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.
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
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.
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.
I'd go as far as to say that Exchange has been their key product with regards Microsoft's domination of the Enterprise and the establishment of their monopoly. Exchange's role in Microsoft's success is often massively underrated.
They're office suite has only recently become the best. They're operating system has always been technically behind others. Every other Microsoft product has had arguably superior alternatives. Everything but Exchange.
But until recently nobody, other than maybe Lotus Notes, offered worthwhile groupware solutions. The Exchange/Outlook combination has been superior to anything else and is idiotically easy to administer.
If you ask businesses why they use Microsoft (and I'm talking about the tech guys here), the vast majority will list Exchange as a primary reason.
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
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
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.
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.