Open Xchange Server Source-code Released

d3vi1 writes "Netline, the main developer of Open-Xchange, has just released the GPL licenced version to the masses. The product is mostly known by users because of SuSE's Open-Xchange Server, a product started from "comFire Groupware". Open-Xchange is a groupware suite with WebDAV interface (XML), LDAP, iCal and HTTP(S) support. An Evolution plugin is on the way."

Comments

Very ncie, but ...

[Sonic McTails]

Open-Xchange is a very promising M$ Exchange replacement, but until they have an upgrade path from Exchange, we can't upgrade. If programs to convert away from Exchange were to exist, it would break our M$ lockin here.

Re:Very ncie, but ...

[tzanger]

Meh. This is why I'm putting my money and energy into Exchange4Linux -- it's a MUCH better Exchange Server replacement than anything else I've tried, and that includes SLOX, Bynari, OGO, Kroupware, Samsung Contact and whatever else I've forgotten. Server is free and totally open-source (written in Python) and runs Postgres for the backend. Outlook connectors are reasonably priced, too.

You have no idea how wonderful it is to just drag and drop the user's store into E4L and then be able to use straight SQL to pull data out. I haven't yet tried inserting data but it looks to be just as straightforward. And no goofy-ass web-based crap is involved. :-)

Re:Very ncie, but ...

[dbIII]

very promising M$ Exchange replacement,

There's always the option of upgrading Exchange to conventional standards compliant email - but that is difficult and painful because of the lock in to the wierd undocumented MS Exchange way of doing things - plus the tendancy of users to use Outlook for everything and put the only copies of critical company information into those nasty PST files (somehow got it out of there and into clearquest, and from there to anywhere).

With every other mail server on the planet it is a trivial exercise to look at archived mail files, or to get mail going on a different box after the first goes down, or a myrid other things that Exchange makes complex. On some versions of Exchange (it wasn't fixed in an upgrade!!!) you had to choose the password of the user that ran it very very carefully on installation, because that's the password that you are stuck with! There has been other fun things like open relay set as default with one patch - which caught someone I met - instant spam blacklisting.

In a lot of cases the way to deal with Exchange is to use sendmail as a proxy on another box, and use that for your archiving, virus filtering, spam filtering and all the rest of the things you need to do with mail. That way you can actually back up mail without stopping half a dozen services.

Personally I think playing Microsoft at the Microsoft standards game is always going to be a losing battle - go for standard email and not the MS kitchen sink that also serves email standard of the week.

Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandatory

[wonkavader]

Before spending any time on this guy (as a corporate head, anyhow) I need to know how well it works with outlook. To wit: I need to know that the company users won't know the difference -- that they won't have a clue that anything has changed.

If that's the case, I'd be a bug on the ass of my LAN manager to convert us immediately, and he'd probably jump at it.

Whoa!

[4of12]

With Evolution, Connector and now Open Exchange the barriers to interoperability are breaking down.

Microsoft made a deft move by bundling together database and mail server technologies for Exchange (Outlook/Exchange gets used heavily at MyCorp).

It's good to see some opens source alternatives become available, not least because of the competitive pricing pressure it will put on those heavily used products.

Re:Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandator

[cuzality]

I have recently begun using a Linux PC in my office, and am using Mandrake 9.1, OpenOffice, and Evolution. There are a couple of things that Outlook has that Evolution does not (at least my version of it -- 1.4.6), but overall I have been very pleased. What is it that holds you back from using Evolution instead of Outlook?

Hey, look what I found!

[Micah]

A migration tool for openxchange that supports MS Exchange! It's commercial, but if you're already using Exchange, that shouldn't be TOO big a turn off. It might only support the commercial version of OpenXchange, not sure about that.

Source code comments in German

[Micah]

Just took a look at some of the code. Comments are in German! Not that there's anything wrong with German, but that might limit North American involvement in development.....

Other than that, the code seems organized well, from a quick glance.

We need a standard.

[IGnatius T Foobar]

All these different projects trying to come up with an end-to-end solution, and none of them really getting anywhere. We need a standard.

A few months ago, the folks at the Citadel project took notice of the specs for the Kolab project, and began promoting its storage and network formats as a proposed standard for open source groupware. It was a nice, simple, elegant design, using vCard and vCalendar formats. Others shared the same view: for example, the Aethera people joined in, and made their client Kolab-compatible. We at the Citadel project made our server Kolab-compatible. This was shaping up to be something good.

So what did the Kolab people do? They designed "Kolab 2" which uses data formats that are neither forward nor backward compatible with Kolab 1. They completely disregarded not only their installed base, but other projects that were working towards compatibility. The new format is proprietary (documented and unencumbered, but proprietary) and gratuitously abuses XML instead of following the industry-standard vCard and vCalendar formats.

The Aethera and Citadel projects are currently in discussions to work together to create a true. open, standards-compliant, cross-platform, end-to-end groupware solution. We invite others to participate as well -- we won't ignore you the way the Kolab people have.

As for OpenXchange? As others have suggested, this is really just a couple of bells and whistles glued onto someone else's IMAP server. It's not really a true solution.

Re:Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandator

[Anonymous Coward]

To make it transparent to Outlook users, you would need a set of MAPI service provider DLLs for Open-Xchange, just like what Lotus did for its Domino Server (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/lotus/products/ac cessoutlook/).

Anybody know of any MAPI service provider development project for Open-Xchange?

Need some info

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please back this up with links to discussions you have had with Kolab project? Specifically where you noted on the mailing lists that you had started working on their format with a 3rd party and wanted to keep synce with Kolab? Did they not inform you then what plans were? I find it very hard to believe that once told that two other OSS projets wanted to work with them that they just ignored you or didn't advise on the new changes to come.

Also since you just noticed the specs a few months ago it is quite likely that the Kolab changes were already in the process of being implemented and you simply jumped in at the wrong time. Is that not a possibility? Fresh projects sometimes break compatibility and while one would like to never see that happen there isn't always much you can do about it. I assume they did it for a very good reason and not just to torpedo your efforts.

You post seems entirely one sided and I'd really like someone from Kolab to comment on dicussions you have had with them.

btw going back three months on the Kolab Development and Kolab Format Discussion lists your project doesn't seem to show up once. Perhaps you can clear this up if I'm looking in the wrong place?

Free/Cheap Host

[FU_Fish]

I'm still looking for a free/cheap host for these servers. I can sync bookmarks and calendar via webdav from a free/cheap web host, but I can't find anyone that provides ldap, so the only way I can sync my contacts between home and work is to run my own ldap server. Does anyone know of a place providing ldap/open exchange services to the public?

Very ncie, but ...Debutante software.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I've been wondering this ever since the whole "lets replace Exchange" movement started. What is so unique about exchange that no one else (commercial or otherwise) has come out with a viable replacement? And no I don't consider "lockin" unique.

Re:Very ncie, but ...Debutante software.

[Micah]

>>> You know I've been wondering this ever since the whole "lets replace Exchange" movement started. What is so unique about exchange that no one else (commercial or otherwise) has come out with a viable replacement? And no I don't consider "lockin" unique.

Very good question. It's highly pathetic IMHO. I keep hearing about organization after organization switching to Exchange, despite the fact that it's by far the most expensive available (my organization did a cost study on several different groupware/mail products, and we found that Exchange cost TEN TIMES what Bynari Insight would cost, and significantly more than the second most expensive) and a standards-non-compliance nightmare.

A company should ONLY consider Exchange if they've already virtually sold their soul to Microsoft. Other than that, please, accept any necessary inconveniences and just avoid it!

Consider the complexity of mail and groupware. It can't be squat compared to, say, the Linux Kernel. So why is it so evasive?

Perhaps the real problem is more Outlook and its proprietary protocols than anything else. Eventually, perhaps in a couple years, I expect that we will have a good fully Open Source solution that will also work with Windows clients and acceptable to the PHBs. That will be a great day, and I'm fairly sure that my organization would jump on it.

Re:Very ncie, but ...Debutante software.

[killjoe]

In actuality exchange does not do much. It's outlook that does all the heavy lifting.

If you want to replace exchange look to replace outlook first.

Re:History repeating

[Kent Recal]

Why don't you give them a chance?
Yes, they should change their name ASAP (as in NOW you morons !).
But other than that it seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Python allows for rapid developement, performance critical parts can be done in C. Postgres, while no performance wonder, seems like a reasonable stable foundation. I have not seen their code (in fact all I know is from a glimpse at their website) but with some skilled and dedicated coders they should be able to get somewhere in a couple months.

Ofcourse there's always the possibility of a premature death but why are you bashing them like that? Only for the name?
Admittedly, if they don't change that they'll be crushed by MS-legal quicker than I can bunzip that tarball...

Options for Exchange/Outlook replacement?

[darnok]

Does anyone know of a reasonably objective review of MS Exchange/Outlook replacements, running on Linux/BSD? I'm looking for categories such as:
- feature list compared with Exchange / Outlook (calendar, public folders)
- plays well with Outlook (many sites just want to replace Exchange, but still use Outlook)

I've got several small business customers who are well informed and don't want to get caught up in MS dependency. They're either running demo Exchange (with the built in time bomb), or an email-only server and wishing they had calendaring. In general, they'd prefer to use Outlook as long as they have the ability to dump it and replace it with something else with little / no business impact.

Any pointers / URLs?