Slashdot Mirror
Exchange Comes To Linux As OpenChange
joesmart writes to tell us that new work on OpenChange and KDE seeks to bridge the gap between groupware compatibility and open source. KDE developer Brad Hards spoke at the Linux.conf.au conference and said the goal of OpenChange is to implement the Microsoft Exchange protocols as they are used by Outlook. "OpenChange has client and server-side libraries for Exchange integration and relies heavily on code developed for Samba 4. It is open source software licensed under the GPL version 3. Hards said more work is being done on the client side and 'we have code for the server,' but estimates another 12 months of development is required to produce an OpenChange server ready for production."
Its been my experience that IT and admin types are more open to change than end users. Sure, they bitch and moan amongst themselves, but they usually don't raise the type of hell that results when the rest of the staff has to adapt to a change.
So a business might be more open to dropping their (quite pricey) exchange server in favor of this, IF their end users don't see any difference while using Outlook, which they already "know".
I had a conversation with one of the openchange developers a few months ago to talk about some of the architecture being built here, and was pleased to find out that they're aiming to do something useful. They do want OpenChange to be useful as a standalone server. That gets you something Outlook can talk to. But they're also going to expose all of the right API's and stuff so that OpenChange can be integrated with an existing store or server. That means that with the right amount of glue code, we'll be able to integrate it with existing open source groupware servers like Citadel or Kolab or OpenGroupware. All of these servers currently have Outlook compatibility, but you need to add a plugin to Outlook in order to make it work. With any luck, OpenChange will allow Outlook to talk to all of these excellent FOSS groupware platforms as if they were Exchange servers.
... some of them are excellent. I'm particularly fond of Bynari's connector which is totally seamless, works with open source groupware servers, and costs far less than Exchange licenses. But a connector-free option will be nice too.)
(Not that I'm knocking the plugins, mind you
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
It's amazing how MS is so successful in making NOT having their products very inconvenient. Evolution almost works. I still kick and scream when someone asks me to set up a meeting. Think about how those MS users must feel. Here is one of the "Tech" team, and he has trouble:
*Scheduling Meetings
*Printing from time to time
*Dealing with Spreadsheets on a share drive
I will keep my Linux desktop at work, but boy do I envy those "Blue Pill" MS users.
This is a space that I've observed for a long long time. I can assure you that if anyone ever gets even remotely close to a replacement for Outlook against an Exchange server (or Exchange against an Outlook client), Microsoft will change the APIs so fast your head will spin off and fly away.
MAPI, AD and such are PROPRIETARY protocols folks, and Microsoft knows they are the keys to the kingdom. That's why all the Exchange clients ever created work ok at the start, but before they can really get going they fall back several steps. Then they arrive at the real problem of playing catch-up every time Microsoft breaks them. The customers and users don't blame Microsoft because Outlook and Exchange still work (as well as they do, anyway) -- the fury is pointed at the third party software that promised a way out of the Exchange but failed to deliver.
Remember "Windows ain't done until Lotus don't run." That play works.
I have just finished installing Samba4 alpha6 on my network (I already have LDAP+Kerberos set up). I can say that it's pretty impressive.
I was able to setup it as AD controller and join my notebook to it without a problem, single sign-on and ability to SSH into my Linux servers without entering login/password also rocks. AD management tools also work just fine. And Samba4 setup actually was not that scary at all :)
I'd say that in ~1 year we'll really have nice working replacement of Exchange+AD, compatible with legacy Windows clients.
That's what I'm talking about. I run zimbra at work and we have the network edition and nobody even uses the outlook connectors. Everything runs great on it. You can sync your mobile phone to it with no problems. I haven't had any downtime for over a year. I would never run exchange or want something that looks like exchange.
I think the best strategy to ween companies over to Linux is to replace each Microsoft product they use with a free or open source version of that product.
Why you may ask?
The answer is simple, they want to keep their Windows workstations and change the server over to Linux, without missing features. One of the arguments corporations had against using Linux was that it did not support MS-Exchange protocols so they could keep their Outlook clients and have shared calendars and shared email files.
I suppose next is modifying My-SQL or PostgresSQL to support Transact-SQL the SQL language that MS-SQL Server uses.
Novell Mono already tries to replace Microsoft Visual Studio with Linux, Mac OSX, etc versions, and while they may need some rewriting of code, legacy Visual Studio code can be ported over to Linux for those custom made applications.
When I worked at a law firm in 1997-2001 I used Internet Explorer 4/5/6 and VBScript and ActiveX controls for web Intranet applications using Active Server Pages. I told my manager that the employees who use Macintoshes cannot access our Intranet applications unless we wrote in Javascript and used Java instead of ActiveX. He told me it was nonsense. I said if we had clients who needed to connect to our Intranet and they ran OS/2, Linux, *BSD Unix, or Mac OS 7/8/9 whatever that they couldn't connect. He didn't believe me and told me to never develop in Java and only use Javascript when it could do something better or faster that VBScript couldn't do like some Dynamic HTML features.
Then the Mac users complained why the Intranet apps wouldn't work on their Macs. I told them to ask my manager, as the decision to support the technology that works for their computers was not my decision.
Then in 2001, they decided to use ASP.NET in beta tests to be cutting edge technology and use server side objects to solve the incompatibility issues.
Eventually I got too sick to work and went on short term disability, and when I returned to work I was fired two weeks later for being sick on the job. (The stress upset my GERD and made me throw up in trashcans when I couldn't make it to the bathroom) and security quickly escorted me out of the building.
Two months later my coworkers begged me to reapply for my job back, that the whole Intranet went to shit because I used to debug every Intranet program and Visual BASIC program, and now that they started to write new code without me, the system would crash 12 or more times a day and they even had code they couldn't compile. I told them I couldn't go backward, if they needed me that bad they should not have fired me, besides the stress of the job got to me. I was Atlas for the programmers and held everything up on my own shoulders so everything worked like it should. Eventually they had clients with Linux, OS/2, BeOS, Mac OS, etc. I recall reading on the Microsoft Newsgroups when I searched for their domain name, all of the issues they had and asking Microsoft why ASP.NET and VS.NET does not work as well as the ones they replaced and does not have all of the features they promised.
I think I am better off on disability now, than working some thankless job and carrying most of the programmers because they hardly knew what they were doing. Why I chose to go on disability rather than risk another job that could only make me sicker and cause a stroke or heart attack due to high stress causing high blood pressure. If I didn't do that, I'd most likely have died on the job with a stroke or heart attack, or been paralyzed due to a stroke, or go without a job and lose the house. On relief I get is from friends and family who help out, plus my local church. If not for that support system, and it isn't money, but emotional support and activities, I am not sure what I'd do. Maybe kill myself like one of my friends did in 1999 who had the same mental illness disability that I have, he shut everyone out of his life divorced his wife, his mother was dying of cancer, he stopped going to church, and just sat home
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Exchange 2007 deprecated the Outlook Web Access protocol that Evolution depended on for interoperability. As another Linux user in an Exchange corporate environment, I am anxiously awaiting the day that the Evolution MAPI plugin (which depends on the Samba4 and Openchange libraries) is functional. I've been compiling the development code for the last month, and it's been hit and miss. If anyone is interested: Evolution MAPI tarballs released and the Openchange Evolution MAPI blog.
How easy is it to find someone that is proficient in these software alternatives? Yes, licensing may be cheaper, but what about the training involved, the lost productivity in trying to figure out something that is different then your average AD stack? And the kicker... support. I know my boss likes to be able to say "heh, it's broken lets call * and have the remote in and see what the hell is going on. He doesn't want to hear "hey let me jump on the public forums and hope someone knows how to fix this" Support costs dollars. . .
I suppose next is modifying My-SQL or PostgresSQL to support Transact-SQL the SQL language that MS-SQL Server uses.
I'll probably get flamed, but I actually like T-SQL better than vanilla SQL for most uses. Although I try to avoid SQL altogether when possible, so I may not be a representative sample.
Hmm, Citadel with the Bynari connector already does all that Exchange does. You can literally replace dozens of Excange servers with a single Citadel server and the users won't know the difference.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Wow. When I started to read your comment, I was expecting to see some reasons why you shouldn't try to duplicate Microsoft's features and expect 100% drop-in compatibility. I got that and a whole lot more.
Well, glad you were able to keep on living your life. I know I'm a total stranger, but from one human being to another, I'd like to thank you for sharing your story. I'm a little more thankful that I haven't experienced any situation like yours yet.
the company i used to work at recently decided to move to exchange. it has been a disaster, but they refuse to see it. in the ca. 6 months they've been using it, it's been offline for at least a fortnight in total. at some stage i quite regretted my refusal to become dependent on exchange, because it meant that i could work while others had the day off. i'm usually a free software advocate and don't think that much of the open-sourcers, but in this case they certainly have a point.
the web email i find terribly unintuitive. i sometimes had to search for minutes to find the functionality i needed. in the end it was often quicker to print the email i wanted to send and then put it on the desk of the recipient.
It always surprises me how much crying goes on from end users when they are forced to learn something new. Especially as it's their job to learn a new system if/when it is introduced.
Most people absolutely hate change. Change in computer systems doesn't really intimidate the average /.'er but for someone who doesn't really understand anything about their computer and just knows "click the third menu across, fifth item down" or "The document I was working on is stored next to the dog in the background's nose", change is a real pain.
If you want a beautiful example of this, look at how people feel if their Windows profile gets corrupted.
However, MS's customers are no longer on the upgrade bandwagon so MS can't easily push new protocols into the market.
Our company is still 100% on Office/Outlook 2003 and nobody wants to change that. And given the complaints I hear about Office 2007 I have a feeling that we're not alone.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Hear, hear!
Actually, you don't have to have a very large network to run into issues like this.
I decided to switch to a samba-based network at home for (at least) five reasons:
What were my experiences?
And continued to do so. For YEARS.
I encountered only two or maybe three bugs during my entire transition. As opposed to the almost daily hair-tugging of the windows experience.
There is an exception to this, though, and that is if you use really exotic software with a small user base. Obviously the number of questions and answers in those forums are less numerous. On the other hand, It might be easier to get a hold of the developer.
Of course, there's stuff that pisses you off in the Linux world. But it belong almost exclusively to the desktop part of that world. .NET versions?
Administering *nix servers are a dream come true in comparison to the windows server nightmare. Yup, I have nightmares about windows boxens.
Everything is so damn smart and logical. Uh, well sometime maybe not according to YOUR logic, but at least to some logic, which can then be understood.
And things are getting better all the time. Especially the communities. An now I have redundant LDAP, DNS, Backup, DC, clustered databases and so forth. On crap computers with non-crap raid controllers. Don't need much more.
What has gotten better in the MS-world? Vista? The servers, IIS? And their
Well, I can tell you since i am now a windows developer for a living: Not much.
Baboons are cute.
I would agree that Exchange and Active Directory are two very important reasons why Microsoft will remain dominant. The third MS technology that the Open Source community could really compete in, but appears to be sleeping is SharePoint.
On it's own SharePoint is a pretty basic application, but it's gaining a lot of traction, and the functionality is increasing with add-on modules. The Office integration with SharePoint is also getting better and when a company has most of its documents in MOSS, they aren't going to rip them out for something in the future as the hassle will be too great.
It's always mystified me as to why a business with less then about 100 employees would use Exchange Server. Yet it seems the vast majority do, even though they could just use IMAP with Outlook.
Is it the shared calendar/resource booking thing? In which case why do they elect to spend serious money (probably close to the annual wage of one of their junior employees) when a web-based shared calendar would be free? Heck, a couple of days evaluating the hoards of good alternatives on freshmeat.net wouldn't kill them would it?
I dunno. Weird. Medium to large corporations (200 seats+) I can sort of understand, but even then...
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Yes. You've explained how people are TRAINED to use software, not TAUGHT.
Companies supposedly hire people with degrees who should be able to learn things, but instead they seem to give up on that and pick up the bare minimum in training ("click here to do this") to not get fired.
I think Outlook is a pile of dross, not just interface-wise and speed-wise, but functionality-wise. The email features are acceptable, the calendar is okay, but the other stuff like ToDos is appalling, and nothing like the outliner/task oriented ToDo functionality that I would prefer. Indeed everyone I know ignores the ToDo bar in Outlook because it is so inadequate.
I don't feel that open source software should be imitating when it comes to this type of functionality. If a company has Exchange Server already, it's already paid for it. The aim should be to create a better, more open (maybe to the point of standardisation for protocols) communications and planning infrastructure. And clearly the client software needs to be pretty damn awesome, and run on all major platforms. Maybe within 10 years uptake would be significant, maybe a few percent of corporations!
2 days ago I installed samba 4 in a virtual environment. I donwloaded a debian lenny cd, installed a standard server plus some development tools (build-essential) and followed the instructions in the samba wiki: http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4/HOWTO. In half an hour I had a kerberos/ldap/rpc domain controller. Joining windows xp pro or win2k3 machines to this domain was a no brainer. I installed the standard microsoft tools (adminpak.msi, resource kit, resource tools) and I can now manage this linux AD from a windows xp with ADUC(dsa.msc), the dstools, the group policy manager, ...
So basically, any of my microsoft colleagues can manage this linux AD installation. Heck, they would not know that this is a windows AD except for the fact that they cannot login the server with the remote desktop client :-); I guess we should call it AD server linux core edition :-)
Samba people: THANKS!!!! The salvation is close.
Natxo Asenjo
I really don't see the point of writing code to emulate an exchange server when Microsoft is just going to break it again anyway. Why not write a open standard for calendar and scheduling interchange and take a decent FOSS client (e.g. thunderbird) and extend it to work with that protocol? If you really want outlook capability it should be written as a gateway to the open standard protocol.
I wouldn't call it FUD.
It's FUD to claim that SOX is important for the majority of email installs, FUD to claim that Exchange is in some privileged position with respect to SOX and FUD to claim that email SOX is difficult to implement.
As I've already said, it is trivial to implement all you've described on any centrally controlled email system. Record to write-only medium? Standard system function. Record every email sent? Trivial. Proof to auditor? Spend a few minutes explaining the controls and how it works. etc. etc.
SOX is not some mysterious alien technology, it is simply a requirement that all corporate communications be recorded in a form that can be used as evidence in possible court cases. It's not rocket science. Not necessarily useful either because bad guys will talk face-to-face but at least it might catch the sociopaths who think they're doing nothing wrong.
---
Anonymous company communication is unethical and can and should be highly illegal. Company legal structures require accountability.