Slashdot Mirror
Opengroupware
An anonymous reader writes: "From the OpenGroupware.org site: the OGo project announces its formation and the release today to the worldwide open source development community of its groupware server software. Gary Frederick, Leader of the OpenOffice.org Groupware Project says: 'Just to be perfectly clear, this is an MS Exchange take-out. OGo is important because it's the missing link in the open source software stack. It's the end of a decade-long effort to map all the key infrastructure and standard desktop applications to free software.' There are also plenty of screenshots of Outlook, Evolution, Korganizer, iCal etc. accessing the server."
This still doesn't cut it for really big enterprise. Exchange has excellent features for things like VOip, blackberry, etc. That this solution simply can't meet... now or in the next few years.
That being said it is nice to see that there is an option for mid-sized businesses finally. They were the ones who really got nailed by the MSFT tax.
Slowly, slowly, one step at a time. A position taken by OSS can never be captured back, and the enemy does not have an infinite ground to fall back on. The circle widens, and there are only two kinds of protagonist: 'us' within the circle, and 'them' outside.
No apologies for my use of the language of aggression - this is the way of human affairs.
But seriously, this will drive OSS into the heart of mid-sized businesses.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
A drop in replacement for Exchange is great (I love the idea) but how does it perform? It would be silly to assume that just because it's on $FREE_OS it will outperform the Windows counterpart.
Trolling is a art,
The last two "big enterprises" I've worked for (including the current one) have only used the out-of-the-box functionality of Exchange. VoIP? Ha! Blackberry? Ha! Just because InfoWorld profiles a couple of companies using that stuff doesn't mean that the majority of companies do.
So that you can weed out MS products from your back office without upsetting the end user. I would think that if you can replace the server without management noticing, then you've already won most of the battle. Replacing the client will be easier for management to accept once they realize that it will still work with the stuff they already have (and have paid for) and know well. It's a security blanket to know that if you end up not liking the opensource client you can always fall back on what you're already accustomed to.
I think that this comes at a good time in the waning of the microsoft cycle. Somewhere above (the first post, I think) I read that this is not a good solution for big enterprise. I agree. The microsoft people have given the big businesses so many features (read: crutches) in their recent releases of exchange that it would be, to them, like severing a limb to switch to a software package that lacks even one of said features.
I know this because I work for one of those corporations, and they're getting killed by the microsoft licensing bullshit that's happening right now. They're still not switching to a more reasonable deployment platform, because they feel they can't live without all of the "state of the art" features in the microsoft package.
But I digress. I also agree that this is a great solution for mid-size businesses. And that's just fine, because the country is not made up entirely, or even mostly, of big business; mid-sized businesses comprise a huge chunk of the market, and they really are the ones who get screwed by the microsoft model. If they come on board to the open source game, then the market comes with them. The large businesses will follow along soon after microsoft loses the market share that small to mid-size businesses comprise.
For all the posts saying "it still doesn't do every last little thing that Exchange does!", do you really need those things?
You might try defining your requirements based on business needs, rather than the feature set of one piece of software. Or is that a crazy, radical idea?
Reminds me of all those guys doing simple web graphics, who say that Gimp doesn't do {some esoteric prepress color feature} that PhotoShop does, so they just can't use it ;)
In a business enviroment rolling out a standard plugin is going to be a complete non-issue. You include it on the standard image(s) and/or deploy it system wide (Either using a deployment tool or the old fashioned way of sending the PFY around with a floppy). The users don't have to touch their computers or the configuration.
Can the plugin do all the stuff you need? I don't know, the site is scant on details (In fact its now at the point where I'm not sure if the plugin is Open! It may be closed and only in the "Enterprise" version...)
If OGo doesn't support the stuff you need, its Open Source and it can (And very likely will be) added.
If it doesn't do all that (I can't tell, site is /.'ed), it may be a wonderful product, but it is definitely *not* a drop-in replacement.
This page accidentally left blank
This seems to be one tough niche to break into. Look at the number of products trying to get into the market Exchange and Notes seem to dominate. The main issue is giving companies a reason to switch. I run an Exchange / Outlook shop simply because that's what it was when I got there. There simply is not the time or the money to try and make the switch. And why? Because it's Open Source? That is no reason to throw previously invested money out the window.
The other issue is unification. One search on Freshmeat reveals over sixty related projects. No one wants to band together on something. No one wants to create a "unified" product. It seems that there are a few things that have to be included by default - Exchange compatibility and transition tools.
Look at Oracle's Collaboration Suite, SuSE's OpenExchange Server, and all of the commercial "alternatives" out there. They include transition tools, but you have to hire a consultant to perform the transition. They include "Exchange compatibility" in that you can continue to run Outlook. Well, once you throw in the consultant and the cost of the connection utilities, you cost more than buying Exchange and licensing Outlook outright.
It's an endless cycle. Companies will continue to dump out alternatives, trying to play catch-up with Exchange, while Microsoft continues to add new features, lower their price to be competitive, and offer "free" training with purchase.
What's the solution to this issue? Hell if I know...I just install the stuff. But if we want a competitor that is _competitive_, the community will have to develop both an incentive to switch and the tools to do it.
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
What you're not considering is that this isn't an unfinished project! It's mature. It's a release into open source of a product which was closed source yesterday. Yesterday I would have had to purchase it for around 9000 Euros. Today I can download it (granted without the Exchange connection and a few other features). But it immediately leapfrogs all of the half-finished projects out there, because I can go stick it on a server today and start using it.