, one with Windows & Office/Outlook, you can visit http://ximian.com/products/solutions/

Now, even if you *don't* buy a second computer, $69 is still less than the cost of VMWare+Windows, and Evolution is faster than rebooting every time you want to use Outlook.

As to OWA, well-- Ximian Connector uses WebDAV, which is turned on with the same switch as OWA. Ximian Connector doesn't parse the HTML. No fricking way.

If you'd like to see reviews of the software, check Linuxplanet and Eweek, among others.

Cheers!

Re:$69.00?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you actually go and look at the software and how it works before you bash it. There's no HTML parsing involved.

I'm running a copy of the connector and even over my cable modem connection is plenty fast enough.

Slashdot seems to be full of people who like nothing better than to bash every new thing that comes out on the market.

Those who say they can do a connector cheaper than Ximian - do it

Those who say why should companies run Exchange rather than a clump of Free products - Because for some sites Microsoft is a better fit (lots of non-technical users, just file and print services, unified logon and e-mail)

Zealots are not going to go far in the IT world anymore. Most companies aren't interested in the opinion of someone who is just going to push one product all the time ... some of the people I work with are finding this out (both Windows and UNIX zealots not just one).

Re:reminds me of something my father used to say..

[Anonymous Coward]

join them ??

excuse me but i am quite sure if ximian sticks their nose to deep into balmers and gates arse then they get bought up from microsoft, the license of the outlook crap, mono crap gets changed, the employees layed off and done...

if i were gates, i would do this :-)

Re:Its a trade!

[ag3n7]

Shouldn't that be Debian GNU/Linux?

I've seen that, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for Alcatel and they did the same thing there. I was in "big trouble" for having NT Emacs on my Windows machine there. Most big companies seem to be like this... They only wanted us to run approved and licensed software. The funny thing was, they actually had many pieces of software installed on too many machines (i.e., they didn't purchase enough licenses).

I have so many funny stories I could tell about that place...

Re:I've seen that, too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn 'em in, then, and collect $$$ from the BSA! No - wait - forget it - let ME turn em in and collect the $$$....

curious about 2 things

[Anonymous Coward]

1. why is owa required? does the connector simply act as a mini-web browser, interpreting the html from owa?

2. (flamebait not intended) if it's not a mini-web browser, did they get permission from MS to do this? to me, it would seem that if they didn't, they had to reverse engineer something ... perhaps dancing on the grey line that is the dmca?

Re:curious about 2 things

[Anonymous Coward]

These are my thoughts exactly.
Seem like reasonable questions.
I wonder why you got moded down?

Re:curious about 2 things

[chetohevia]

First off, my guess is that you got modded down because this has already been discussed in other threads... but here's the answer:

Ximian Connector uses WebDAV to interface with the E2K server. It doesn't parse the HTML-- WebDAV is just turned on at the same time as OWA.

Ximian didn't need permission because WebDAV is an open protocol.

File formats...

[patro]

Now we only need a Microsoft File Format Connector so that Linux becomes a viable alternative on the desktop.

connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement !

[mbyte]

for linux of course. that works with evolutuion. now that would be a product i would buy for sure. not only once.

I'm still looking for a good shared calendar solution for linux,i did try some of thoese webapps (phpgroupware etc ..) but they don't cut it in daily use ...

Ximian Connector

[BobandMax]

Ximian has gotten this backwards. What is needed is a fully functional replacement for Exchange Server, not clients. We need to rid the data center of MS.

Re:Ximian Connector

[Anonymous Coward]

mod this up. this is exactly correct.
There are no good calendar servers for linux.
There is literally _no_ replacement for exchange.
I guess open source developers don't work in groups, and don't have regular schedules.. so they never noticed this embarrassing gap.

Re:Ximian Connector

[SouthSideMike]

Try Meeting Maker, they have a version of their server for RedHat but unfortunately do not yet have a native client for any variant of Linux. But they do have a java client which you can use to access the server view your favorite browser. For years they have had a rock solid server and client for Solaris, you can set the client up on a server for multiple user access and log into the client via X without any problems.

Re:Ximian Connector

[King_TJ]

Agreed 100 percent!

But! Ximian has made it pretty clear they have goals of improving the Linux *desktop* experience. Building an Exchange server clone would be a little bit out of the scope of what they're trying to accomplish.

I do wish *someone* would seriously work on an Exchange server replacement though. The closest thing out there was HP's OpenMail (which I guess was now bought out - but the future of it still looks rather dismal), and OpenMail wasn't user-friendly enough anyway.

One BIG advantage they could code into a Linux Exchange replacement server would be spam filtering capabilities and integrated email virus scanning. Both of those currently require additional 3rd. party commercial software and/or hardware to do with MS Exchange.

Re:Ximian Connector

[hArD_tO_pIcK_a_nIcK]

>What is needed is a fully functional replacement

Something like these people are going for ?
http://www.citadel.org/
And this guy ?
http://www.shadowcom.net/Software/infusion/
th is is getting too little attention

Re:Microsoft is to blame for possible security fla

[Anonymous Coward]

What open standards?? Where can I get an open-source server that lets me share my calendar with other people???

Answer: I can't, it doesn't exist. People really need to understand what exchange is about before they post..

Opposite Solution

[Yoda2]

There is a new product called InsightConnecter available from Bynari that allows you to replace MS Exchange with a standard IMAP server. This is a good solution for those who are stuck using Outlook, but have access to a Linux server and don't want to use Exchange. It works as an Outlook Add-In and "tricks" Outlook into thinking that the IMAP server is Exchange Server.

It is not free, but very reasonably priced.

You can also find a brief summary of it here.

Re:Opposite Solution

[SirGeek]

Thing is, Does it support the Calendar functions. That is the primary reason my company uses Outlook and Exchange (5.5) still.

It isn't because our CIO is a twit (we've been using linux since .9 kernels), he has to have something that the office wenies can use easily.

Once we get something that is simple to use for calendar sharing/etc. then we'd drop exchange like a hot potato.

Re:Opposite Solution

[Yoda2]

Yes, it replicates all normal Outlook folders inside of IMAP. You can create a company IMAP/Outlook account with permissions for everyone to build a company calendar. For free/busy we post the info to an FTP account.

I will admit that the application is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good and I would guess there will be another release with some bug fixes soon.

Re:Opposite Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

FFS could they not make the font on linuxpimp any more readable.

Re:Opposite Solution

[SirGeek]

Not what I meant, There is very little chance that we would get our non technical people to convert to Linux from Windoze. So this would support the windows and Outlook users as well as Linux users ?

Re:Opposite Solution

[Yoda2]

Sorry. As far as I know, the InsightConnector solution would only work with all Windows/Outlook clients.

Re:Opposite Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about that. I've made the font larger...I should have tested it on Internet Explorer instead of only on Opera in Linux (I have my minimum font size set to 12 in Opera, so it wasn't appearing small to me)

Re:Opposite Solution

[Sri Ramkrishna]

My company tried them out. Their customer support was not very good. I've seen initial versions of their software when they first started releasing them and it seemed to have a strikingly similar interface to GNOME gncal (Gnome calendar). I haven't looked at it lately. We have since moved on to try out Ximian.

sri

Re:Opposite Solution

[Yoda2]

I passed your suggestion on to the administrator. Better now?

Re:Opposite Solution

[Genjuro Kibagami]

Not true actually, there are completely gratis clients for Solaris and Linux on the Bynari website, it would appear that the folks at Bynari are attempting to wean the kids of exchange server gradually by a two pronged attempt;
1) They provide a connector for outlook so the windows weenies can still have an outlook desktop with an IMAP linux based backend, but they charge 39$ USD per client licence to use this, a reasonable price and something that you can draw a profit from but not as nice as...
2) They also provide a free Linux and Solaris client to the same IMAP servers, giving Linux / Windows interoperability on the messaging / calendaring front, easing the pain involved with a migration.

This opens the door for a strategy like;

Company has 100% windows desktops with 100% windows architecture backend for messaging. In the cases where linux has a foot in the door, as a webserver, file server, any commodity task that linux does very well already, people will be used to the fact that the windows backend is unreliable and the unix backend is reliable, people will also be used to the fact that users are stupid and they will not abandon their userfriendly outlook so readily just for some stability.

Solution; Bynari on the weenies desktops, IMAP linux based backend, totally wipes out the 100% windows backend and puts a wedge in the desktop arena as well, This is just one less excuse for having a windows desktop, and that, any way you look at it, is a good thing.

Cheers
Genj

Re:Opposite Solution

[Yoda2]

I was basing my response on this (from their knowledge base):

Can an Insight Client share a calendar with an Outlook user?

No, you are not able to share calendars between and Insight and Outlook client. It is not possible to get a calendar view of an Outlook users calendar.

Re:Opposite Solution

[Genjuro Kibagami]

My bad then, this was just an assumption, I saw no reason for the insight connector client if it didn't integrate with the outlook store, Evolution would do a much better job as a vanilla IMAP client.

Oh well.

Re:thank you for kde!

[Anonymous Coward]

nice... you are one of these persons that look on the ICONS and dont see the functionality... the whole functionality in kde is better than in gnome... even blind 90 years, with one arm and one leg would figure out that kde is more advanced.

Hooray!

[gruntvald]

I can now replace my proprietary software with, uh, proprietary software.

Re:Hooray!

[Nodatadj]

No, you can replace your proprietary software with free software and a small bit of a proprietary.

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

For now. 5 years from now 90% of "Linux" will be commercial and proprietary. This is juuuuuuuuuust the begining!

Re:Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

However, GNU/Linux will stay pure and continue to shine its bright radience, even though our souls have been so darkened we cannot bare to behold such a sight! Mark my words, D00M (III) is coming!!

the price is a bit much.

[LWolenczak]

The price is a bit much at 69 bucks *PER* seat. At that price, its almost more economical to just use terminal services.... that way atleast a user still has access to a windows box at all times. We would gladly pay for it at 30 bucks a seat, but 69 is a bit steep.
-LW

Re:the price is a bit much.

[iceT]

This post is NOT a troll. The price of the software is pretty steep for what you're getting. Remember. You STILL have to pay for the Microsoft Exchange Client Access License with is $80/seat ($401/5 client licenses).

Plus, Exch2k's OWA interface is MUCH improved over 5.5's OWA implementation.

So what do you get for your extra $70?

Re:the price is a bit much.

[damiam]

You don't have to pay for a $200 Windows license.

Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[thesolo]

Unfortunately, even with Ximian Connector, I still can't totally get rid of my Win2k box. Why, you may ask??

NT Authentication

I can use Linux for development, I can use Evolution now to integrate with Outlook, but I still need IE to be able to use my corporate intranet (some of my development work is for intranet applications, so I need to be able to test them). Unfortunately, my company runs IIS on the intranet servers, and only allows NT Challenge/Response for authentication. So, short of trying to get IE running under VMWare/Wine (Which I have not been able to successfully do yet), I'm stuck in Windows.

Does anyone know if there are any other web browsers that can do NT Authentication?? I'm guessing no, since it's a closed Microsoft protocol.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[pointym5]

IE runs just fine under VMWare. I can't imagine, in fact, what you could possibly do to make it not work. I run Win2K (very rarely) under VMWare on Linux with no problems whatsoever. IE, SQL Server Manager & query analyzer, Outlook, Visual Studio, etc etc all work a-OK.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[JDBrechtel]

Isn't it the same or similar to what Samba has to do? Or is it different in their situation? Either way, I'm in the same situation.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[SouthSideMike]

I use Enlightenment, Mozilla, Evolution/Pine every day all day at work and have NO problems connecting to our Windows/IIS servers. The IIS servers that require NT Challenge/Response for authentication are not a problem for me when I access the page it prompts me for my username and password I simply enter domain-name\ntusername on the username line and then enter my NT password on the password line and then I'm in. Never a problem. And I have no problems accessing any NT shares, I have all of the "necessary" NT shares mounted via SMBFS and have no issues using them either.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[ethereal]

I was reading up on this the other day, actually. There are two NT authentication mechanisms - NTLM, and the Windows 2000 Kerberos-based "negotiate" authentication. NTLM is pretty well known and there are a number of implementations of it available on the 'net, although I don't know if any are actually built into a browser yet. Apparently NTLM isn't much of an improvement over the "Basic" http auth, though, and it has a weird connection-based authentication mechanism which doesn't proxy well.

The Kerberos-like authentication is apparently much stronger, but there don't seem to be any open implementations of it yet. I did find a couple IETF drafts that purported to explain it - search for "brezak spegno draft" or something like that.

So, the short answer to your question is: probably not.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[duffbeer703]

your admins are running W2k in NT4 compatability mode.

Unfortunately, the IT Dep't/Gestapo here runs everything in native W2k mode.

Fortunately, the network engineers and ldap folks have conspired to put up an iplanet proxy which works with everything.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[codingOgre]

If you have Solaris X back IE for Solaris to your Linux box.

IE for Solaris

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[Cally]

NTLM is total shit though, I wouldn't authenticate the milkman using it, let alone someone on my network... it's the reason why l0phtcrack goes through SAM account databases like a knife through butter.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[Bluecoat93]

There's a pretty old bug (really a feature request) open in Mozilla's bugzilla for adding NTLM authentication. One day soon, maybe!

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[ruisantos]

Is that it?
Just use pam to do that.
And if you want to manage accounts you can even use this provided by microsoft.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't using NT authentication -- just standard HTTP stuff. ('domain-name\ntusername' is your qualified login name)

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[roryh]

You can perhaps use

http://www.geocities.com/rozmanov/ntlm/

Unfortunately I can't get it to do DNS lookups through the proxy. Worth experimenting with though.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

> The Kerberos-like authentication is apparently > much stronger, but there don't seem to be any > open implementations of it yet.

Yes there are. Andrew Tridgell has coded one up inside Samba 3.0.x (still in alpha). Available as the Samba HEAD CVS tree. It'll be the standard
auth mechanism for 3.0.

Regards,

Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[pohl]

How do you propose he use PAM to allow his browser to authenticate to the IIS server?

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[siemce]

or if you have HP-UX, and they also have outlook ... express though, which is useless anyways.
Although, if you haven't try it do it, you'll see how 'UnixXP' from MS would look like

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[ethereal]

You. Guys. Rock. That's all there is to say about that.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[ArsonSmith]

with a username and password

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[pohl]

The vague response makes me think PAM is not applicable to this problem.

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet.

[ArsonSmith]

I was being sarcastic with the vague answer, I really don't think that pam is going to do it for you.

I don't know much about iis but I do know that our company internal lan site is run on it and I can authinticate with it just fine with galeon 1.2. It just asks me for my username and password when I go to it.

If I were you I would do some google'ing and see if there is anyone else out there that has found a better way.

Standard rant not needed...

[NetJunkie]

Exchange 2K is different. It's built around SMTP, POP, LDAP, and iCalendar. It's using standard protocols. Where are the UNIX clients to support them?

It's easy to complain about Outlook and Exchange except there has been no real competition until now from Ximian, and that is only in the client piece. Exchange is a good system, just because it's from MS doesn't make it bad even if this is Slashdot.

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[echo]

That is incorrect. Although you may be able to turn these protocols on, most Exchange server admins do not turn them on, but instead Exchange is accessed using MAPI using only Outlook as a client.

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[pheede]

Which hardly makes MS the evil guys in this instance. Another strike for incompetent admins, if they turn off support for the standard protocols and then bitch about not being able to use non-Outlook clients.

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[Cally]

Exchange 2K is different. It's built around SMTP, POP, LDAP, and iCalendar. It's using standard protocols. Where are the UNIX clients to support them?

Er, are you asking where the Unix POP3, SMTP and LDAP clients are? I suggest you start here or here. Have fun...

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[_Sprocket_]

Another strike for incompetent admins, if they turn off support for the standard protocols and then bitch about not being able to use non-Outlook clients.

I agree with the jab at admins. But, of course, they don't wonder about not being able to use non-Outlook clients. They tend to wonder why you'd WANT to use a non-Outlook client (and then stare dumbly at mention of other-than-Windows or the vast anti-virus infrastructure they're having to maintain). Oops. I'm ranting.

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exchange 2K is different. It's built around SMTP, POP, LDAP, and iCalendar. It's using standard protocols.

It supports all of that stuff, but it's not "built on" that stuff.

Exchange is still primarily an X.400 mail system that uses RPC to talk to the clients. Everything else goes through a translation layer.

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[mvdwege]

You have a reading problem don't you? The parent poster quite specifically stated that admins don't turn on the standard features, they're off by default.

In other words Microsoft is up to its old game again: proclaim it's conforming to standards, using their own closed protocols by default, and then blaming the admin for not turning on the alternative.

Gee, like an admin team for a 2500 client site is going to turn on features for all clients and servers when they just work out of the box on the default config. Never mind that they are now stuck with a serious case of vendor lock-in.

How you can spot a Microsoft shill: it's always the hardware, the user or the admins fault. A suspiciously high percentage of failure can never be the fault of the software vendor.

Mart

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[Ogerman]

Exchange 2K is different. It's built around SMTP, POP, LDAP, and iCalendar. It's using standard protocols. Where are the UNIX clients to support them?

There's no need for exchange at all. That's the stupidity of this whole thing. Using Connector is still supporting Microsoft because you still have to pay for the client access license. Nobody needs Exchange. And there's no advantage to using Exchange.

Do we need Exchange for SMTP? Nope
Do we need Exchange for POP? Nope
Do we need Exchange for LDAP? Nope
Do we need Exchange for Calendar services? Nope
Do we need Exchange to integrate all these? Nope

Every single use of / reason for Exchange has been thoroughly obsoleted by free software.
So who's going to pay for Connector? Employees working for companies with braindead IT deptartments. Kinda lame really. Why didn't they just put out some documentation on how to talk to Exchange and let the community build the software? But heck, if they can milk some money out of dumb M$ users to support their free projects, more power to 'em! (-:

Re:Standard rant not needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

I call "bullshit". While you can access the mail on Exchange via SMTP, POP, and IMAP (if the admin has enabled it), the iCal support is mythical. I think you are just reading straight from the glossy Exchange ads, that straight out lie: there is absolutely no way to access an Exchange calendar in a standards-compliant way. If you disagree, post an example.

Far more useful to ME...

[Dredd13]

... would be an Exchange SERVER replacement. I don't care WHAT desktop environment someone is using (and there are good arguments for why the average executive should NOT be using Linux), I don't want to have to manage an NT server to get the very nice functionality that Exchange offers in terms of calendaring, etc. None of the various open-source alternatives integrates nearly as well into the users workflow as Exchange/Outlook do.

Zealots - grouse all you want about that criticism, but it's true.

The suits aren't going to lose Outlook on their desktops, but if I could avoid having to manage an NT server to GIVE them that functionality that they need, that'd make my life a helluva lot more happy than knowing that some Linux box can connect to an NT Excange server...

As it stands, we're already considering (eew) Lotus Bloats, because it can offer basically the same functionality, but do it from a Linux box as the server, which is important to us.

Re:Far more useful to ME...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. I think that this is exactly backwards. If they had cloned Exchange (or maybe provided a "connector" for hooking up MAPI sessions on Outlook to a sendmail/Cyrus IMAP combo and MAPI calendaring to a MySQL database, they would have a hit product.

But this-- yeah I can just imagine my boss switching to linux on the client to save a few bucks. That'll happen right after we start to GPL all of our proprietary products...

Re:Far more useful to ME...

[Anonymous Coward]

At our company, a lot of the execs use BlackBerries, which (of course) only integrate with MS Exchange and Lotus Domino (no thanks). There is no way we can even think about having a real mail server without addressing addressing that issue first.

I can't imagine that we're alone, or that there aren't similar (Exchange-only plug-in) problems out there....

Advice on how to advocate it would be good too

[SweenyTod]

Like most people, I assume, I work in a Windows dominated workplace, and while software products like this are great news, I am at a bit of a loss on how to promote them in my company.

Is there a site or a HOWTO that gives hints on how to start getting the upper management in a company thinking about alternatives like this?

Re:Advice on how to advocate it would be good too

[chetohevia]

You might also want to look at this:
http://www.ximian.com/products/solutions/

At the bottom of the page is an ROI chart for Connector vs. the "Two Machine Solution"...

Re:Happy Birfday tew me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy birthday! I hope you have a good one :-)

Gutless bastard

[ryanvm]

Of note, MS Exchange 2000 has a nice HTTP interface to it as well, works wonderfully in Galeon.

Jeebus - the poor guy had to post the story as an Anonymous Coward just so he could say something nice about Exchange. You guys should be ashamed. ;-)

Re:Aestethics is a major part of usability

[Anonymous Coward]

i see, you seem to be the /. pet here. you get -1 as soon as you press the submit button. please get some brain before talking to me. i like tigert and jimmacs icons. no doubt but what does the nice icons give me if the rest simply sucks.

What kind of hack is this?

[iceT]

Exchange2k WITH OWA enabled is the requirement? So I bet this isn't REALLY talking to the exchange server.. It must be doing SMTP/IMAP4/LDAP and using a Web-browser for calendar. Why the HELL would I want to pay $70 for that?

Can anyone confirm that? What was $70+Evolution+galeon have that Evolution+Galeon doesn't have? One window? That's a lot of money to pay for one window...

Re:What kind of hack is this?

[awol]

As many others have said. The shared calendar resource in Outlook/Exchange is a killer. It really does make organising your day easier. Easily $70 easier. Having said that I am loathe to use something that parses the web page version of the calendar, if thats what it does, which seems possible given the need for OWA.

Re:What kind of hack is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

from http://www.ximian.com/products/connector/faq.html

Q: What features of Microsoft Exchange are supported?
A: Ximian Connector enables Ximian Evolution to function as a Microsoft Exchange 2000 client by communicating with Microsoft Exchange 2000 servers through the WebDAV protocol. End user data, including email boxes, address books, calendars, and task lists can be stored directly on the Exchange Server. With Connector installed, Ximian Evolution also supports group scheduling, including free/busy time publishing, with other users who are using the Exchange server.

So although evolution does support SMTP/IMAP4/LDAP Ximian Connector doesn't use them when talking to an e2k server. Going through WebDAV and using the scheduling features through evolution is nothing like using galeon and rendering HTML.

Re:What kind of hack is this?

[xkahn]

The Ximian Connector talks to Exchange 2000 via web-dav. Interestingly, Microsoft decided to group the options for web-dav and OWA together. You have to turn OWA on in order to get web-dav.

Calendar, Mail, Tasks, and Contacts are all accessed through Exchange 2000's web-dav interface. The Global Address List is accessed through LDAP.

This is the reason that the requirements are:

• Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 or higher
• An account on a Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server
• OWA support activated

I'm certainly biased, but the Connector feels smooth, integrated, and quick. And it certainly behaves itself very well. Here's a screenshot .

How much ?

[motox]

How much let's say 100 Exchange licenses and 100 connectors ?

Re:How much ?

[chetohevia]

You can contact Ximian's sales team (http://ximian.com/about_us/information.html) about site licenses or volume pricing for more than 25 seats at a time.

Visit http://ximian.com/products/solutions/ for a cost/benefit analysis of Ximian solutions implemented in a large organization.

Re:We got steel tariffs, but we need GPL tariffs t

[Salsaman]

the particular case in question was the requirement that we remove the SQUID proxy server

If you were just *using* Squid, there would obviously have been no need to GPL any other code.

Presumably, the fact that you were forced to get rid of it, means that you were in some way using the code from squid and building a derivative product from it. Your company should have realised that when they took the squid code and started developing it. If they didn't, then they clearly did not understand the GPL. If they'd wanted to avoid this, they could have simply written their own proxy from scratch, and released it under whatever licence they wanted.

KDE!

[Anonymous Coward]

well then nice watching of the cool icons, while you sit infront of your machine, dont touching a shit i gonna use my kde system!

Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. CAN, h�!!

[udippel]

Can, dear all!! Thanks to a guy by the name of Dmitry Rozmanov [SMTP:dima@xenon.spb.ru] He has created a ridiculous nice utility: http://www.geocities.com/rozmanov/ntlm/ Works really great! Wished, someone else had done the same for X400; so that we could read our addresses from Exchange without $69 plus OWA! Uwe

mechanism?

[psamuels]

Anyone up for some free karma? Explain what mechanism this uses. Is it a meta-front-end for the OWA front-end, or does it actually use MSRPC?

If the latter, what RPC implementation does it use? MSRPC is based on DCE/RPC, for which there is a free implementation on Sourceforge - I'm curious as to whether they're using that or something else.

Re:mechanism?

[djweis]

I'm guessing it just uses the same com objects that the normal web interface uses. If they (ximian) told what the protocol for their connector was, it wouldn't be impossible to write your own connector.

Re:mechanism?

[afidel]

It uses WebDAV
A free and open mechanism that enables HTTP servers to allow clients to colaborativly modify a file.

What is WebDAV? Briefly: WebDAV stands for "Web-based Distributed Authoring and Versioning". It is a set of extensions to the HTTP protocol which allows users to collaboratively edit and manage files on remote web servers.

This is a waste of money...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if all you want to do is access MS Exchange email from alternative (see -> non-MS) platforms.


Sorry to burst everyones bubble, but MS has been providing access to Exchange via their free OWA (Outlook Web Access) addon for several years now.

Any decent web browser with Java support can connect. This Corporate connector simply takes the parsed html from OWA (notice it requires an OWA instance to be running to work) and feeds it into Evolution.

Don't get me wrong, if you like the way Evolution lays out your mail, and handles contacts then this might just be for you...but if all you're looking for is access to e-mail, then OWA, especially the Exchange 2000 edition does a pretty good job natively.


I would have been more impressed if Ximian folks would have reversed engineered the MAPI protocol and made the connector using native MAPI...


How much does anyone want to bet that MS breaks this with a disService Pack?

Re:This is a waste of money...

[kill -9 $$]

Have you ever used the Outlook web based client? It sucks (at least on Exchange 5.5). Using it for an hour to try it out or even to access e-mail remotely once or twice a day isn't a good way to experience it.

I've recently had to start using this regularly as the corporate security goons closed down the IMAP and POP connectivity to our exchange box. I miss "important" e-mails because I have to manually push the refresh button every few minutes or so, there's some goofy requirement that body of my message has to be less than 100k, or else you need to send it as an attachment (this is REALLY annoying when replying to an already replied to a couple times e-mail), and looking up my coworkers with brutal names in the global address book is close to impossible (after composing a message). This is just a start to my long list of complaints.

If you can use it, great, but I and several other Linux and Mac users where I work all seem to have similar feelings about the interface. I'm looking forward to trying it out, but as I said, we're on Exchange 5.5 so I guess I'll be waiting a few months still.

Also, if you note some of the other posts and read Ximian's site (although its not totally obvious) they don't parse the web client (that would suck), they use web DAV which only gets turned on by enabling the web client. As for breaking this with a disService pack, I suppose its possible, but in talking to the Ximian folks at LinuxWorld earlier in the year, they said doing so would break lots of stuff even on Microsoft's end... Anybody else know how true or false that statement is since I'm not all that familiar with webdav?

Unix iCalendar client

[dpilot]

Any of these?

I've looked in on the Internet Calendar IETF, and it appeared that while some drafts were being done, nothing was ready to start coding a client. That was a while back, and I guess I need to check, again. In the meantime, does anyone else have a better concept of the status?

In the meantime, http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/project/calsch/
and RFCs 2445, 2446, 2447, and 2739, as well as draft-ietf-calsch-cap, draft-ietf,calsch-imp-guide, draft-stracke-calsch-ical-reviewer, and draft-stracke-calsch-crisp. But just seeing these names is a long ways from knowing what is going on.

What works for the web interface?

[Otter]

I'm not one of the reflexive Microsoft bashers (love Excel, love the fonts) but -- that web interface to Exchange _sucks_.

Out of curiosity, has anyone found a good way to use it from Linux? I've found the interface to be tolerable in MacOS/IE, and barely usable with Netscape 4.x on Linux. Konqueror doesn't work at all for me, and the submitter notwithstanding, neither do Mozilla or Galeon, at least in the versions I have.

What are other peoples' experiences?

Re:What works for the web interface?

[high]

It has worked quite beautifully on most of the mozilla/galeon version I've tested it with. I can assure you that it works under galeon 1.0.3 and 1.2.0.

Re:What works for the web interface?

[friedmud]

I personally use Mozilla and it has always worked with Exchange2000's webmail (and I know it works with 0.9.8 and 0.9.9

But I really don't use it too often because the IMAP support is just much better/faster and Mozilla's mail client is great - plus I can define filters and all that which you can't do through the webmail interface.

Derek

Re:What works for the web interface?

[Rude Turnip]

I've accessed our company's Exchange web interface from Mozilla, Netscape 6, Galeon and Konqueror under Linux and it works great.

However, I don't know if it's just our Exchange server or if they all do this, but there is no "logout" button on the web interface (doesn't come up under IE, either). I just close the browser window.

Re:What works for the web interface?

[niftyeric]

We run Exchange 5.5 and I can access the web interface from Mozilla with no problem. The version of Mozilla was the default that came with RedHat 7.2 (no idea to the exact version though).

Re:What works for the web interface?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exchange SP2 puts one there again

enlightenment revolution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been playing with enlightenment tools imlib2 evas etcher, I must say Gnome dropped the ball by letting them go as their default manager.

A DAV client

[bergie]

Since Exchange and Outlook 2000 are using WebDAV as their communications protocol, Ximian Connector is actually a WebDAV client.

I saw Greg Stein's WebDAV presentation in the Open Source CMS Conference. It seems that a lot of companies are actually switching for WebDAV as their primary communications protocol. Greg mentioned at least Adobe, Apple, Microsoft and Oracle. Good for interoperability.

/Bergie

Re:A DAV client

[np_geek]

WebDAV rules. We've been using mod_DAV for Apache for some time now to provide the "web folders" experience for IE clients. It lets us run Linux file and print servers with remote access via IE and Web Folders. mod_DAV will be included standard with Apache 2.0. Definitely a great protocol.

The problem with MS and standard protocols is they always tend do to something to them to reduce or hamper interoperability with non-MS clients. I've been trying to get a variety of LDAP clients to talk to Active Directory for some time now and nothing but the MS ones seem to work.

Plus, Outlook 2000 and Exchange 2000 aren't talking WebDAV AFAIK, to get the full functionality (calendaring, etc.) you need the MAPI APIs and then we're into the proprietary stuff. OWA (the web component of Exchange) may use WebDAV to get to your calendar, but Outlook still relies on MAPI.

Re:connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement

[HeUnique]

Umm, did you check Bynari.net solution? it runs just fine and it can replace your exchange server very nicely, AND got Linux mail clients if u need it...

Double standards

[Builder]

So when a company that is built around the success of the GNU/Linux platform makes changes to it's ethics, software licence, etc. we call that good business sense.

When Borland, Microsoft or Real do the same thing, we call that evil, wrong and call for their blood.

Got it. I'll go back to reading now.

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be such a tool. The licensing for Evolution is the same as it always has been (GPL), and most likely will not ever change. If they want to sell a plugin to companies that have already purchased Microsoft software in order to ween them off and also let their developers pay their rent, then more power to them.

Re:Double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Smells like a big load a hypocrisy to me. Miguel wouldn't allow Trolltech developers to "pay their rent." Why should anyone even consider giving Miguel this luxury now? Fuck him and his arrogance. He rides in with GNU hand-in-hand and the blows them off now that he has the publicity he needs from GNOME.

And you know what truely gets me? WRITING A FREE QT CLONE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH EASIER! Instead of shitty GNOME and decent KDE we would have an _awesome_ KDE. But noooo, Miguel has to dig up dirt and throw it. I remember the losers from gimp net (including Miguel) going on EFnet or wherever KDE's channel is and persuading people to use GNOME and that KDE is shit, etc. Then they were whining like a bunch of babies when there was a rumor that the KDE folks were going to port The GIMP to KDE. What a bunch of immature brats. Now he thinks hes gonna get one by on Microsoft with Mono. Good luck!

Yup

[waldoj]

Is there a site or a HOWTO that gives hints on how to start getting the upper management in a company thinking about alternatives like this?

Yup.

Linux Advocacy mini-HOWTO
Bad Linux Advocacy FAQ
Don Marti's "Linuxmanship"

I recommend "Linuxmanship" the most highly.

-Waldo Jaquith

Evolution and using other services

[rufus t firefly]

I remember a little while back I had contacted the Ximian evolution developers on their mailing list, asking for a plugin API or some direction to go about implementing a phpGroupware connection plugin (via their exposed XML-RPC methods). They told me that I would basically have to reverse engineer the PCS (personal calendar server) component to do something like that.

Then this "connector" software comes out as a plugin to to just that for Evolution. I smell a rat. Why are they so gung-ho about promoting connectivity with MS Exchange servers (granted, there are a *lot* of Exchange servers), when they could be making the first usable GUI client for phpGroupware? One promotes dependance, the other promotes independance.

Re:Evolution and using other services

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Because providing connectivity to Exchange clients is a more lucrative business. Microsoft/Linux combo shops will pay big bucks for interop of a linux client. Why? Because a linux desktop is overall a cheaper solution than a microsoft OS. phpGroupware will not provide the source of income this will. Secondly, I would suspect you would want this open source and it cost money to pay engineers. Not going to happen.

So you're not smelling a rat. It's just lower on their radar. Besides, wouldn't it be better to have a free implementation as in freedom implementation? This kind of plugin could really beneift from open source than a closed source?

sri

Re:Evolution and using other services

[Mr. Sharumpe]

Well, as a Unix admin/programmer in a Windows-based workplace, I can't help but applaud Ximian for releasing the Connector. I've started the ball rolling on trying to get approval for this, or at least permission to use it myself. I can understand why you're a little mad, but we don't have the option of switching 20k+ users to a Unix based setup. This product, free or not, will make using Exchange much better - I may be able to get rid of the PC under my desk (used mostly for Outlook) altogether! :)

Mr. Sharumpe

Re:Evolution and using other services

[rufus t firefly]

Well, as a Unix admin/programmer in a Windows-based workplace, I can't help but applaud Ximian for releasing the Connector. I've started the ball rolling on trying to get approval for this, or at least permission to use it myself. I can understand why you're a little mad, but we don't have the option of switching 20k+ users to a Unix based setup. This product, free or not, will make using Exchange much better - I may be able to get rid of the PC under my desk (used mostly for Outlook) altogether! :) I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree.

The better solution (in keeping with my previous post) would be to build an Outlook plugin to handle the open server, instead of building an Evolution plugin to keep the dependency on the closed server.

I worked at a University for a while, and we were forced to have an extra server running to provide groupware services, running Windows NT, because no one thought it important enough to develop a server that would run on anything else (Notes and OpenMail weren't options, as the campus wasn't ready to migrate to them yet). I even tried helping out an open calendar server project to replace Netscape Calendar, but extensions to the protocol proved a little too difficult, so we used Netscape Calendar for all three platforms (since Outlook for Mac and Outlook for PC tended to annihilate each others' calendars). Simply a pain.

This whole discussion is sort of like the Wine argument. I'd prefer that people develop native *NIX applications and port them, as opposed to building native Windows applications and porting them, the difference being a dependency on the server instead of the client side).

Re:Evolution and using other services

[miguel]

If by `Reverse Engineer' you mean `Read the source code that is provided as part of the Open Source/Free Software Evolution', then yes ;-)

Miguel

Re:Evolution and using other services

[rufus t firefly]

If by `Reverse Engineer' you mean `Read the source code that is provided as part of the Open Source/Free Software Evolution', then yes ;-)

No, I mean reverse-engineer, as in having to decipher a plugin architecture with no apparent API, and having to write a drop in replacement for a miniature server simply to achieve simple connectivity with another service, which should be easily accomplished, considering the nature of the application (how difficult is it to expose a plugin architecture with callbacks for different calendaring functions?).

The argument that anyone with sufficient time could do anything with the source code works for those with an unlimited amount of time and resources. For example, Mozilla does not require full comprehension of the entire Mozilla/Netscape architecture to build a plugin; they have an available API and assorted plugin development headers, which has led to a wide variety of plugins being available for it. Evolution, on the other hand, has no plugin API (or at least, no visible one), which makes it exponentially more difficult to produce plugins for.

Re:Evolution and using other services

[Mr. Sharumpe]

This whole discussion is sort of like the Wine argument. I'd prefer that people develop native *NIX applications and port them, as opposed to building native Windows applications and porting them, the difference being a dependency on the server instead of the client side).

I would also prefer Unix-based solutions, since it is RARE that MS-based servers have Mac- or Unix-compatible clients. However, it's just not going to happen, at least at my location.

:)
Mr. Sharumpe

Re:reminds me of something my father used to say..

[Anonymous Coward]

this kind of behavior would be considered illegal in europe, so microsoft would be in trouble here, however in the US everything seems possible ;p

business model

[Anonymous Coward]

what i don't see ever getting discussed
is the long term viability of free software if
it always needs a revenue stream from some
proprietary plugin on the side.

what if evolution+connector is so successful
that most firms decide to switch to it and
an opensource email/calendering server.
where is the revenue stream going to come from.
if proprietery hooks are what really puts
food on the table, seems like ultimately
priorities can be inverted in favor of proprietery
software.

look at Corporate Time and the Outlook Connector

[np_geek]

Take at look at Corporate Time from Steltor (www.steltor.com). We're currently evaluating it to replace Exchange 2000. It runs on Linux (and Soalris and HPUX and 2000) and provides better calendaring than Exchange does. They have native clients for Windows, Mac and Unix.

They also have an Outlook client which uses an IMAP server to handle mail. To the user is looks like Outlook plugged in to Exchange, but you can run it all on Linux and way fewer machines than Exchange. It's not cheap, but it does seem to be a really good product.

Rock On!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ximian rocks, I've been using Ximian Gnome and Evolution on my work and home computers for months now and have no complaints. I hope this business strategy works out and keeps them in business for a long, long time.

Re:Rock On!

[Anonymous Coward]

ximian sucks, i hope they gonna die soon. its just a matter of time until microsoft piss them off for doing .NET its playing with the big devil.

OS X Version??

[EccentricAnomaly]

Seems like Ximian could sell a lot of copies to Mac users if they had an OS X version.

Re:OS X Version??

[MonsterChicharo]

In order to run Ximian on OS X an X Server should be installed and fully funcional in OS X. An easy task, granted, but it would lack from the Aqua look. Microsoft (again!) Office v.X runs in Aqua. Ximian would have to do better than that in order to be a competitive choice. Granted, price would be a strong issue, yet for many users Office v.X would still be a better alternative.

Re:Microsoft is to blame for possible security fla

[bhsx]

www.phpgroupware.org amongst many others. They just don't happen to be wrapped nicely in a bloated bugfest, you actually need set them up yourself instead of clicking next, next, next.

Mod this message's parent up!

[asobala]

In a server environment such as GNU/Linux, we *should* be crippling M$'s servers. After that, they can't specify/randomly change protocols; they will use the same open protocols that other operating systems use.

At the moment, free software is hampered by the random and proprietary changes that company's make to protocols. This is Microsoft's *solution* to free software. If the servers are free, the clients have to implement free protocols in order to talk to the servers and at least half of the anti-trust case is gone.

Re:connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement

[np_geek]

Corporate Time (www.steltor.com). Not open source, but a very nice calendaring app. They have clients for Mac, PC and Unix/Linux, a nice web interface and a plug-in for Outlook. This is the calendaring server that HP used for Open Mail and was the guts behind the Netscape calendaring server as well. Good stuff.

Well don't use it then

[DABANSHEE]

If you don't like it.

Re:Well don't use it then

[Anonymous Coward]

And, optionally, explain to others why you don't like it and encourage them to not use it either... oh look that's what he's doing :)

Re: Uh, whatever.....

[King_TJ]

I'm not a fan of MS proprietary protocols either, but they often *do* find it unprofitable, and end up resigning themselves to using a more "open" standard. When this doesn't happen, it's simply because the majority are voting with their dollars, saying "What you've already given us is just fine, thanks."

Look at NT 3.51 compared to Win2K and you can see quite a shift towards recognizing the value in such things as DNS and more flexibility in DHCP.
These changes came about because NT server started having an obvious disadvantage, lacking some of these protocols and standards.

With email, the same thing could easily happen, but right now - the only other real player in the competition against Exchange is Lotus Notes, which also features a proprietary mail connector.

MS and Lotus took the marketplace by storm because they realized a mail server could be enhanced to provide calendar/scheduling/address filing as well as simple email, and did a pretty good job of integrating it all together.

Re: why not use a thin client?

[King_TJ]

What I don't get is why organizations like this don't implement terminal server or Citrix, and issue thin clients to everyone? Then, the thin client is completely under I.T.'s centralized control. They upgrade an application once, on the server, and everyone instantly has it. Nothing "non-approved" can be loaded either.

Then, let developers, testers and power users have a regular PC that they can do what they like with. If that's too frightening for I.T., let them segment those machines off onto their own seperate ethernet network where they can't mess with the thin clients and terminal servers.

I thought the three step process was

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Create Ximian Connector
2) ???
3) Profit!

Re: why not use a thin client?

[siemce]

Citrix is pretty nice solution, although it had some stability issues, the xp version seems to work much better.
We have many people working on *nix boxes and the only thing missing is the damned outlook. Some of them can live without calendar so they run unix clients, for those who need it we have citrix.

It's no hack. It's the real thing.

[xkahn]

The Ximian Connector talks to Exchange 2000 via web-dav. Interestingly, Microsoft decided to group the options for web-dav and OWA together. You have to turn OWA on in order to get web-dav.

Calendar, Mail, Tasks, and Contacts are all accessed through Exchange 2000's web-dav interface. The Global Address List is accessed through LDAP. This is the reason that the requirements are:

• Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 or higher
• An account on a Microsoft Exchange 2000 Server
• OWA support activated

I'm certainly biased, but the Connector feels smooth, integrated, and quick. And it certainly behaves itself very well. Here's a screenshot.

Where's the value?

[FilthPig]

From what I've read in the FAQ, it only supports the functions that are available through the web interface anyway. If you've got netscape or mozilla on your system you can already get to all of this for free. Is it really that much more convenient to use (to the tune of $3000 to get licenses for my 50 users)?

Re:Where's the value?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yes. The webclient is great if you are just out and about and need to check something quickly, but is *soooo* painful compared to being able to use Evolution for the same work.

Also, Evolution syncs to my PalmPilot, Galeon doesn't ... until I got this connector (actually work bought it for me), I was having to double enter all my appointments in order to keep my desktop and shared calendar correct.

Kmail

[digitaltraveller]

If you only need IMAP, KMail works pretty well. It still has a few bugs, but overall not too shabby.

Answering MS

[ImaLamer]

I'm in favor of Red Hat, Mandrake, Ximian, whoever answering up with for pay solutions every now and then.

There maybe a market to get people over from the MS camp. Answering an MS solution sometimes with a Linux based, although non-free solution. IT managers don't switch now because it's "free" anyways.

If its a good product then let it stand on it's own and then let it pay for other free development.

Even MS is cheaper!

[Jadecristal]

According the MS Exchange site, an Exchange 2000 CAL "includes user rights for [Microsoft Outlook] and permits access from Outlook Web Access." Oh, yeah, and it costs $67.

Thus, it costs MORE to use the "free" alternative, Evolution, than it does to use the Microsoft solution. Where's the sense in that, no matter how much you hate MS?

I will be replacing all my MS access machines

[timecop]

With this stuff, thats so great.