Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Microsoft Exchange Replacements?
Carl Farrington asks: "Do you think you could try to raise public awareness of the importance for an open source replacement for Microsoft Exchange (Outlook/MAPI compatible for shared/public folders). Current offerings are SuSE Linux Groupware Server, Communigate Pro (Stalker Software), Samsung Contact (ex. HP OpenMail) all of which are not open source / free. Kroupware is in development, but there will be no Outlook Connector for it. otlkcon is in slow development as a possible connector for Kroupware. There is also OSER (Open Source Exchange Replacement) which again looks like it needs more help. Is there any chance of getting some people to back this stuff? It's so important and is probably the major problem facing Linux as viable replacements for Win2000 servers." While this seems to be a question that
keeps
popping up in one form or another, it's always worthwhile to come back and point out alternatives, in development, that might need your help to get off the ground and running. So, if you're looking for an alternative to Exchange, would you be willing to contribute some time to one of the projects listed above? If you've been using Unix as an Exchange replacement, what did you do and how well has it been working?
I think part of the problem is that what people are looking for requires a lot of work to create. Exchange does have a lot of features that, while they may not work as well an OS equivalent, work adequately well, are (somewhat) easy to administer and are integrated together. Could a good alternative be put together, definitely, but the amount of work may be more than some are willing to put forth without monetary compensation.
Slashdot...it's like Fox news, but without the biased sl...or maybe not.
But then, I get by just as well in unix with plain old console-based email clients and bland sendmail. But I can appreciate what a useful tool it can be for saving business time, and hence would like to see something similar reach some sort of maturity in the OSS world. I for one shall be offering my skills for one of the projects mentioned !
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
It runs on open source, isn't from Microsoft, works wonderfully, and isn't all that expensive.
All else the same, why is "isn't from Microsoft" on that list? If MS put out something that: ran on open source, worked wonderfully, and wasn't all that expensive, why would you let the name brand discourage you?
..where a good majority of the features provided by Outlook can be incorporated into a web based application, thereby reducing the threats created by using Outlook, and allowing portability:
....
- scheduling, contact management : easy
- Attachments : easier....
- calendar sharing : easy...
Give me the man hours, a good development team, a solid web sever and database server, and you could have a semi-decent web based, accesible from anywhere, email solution. Email is such a simple application, and its so feasible to do the same work as a client, via server to browser interaction....
if none of this makes sense, its cause im running on about 20 cups of coffeee...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
Tried it. Our staff practially revolted at the idea of solely using web-based email instead of having a client. Its a great thing to have, but not as a replacement for a client.
Mod point free since 2001
Shouldn't OSS be about solving problems that people want to work on rather than trying to be a cloning engine for Microsoft software?
If someone wants an exchange replacement, they will make it...if not, why fuss?
If you like what exchange does, buy it or code your own replacement. If you don't, then don't worry about it. Most people seem happy to kludge together solutions out of lots of little parts that can be used for many purposes. Exchange isn't a little part and it really has only one purpose: to be the server side of outlook. Most people here hate outlook too, so why do you want a clone of exchange???
I think what most people forget is that in order to replicate Exchange's functionality, or even come close to offering a fraction of the features of Exchange, you're going to need to put in close to the same amount of work that Microsoft did. If I remember correctly, Microsoft had a team of no less than a hundred programmers working full-time for two years to produce Exchange server 2000. Logic would dictate that the Open Source community would need to do the same, with the same amount of resources. A considerable undertaking. I believe it would make more sense to enlist in a corporation like Red Hat (who doesn't have the same amount of resources as Microsoft, but they do have the talent and organization) to begin development on a project such as this.
End of Line.
It seems that, for years, I swore our IT department would not convert off of Groupwise until we had an open-standards alternative that gave us the same integrated mailbox, public information store, and calendar solution. That was back in '97. When nothing prevailed to grasp as an integrated standard, the pressure finally caved when we had to make the choice between upgrading Groupwise or migrate to Exchange.
As we reviewed the options, we noticed that the only reason we were still using Novell servers was to support Groupwise. It was at this point that we did a cost-of-ownership study and found that supporting aging Novell servers was going to cost us more over time than a single platform solution from M$. The choice was made to convert.
Our conversion was very successful, and recieved much praise from the end users. Why? Because they all wanted to use Outlook. No one really cared that we were using Exchange, what they really wanted was Outlook. (Btw, the Groupwise plug-in to Outlook sucked at the time, maybe better now, but back then it was terrible)
As an Outlook user myself, I have to say that it is a great application. It works well, provides many options, and integrates with everything.
With that said, I believe our IT team would readily accept an opensource alternative, particularly if we could cut down on the cost for licenses. Not only that, but many of our partners and clients would convert too if they didn't lose Outlook. Honestly, I think fewer and fewer people outside of IT even know what Exchange is. All they want is outlook.
I can't offer much to the development of an Open Source Exchange replacement, but I sure would love to see one sprout up.
Goals are deceptive - the unaimed arrow never misses.
Because MS has shown that it isn't unlike a drug dealer: the first one is always free. Just wait until the industry is hooked and a hopeless addict and then jack the prices up to rediculous levels. It's why people don't like MS. If MS products were cheap then most people here wouldn't mind MS Windows et al.
Space for rent, inquire within
One alternative I've found is Suse's OpenExchange which though it sounds Open really isn't. You still have to pay out the Wazoo and what good is a Linux solution you have to pay for? However, if you're willing to pay, it does do everything an Exchange server does.
The poster is right, there is a severe lack of a competing Groupware component for Linux. One thing people can't get over is the fact that you HAVE to have MS on the desktop in the corporate world, a good deal of the alternatives I've researched are completely *nix, both client and server.
We need to admit that an "email solution" doesn't mean pop/smtp anymore. You need full calendaring/appointment scheduling etc. and right now no one provides this in the OSS world. Hell, there aren't many that make a proprietary product that will do this on Linux.
I first saw this story posted this morning on Ask Slashdot and went to read another story first..when I came back it was gone! I searched to find it but to no avail. Now it's back!)
all of which are not open source / free. :) ).
Why in particular should the products be free or even open source? You seem to be looking for the cheapest way out. I think what you should be looking for is an _alternative_ to Outlook (that runs on Linux), not necessarily something that undercuts it. It is not like you are going to go in and modify the source after all (if you were, you would probably be contributing to the projects right now instead of posting this
"It's so important and is probably the major problem facing Linux as viable replacements for Win2000 servers."
Right, because Lotus Notes has the majority share of corporate e-mail solutions or because Bynari offers an Exchange replacement that runs on Unix.
This is such a stupid statement. Active Directory is a much bigger problem in replacing Win2k servers since your Linux servers would more or less be stranded on the network as is.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Most of the problems seem to be with MAPI and Microsoft COntrol what Outlook does. However, on Linux we aheva hugely ca[able email program in Ximian's Evolution. If it were to exist on Windows and have a server based company wide contacts calendar sharing and task managment Microsoft would be under pressure even on their home turf.
Because Microsoft designs their software to be as incompatible to anybody else's as possible and often even to their own. Microsoft technologies only run on Microsoft software and Microsoft software with some rare exceptions only runs on Microsoft Windows which runs only on x86. (No, don't try to play the Itanium card) Unix software on the other hand runs on many different OSes from tens of different vendors on many hardware architectures.
Choosing Microsoft is the final decision, because after that there won't be any easy choices anymore.
Therefore, any non-Microsoft product is usually a lot safer investment because you are not completely dependent on the whims of a single organization.
Mod me down all you want, but you know it's true.
Lets slip in a caveat, shall we? Microsoft will run right under other systems - until they find out about it, then all bets are off. That is why they changed the file formats - to thwart conversion programs - not because of any ineptitude on the part of Microsoft employees (I guarantee you if Bill said, "make an open source OS that is bug free", it would be done - but that does not make money - and hence is 'bad' in Bill's world view).
That is the key point behind all of this: Microsoft is morally bankrupt. The company will do whatever it can to ensure total domination. Any words to the contrary are just so much balderdash.
If you still aren't convinced, here are some examples that may shed light on this problem:
Sincerity: Programmer extends a recognized standard for the benefit of everyone; his enhancement is completely backwards compatible with the existing standard.
Insincerity: Microsoft extends a recognized standard, saying its for the benefit of everyone. Then they change their applications to not use the standard correctly - or use loopholes in the standard to prevent other applications from running with the new standard on machines running Microsoft software.
Sincerity: Open Source, and GNU allow users to view and modify the source code of all applications.
Insincerity: Microsoft creates hope in the development community by announcing its shared source initiative. Unfortunately, it limits what is shared, what is not, and by whom.
To put it even more simply: "Don't mind that man behind the curtain..." - The Wizard of OZ. His name is probably Bill Gates.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I may be an a Free Software loyalist, but I do have to admit that the Exchange/Outlook combo can do an awful lot.
In fact, it's near impossible to find one app that does all that exchange does.
But at work I have yet to see anyone use Outlook for anything except an email client, and I really have to wonder how the salesmen keep selling them on features that no-one there intends to use.
Rather than look at what Exchange/Outlook does for your criteria, perhaps you should look at what people are actually using the programs for and look to replace those functions that are needed.
But expect logic to fail if you are dealing with OS loyalty issues. I work at a non-profit that could benefit greatly from reduced licensing cost, but they've been unwilling to seriously consider any alternatives.
Read, L
What utter bollocks.
Email is email - SMTP/POP3 provide a perfectly good delivery service.
The mail and the folders should reside on the server. The status of the email (read/unread) should reside on the server. Using POP3, it ends up on the client. Even if you configure the mail reader to leave mail on the server, you don't have server based folders, nor do you have the server keeping track of which messages have been read.
Equally, a mailserver doesn't typically corrupt its own data or require frequent reboots.
Look, if you want people to believe your arguments about whether Linux is better, quit spewing FUD. You complain when Microsoft spews FUD about Linux, don't do the same. Many, many organizations run Exchange with no corruption of the data store and no need for reboots. Get over it - Exchange is a good product.
VB programmers really, really should keep it to themselves.
Does that make you feel better? Not everyone codes in C/C++/Java. Big whoop. I bet I get a lot more done for the company I work for than a C programmer would. Right tool for the job.
In which case, you should be using open standards, not MS's proprietary crap.
Exchange replacement? It's called SMTP, POP3, IMAP. E-mail software should do e-mail, not be some bloated "groupware solution".
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
<?xml version="1.0"?>A DAKDJAKHDKJAHDJAHDKAJHDA
<word>
<data>
AKJDHJAHLDKJAHDH
</data>
</word>
That would be valid XML. Does that look like it would instantly be compatible with anything? Microsoft could very well use XML as a container for their existing Microsoft Word file format.
Is that like 'HackingCoughWare' or, perhaps, the more subtle 'ScreamingInfantWare'? Ok, perhaps this is a troll, but I've historically had a hard enough time selling open source stuff into various enterprises. ("MySQL? Aww, what a cute name. Now go get us something that sounds professional." I've heard that. Literally. Twice.) I realize we're all smart enough to know better.
Selling a product is as much (if not more) selling an image than it is selling features, reliability, etc. At least for the PHBs I've had to sell to in the past. Trying to bring a mission critical piece of software in that's named after an anoying childhood malady will, before anything else, elicit a bunch of laughs from the powers that be, and then there's that much more of a hole to dig out of.
Oh, well, there goes what little karma I had, but I had to say it.
yep.
stupid people.
i have a stack of articles, showing how Outlook/Outlook Express was the most exploited piece of software in the last 5 years.
if someone gives me lip, i asked them if they had any recent virus outbreaks, hand them the photocopies and walk away.
the ones that ask me back are the ones i want to provide services for.
at least here in the U.S., everyone thinks they know about computers, and it seems like there is no end to people needing help.
i don't HAVE to help the stupid ones. There are plenty left that are reasonable.
There _are_, they just aren't Outlook-compatible. PHPGroupware is what my company uses - it goes far beyond what Exchange/Outlook provides. However, it doesn't use Outlook itself, and thus many corporate types won't touch it. Yes, that's stupid, but that's where we live.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Solid is a good way of describing Microsoft's company as a whole.
Software, especially when designed to be universally compatible per priority, as easy to use out-of-the box yet infinitely functional, and provide a shrine of knowledge and wealth through things such as their Devkits and the MSDN.. the money they charge is pennies in comparison to the overall dollars that are inevitable used in other, more indirect fashions.
I'm not as narrow minded as to assume that 130 dollars for a piece of software goes directly to the developers and is meant to represent the actual cost of that software; instead, that money is fronted into the Nile River of all software resources, discounted educational prices, free software, free seminars, etc etc.. not to mention a lot of those prices are made to offset the amount of software piracy that takes place.
How many Microsoft software products have any of you actually purchased? Are you so simple as to think that Microsoft could not foresee their Xbox console being what it is now? They know damn well what they're doing. Everyone who has an Xbox successfully purchased a Microsoft computer, and now buy *only* Microsoft software. Got an Xbox? You just bought into the biggest micromonopoly of them all.
on the sixth day God created man.
on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
Would "anyone with half a brain" include the MS employee one of my employers had on site to help? Would HP count as a real rollout? Yes, Exchange has some great functionality. Worked OK as well. Downtime, yep. It wasn't horrible, but it was worse than when they ran OpenMail. Database corruption, yep, that was the big issue. They were constantly battling issues that would result in DB corruption, and the restore procedures got a really good testing for months. Also, if you just ran Windows Update, that would make you severely negligant if managing any internet accessable system. Major security holes would not get patched for an uncomfortably long time. You have to stay on top of hotfixes as well.
It is an OK mail server, but your experience is the exception, not the rule.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
No and it's not fair to taint the tens of thousands of honest and ethical business people in the US by saying that they are all like Bill Gates.
War is necrophilia.
I guess it all depends where you work. I work at a software company, and like just about every software company we compete with MS in one form or another. As a result, we have to seriously consider each and every time we choose to purchase something from MS because it is in our best interest *not* to fund our competition. Forcing the workforce to learn a slightly different email/collaboration client is a far smaller price to pay, esp. if you consider that if you're hirering high enough quality people they should be able to easily pick up a new tool. In the past, it was much more difficult to avoid funding MS to compete against you because the alternatives weren't great. With open source we have a decent alternative, and I think a lot of companies are going to wake up ("wait a sec? why are we sending thousands of dollars to MS every year??"). Ironically, in my company this idea is coming from the management (c*o)!, and is actually facing more resistence from engineering because they're the ones stuck in their ways technically - the marketting and sales people couldn't care less (all they do is check email and set up appointments, and whatever vertical customer tracking software they use). Anyway, as MS enters more markets, they force more and more companies to compete with them and sooner or later we're all going to wake up and say whaaa?!
This is where someone reminds you that the "because it's not from Microsoft" statement is what instigated the responses.
Negate the price of any piece of software, then decide what is inferior/superior. Oh, wait, first take out your holier-than-thou attitude, your extended expertise and experience with basic software operations, and your ability to provide free seminars and documentation that can contend with most of the $40 books you have to purchase just to understand how to manipulate the software. THEN compare them.
Sorry son, but the cranks that push that money into Microsoft are RAW copies of Gates. They're CEO's and CFO's and CTO's and Presidents and Vice Presidents and Board Members who have several million dollars on the line and would prefer not to have some ADHD, short attention span, impatient prick kid copping an attitude because his mind is on a golden contract and not what button to click.
Anyone who believes Exchange to be a 'simple' application is short minded and has never actually administered an exchange server.
I'm probably not done with this one...
on the sixth day God created man.
on the seventh day, man returned the favor.
Why not just use Exchange? It's not that bad. In fact, if you aren't up on spending big money and you have a small company, why not outsource your e-mail operations to an ASP like ASPOne or someone else. I personally use ASPOne for my small business e-mail and I like it alot. I get the benefits of using MS software (really nice web-mail through Outlook Web Access, shareable calendars, folders (with attachments), shared contacts, integration with nice client software) without any of the headaches (high-cost upfront, high-mainteance, viruses, trojans, mal-configuration).
In the end it costs me like $9/month per user. For a few users (like 5-6 or less) it's really reasonable, does everything I want it to AND my users don't have to compromise.
Your users are right. OTHER companies can share calendars without using the inflexible, cumbersome, non-drag-and-drop, non-context-sensitive, non-productive web-interfaces from "lightweight" projects like Squirrel Mail. I mean, lets face it. Compare Outlook Web Access on Exchange 2000 or Exchange 2003 Beta's to Squirrel Mail or even the Horde and its embarrassing - even on cross platform browsers. OWA blows them away in terms of productivity, closeness to a traditional application (drag-and-drop, context menus, etc).
Sometimes users are right and sys-admins are wrong!
Actually, the users want the MS products, while the IS folks just want a product that won't cause friction with management and users, won't eat up all their time and budget, and won't require signing some Faustian deal with a large corporation that has put ever greater demands on them to provide a full accounting for every single piece of software on every desktop in your organization
You just described Microsoft, but there are many other commercial entities providing software. As a software developer, I see the labor market get more and more eroded, partly because of free software. Apache essentially made the Unix web server market non-viable. The likes of Lotus Notes/Domino and Oracle DB, which are higher up on the food chain, may be next on the OSS hit list. In the end, where is the commercial software market? And then what happens to OSS? A parasite cannot survive without its host. And in this case, the commercial software market is OSS host. Commercial software feeds the OSS parasite with models to copy. We know what drives the free market. What drives OSS innovation if the commercial software market dies?
Actually, given that IS folks don't pay for this stuff out of their pockets but instead are spending funds allocated for internal business systems, your notion that "they just want a free ride" is crap.
What does the source of funds have anything to do with it? Someone needs to take responsibility for the damage that OSS does to the marketplace. Companies that sell software need to recognize that their use of OSS is promoting their own demise. The old catalyst for software development (money) has been replaced by geek fame. That and a dollar will get a cup of coffee.
Please...if it wasn't an anti-MS venomous rant it'd be marked as a troll or flamebait.
I've done Notes admin and Exchange admin, and I know which I prefer. But that's personal preferences to some extent, and familiarity with the product. And, by the way, God forbid that we should ever have to upgrade servers or infrastructure! Upgrade video cards to get the latest and greatest and wreak havoc with poorly or non-supported drivers -- sure. But not servers, no!!!
Mind you, given you seem to be under the mistaken impression that you are required to buy additional software to backup an Exchange repository, maybe the rest of the post makes sense. News flash -- NT Backup will backup an Exchange repository. Always has. As you say, it's a fairly basic function of real server software.
Want additional niceties? Sure, there are third-party solutions such as Backup Exec and ArcServe. But I've successfully used NT Backup for years to backup and, more importantly, successfully restore Exchange databases.
It's really not that hard, you know, if you take just a little time to learn how to properly work in an enterprise piece of software rather than simply charging in like a "manuals are for wimps!" hero.