Slashdot Mirror


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.

76 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. It's not just proprietary software by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.
    1. Re:It's not just proprietary software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It's not just proprietary software by larien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:It's not just proprietary software by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:It's not just proprietary software by [AraGorn] · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:It's not just proprietary software by laserjet · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
    6. Re:It's not just proprietary software by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      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.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
  2. Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by Brento · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by Sc00ter · · Score: 2
      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).

    2. Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by ethereal · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    3. Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by Brento · · Score: 2

      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).

      --
      What's your damage, Heather?
    4. Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Requires Exchange 2000, OWA by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. We will NOT stand for this!!! by somethingwicked · · Score: 5, Funny

    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---

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

  4. Just to make it clear by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just to make it clear by cadfael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- The Hollow Man
      Non illegitimati carborundum
    2. Re:Just to make it clear by bhsx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      put the what in the where?
    3. Re:Just to make it clear by praxim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

    4. Re:Just to make it clear by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      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.

  5. Who cares if it's not Free? by tom_newton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Tom Newton
  6. It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed by hillct · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
    1. Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed by mshiltonj · · Score: 2
      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.
    3. Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed by hillct · · Score: 2

      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

      --

      --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
    4. Re:It looks great, but - it shouldn't be needed by hillct · · Score: 2

      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

      --

      --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
  7. reminds me of something my father used to say... by let+the+storm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  8. connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement ! by mbyte · · Score: 2

    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 ...

  9. Ximian Connector by BobandMax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --

    "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Ximian Connector by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      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.

  10. Opposite Solution by Yoda2 · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:Opposite Solution by SirGeek · · Score: 2
      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.

    2. Re:Opposite Solution by Yoda2 · · Score: 2
      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.

  11. Hooray! by gruntvald · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  12. the price is a bit much. by LWolenczak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:the price is a bit much. by iceT · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  13. Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by thesolo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by codingOgre · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      IE for Solaris

      --
      Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
    3. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by Jeremy+Allison+-+Sam · · Score: 5, Informative

      > 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.

    4. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      with a username and password

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    5. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  14. Standard rant not needed... by NetJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Standard rant not needed... by echo · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Standard rant not needed... by Cally · · Score: 2


      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...
      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    3. Re:Standard rant not needed... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2


      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.
    4. Re:Standard rant not needed... by mvdwege · · Score: 2

      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
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    5. Re:Standard rant not needed... by Ogerman · · Score: 2

      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! (-:

  15. Far more useful to ME... by Dredd13 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... 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.

  16. Advice on how to advocate it would be good too by SweenyTod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
  17. Gutless bastard by ryanvm · · Score: 2

    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. ;-)

  18. Re:No such luck for me by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  19. What kind of hack is this? by iceT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    1. Re:What kind of hack is this? by awol · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    2. Re:What kind of hack is this? by xkahn · · Score: 3, Informative
      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 .
      --
      This .sig is left blank.
  20. Re:We got steel tariffs, but we need GPL tariffs t by Salsaman · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

  21. Re:No such luck for me by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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

  22. Re:Can't ditch my Win2k box just yet. CAN, h�!! by udippel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

  23. mechanism? by psamuels · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  24. Re:No such luck for me by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  25. This is a waste of money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...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?

  26. Unix iCalendar client by dpilot · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  27. What works for the web interface? by Otter · · Score: 2
    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?

    1. Re:What works for the web interface? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  28. Re:No such luck for me by jd142 · · Score: 3

    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.

  29. A DAV client by bergie · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    --
    Midgard Project - Open Source CMS
  30. Re:connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement by HeUnique · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

    --
    Hetz (Heunique)
  31. Yup by waldoj · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  32. look at Corporate Time and the Outlook Connector by np_geek · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

  33. OS X Version?? by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 2

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

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
  34. Re:connector ? i want an GOOD exchange replacement by np_geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  35. Re:Evolution and using other services by Mr.+Sharumpe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

    --
    -- The above comments are just my opinion. If you are going to flame me, save your time. I am fireproof.
  36. Well don't use it then by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    If you don't like it.

  37. Re: Uh, whatever..... by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    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.

  38. Re: why not use a thin client? by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    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.

  39. Re:Evolution and using other services by miguel · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  40. Answering MS by ImaLamer · · Score: 2

    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.