Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Xchange Server Source-code Released

Posted by Hemos on from the msft-exchange-gets-a-new-competitor dept.

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."

30 of 94 comments (clear)

  1. Very ncie, but ... by Sonic+McTails · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    This signature was left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Very ncie, but ... by Micah · · Score: 3, Informative

      That might be the same with my organization, although Exchange (5.5) is only used in one location.

      There's also Bynari Insight Server which has a somewhat impressive feature list, including an Exchange migration tool. We're testing it now. I would be interested in knowing if anyone here uses that.

    2. Re:Very ncie, but ... by KodaK · · Score: 2, Informative

      We've been using it for two years and are happy with it. If you're interested in further discussion, feel free to email.

      --
      --J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
    3. Re:Very ncie, but ... by tzanger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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. :-)

    4. Re:Very ncie, but ... by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 3, Informative

      CommuniGate Pro is an exchange replacement too

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    5. Re:Very ncie, but ... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.

  2. Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandatory by wonkavader · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Whoa! by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  4. Re:Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandator by cuzality · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  5. Hey, look what I found! by Micah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandator by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I should be more clear -- I use Evolution. But all the drones in the office use Windows desktops and Outlook.

    Outlook bonds with Exchange (which we also use -- a slightly older version which works poorly with Evolution's calendaring) so that we cannot leave Outlook, and therefore cannot leave Windows. If we can get a work-alike for Exchange, we can slowly move people into a hetrogeneous (or even completely non-Windows) evironment.

    We COULD upgrade our Exchange to allow Evolution to be more of a replacement for Outlook than it is, but that means spending money on a service, and our uppers would, after that, be unwilling to let us scrap it.

    The optimal path would be to replace the Exchange server with something that plays well with Outlook, then migrate our people to Linux desktop, where those people don't need Windows speghettified apps.

  7. It's not all that good by a.koepke · · Score: 4, Informative

    This product sounds good but out of personal experience it leaves quite a bit to be desired.

    We recently installed this and tried using it in our office and found it to be very buggy and unstable. The first version we installed, 4.0, wouldn't even create user accounts properly. It would screw up the samba each time it tried to create the account.

    The whole fact that it uses IMAP for its email made it clumsy to use in Outlook as you had your personal folders and then also had your IMAP folders and then also had your SLOX folders. Was quite confusing for most of the users. Also the calendar sharing wasn't that well designed at all. The user was forced to have two calendars, one in public folders and their own one. There was no way to share your normal calendar around the network.

    SuSE have a good product here but it is still far from a proper Exchange replacement. We ended up sending the software back and getting Exchange instead.

    --


    (\(\
    (^.^)
    (")")
    *This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
    1. Re:It's not all that good by mandreiana · · Score: 5, Informative
      Try OpenGroupware, it doesn't have these problems (except IMAP email, for which it has a simple web client). I recently had to compare them both for a company and OpenGroupware was better in terms of stability, implementation and community.

      It misses Knowledge Management (but has already a bugzilla request) and forum. OX's KM module wasn't very useful though compared with OGO's request.

      The only drawback we saw for OGO it's the language - Objective C, but it has a nice way to use xml-rpc requests so we can add java or php functionality over it (forum, if needed). OX it's a mix of Java, perl and C.

    2. Re:It's not all that good by theManInTheYellowHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't that the whole point of OpenSource? Expose your bugs to the world and let them help you fix them.

      It may not be ready for prime time today, but in 6 months or so I bet it is. This is the most needed FOSS project yet (IMHO). Anything that keeps me from having to maintane an Exchange server is awesome in book.

  8. Source code comments in German by Micah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. We need a standard. by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  10. business opportunity by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    The "outlook" ;) for upgrades is less daunting. There is an upgrade *path*, though it's not as automated as we'd like. Publishing and supporting a migration tool sounds like a good way to make a living, capitalizing on the migration from Exchange to Open-Xchange. Especially if it were a plugin installed when O-X is installed, which led the installer through the upgrade path with data import and a tutorial. A "Call for Help" button connected to a live support desk could also clock some ducats, while ensuring a graceful migration. Corporate IT departments love that kind of organizational reliability when risking any platform change.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. Re:Why java ? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the "closed source nature" of Java? Any Java program can include its source code (or a pointer to it), under GPL or any other license. If you're referring to the source code for the Java Virtual Machine that runs the executable Java programs, you'd have to compare that to the Windows OS and x86 microcode that Python programs run on, which are also proprietary and closed.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. Need some info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  13. Free/Cheap Host by FU_Fish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  14. Very ncie, but ...Debutante software. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Very ncie, but ...Debutante software. by Micah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>> 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.

    2. Re:Very ncie, but ...Debutante software. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    3. Re:Very ncie, but ...Debutante software. by Eristone · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Have you really gone through and looked at what you get when you go the whole Exchange route vs. what else is out there? Microsoft pricing and security aside for the moment (yes, it sucks. That's a given. No arguments.) the equivalent you get in the Open Source world for Exchange is...

      SMTP server
      NNTP server
      LDAP server
      IMAP server
      POP server
      HTTP server
      Database Server
      MS-Specific (MAPI) server

      This is all the back-end stuff that has nothing to do with Outlook. In addition, all of the various servers act well distributed and use the ldap server for central authentication for all users. The database server currently doesn't do replication for individual mailboxes but does for the NNTP portion. The SMTP server uses the LDAP server to reference valid mailbox addresses and
      the specific database server users's mailboxes reside on. The MAPI, POP and IMAP servers all use LDAP to reference where the specific database server user's mailboxes reside on. They also use LDAP for authentication.

      (This is why you can use IMAP [which is still supported half-assed in Exchange 2003] or POP with any client - and the http stuff with any modern web client)

      Then let's add the Outlook client. This builds the calendaring into the picture. Server-side everyone's scheduling information is stored in a newsgroup and an entry in the database. When building a new meeting, the client queries the newsgroup to see if time is clear or not (to allow checking to see if everyone is free) and then sends the meeting info out to the various invites.
      Oh - and the client also allows setting up for viewing other's calendars and administrative assistants can handle their bosses' mail and calendaring functions through the client without having to lose their own stuff or log in as their boss. And I haven't touched a lot of the other server-side stuff and how 3rd parties have built tools around 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?

      Ease of use. Ease to support. Interoperability. Support of just about any mail client. Ties to make the functions that are not mail-specific work even with non-MS mail clients. (link on meeting invite to the web based item for completion)

      These are just a few of the reasons why organizations go this route and it has nothing to do with being in Microsoft's pocket to begin with. And it doesn't include things like tying your voice mail into your inbox so that it is available via your wireless device, your phone or your e-mail client.. or being able to schedule multi-user conference calls that update calendars and send out notifications or.. .. :)

      The open source packages that are available today do not have the level of integration or functionality that is offered via Exchange to an organization. Once the above si working fairly seamlessly as an integrated package that could be deployed - then a true challenge to Exchange would exist - for now it isn't there.

  15. Re:Why java ? by Svennig · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm interested that you find this the case - Apache have no problem filling the ranks of their java coders!

  16. What baffles me... by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is why we didn't get some open source Outlook Connector yet. Some companies (OpenExchange) won't even provide an eval of the connector to see if it really works in Outlook.
    Bynari - too buggy.
    SLOX - not tried yet.
    We ended up using CommuniGate Pro from stalker.com.
    I don't like it.. server is too closed source and inflexible.
    BUT it has _excellent_ OL interoperability... My boss just forced me to use it because of this.

    When we'll see some open source or at least free Outlook Connector to these exch-replacing systems, we effectively killed exchange.

    --
    - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
    - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
  17. Re:Evolution -- excellent, but Outlook -- mandator by Donny+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's like if someone says I've been using my cell phone for organizer and sending messages and email and overall I've been very pleased.

    Companies have forms, applications, scheduling, shared files, shared contact lists and a whole bunch of things built on top of Exchange Server and a big part of it simply can't be migrated. It's completely different from an individual user's experience and satisfaction with 3rd party MUA.

  18. Re:History repeating by Kent+Recal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  19. Options for Exchange/Outlook replacement? by darnok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  20. Re:What about Groupwise? by o517375 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Groupwise is very nice but still the client is a few light years behind Outlook 2003. But the Server has certain features that make it light years ahead of Exchange. So you end up with a few Outlook junky grumblers and a majority of satisfied users. The problem is when some of the grumblers are at the top of the company comparing notes with Outlook users at other companies. They don't understand the technical justifications for Groupwise over Exchange and the herd mentality dominates. Then there's always of Groupwise's high cost and of course it's closed.

    )))))))))))))))))))))

    Vote for the liberal. It's important.