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."

6 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.
  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. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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!
  6. 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.