> Does it support PAM? You should be able to get Kerberos that way, yes?
1.) *NO* it is not possible to do Kerberos via PAM, ever, for any services. PAM is a chat-expect authentication mechanism and is fundamentally incompatible with Kerberos. You can use PAM to authenticate to a KDC using a username/password, but that isn't the same as using Kerberos (the PAM module just checks that it can acquire the TGT from the KDC). Using PAM in a Kerbized network is just side-stepping Kerberos and throwing away all of the security advantages.
2.) The OpenGroupware services perform authenticated themselves via either the database or LDAP (including the possibility of using Active Directory). OpenGroupware does not support the use of PAM nor does it rely on Apache to perform authentication.
have you tried opengroupware.org? I wasn't very happy last time I tried it but maybe it's advanced since. they apparently have an ldap+kerberos authentication scheme. OpenGroupware currently supports LDAP authentication over HTTP BASIC. There is no support for Kerberos.
OpenGrouwpare has made some advanced but the big advances will come in June 2008 when the Java stuff will probably start to hit the servers.
OpenGroupware does offer a new XML-RPC that is very easy to work with and we have constructed quite a few applications around it. The best of these is Consonance which is a Gtk# fat-client that is coming along very nicely.
Versioning in Word isn't really appropriate. We're not talking about just having the text - we're talking about having a single point of reference...The versioning in Notes (and in any document management system, such as Documentum, DB2 Document Manager, etc.) is geared towards an accurate, authoritative revision history. As such, the versioning is often used in Notes applications alongside review workflow and document locking, to help make sure that the latest document version actually is... Yes, that is what I meant. OpenOffice does content versioning too. But effective collabertion (and auditing) really requires a server component that tracks versions, does locking, logging, etc... Also the ability to store documents in projects, link documents to specific tasks, and the like is monumentally useful once you adopt that as standard practice.
Just the simple use-case of figuring out what was going on with a project or customer when a another user is terminated, ill, or goes on vacation is a powerful illustration of this. Most small and medium business flounder when faced with just this situation - lots of time is lost and often it is easier just to start things over (waste of resources).
I wonder what the true percentage of users who do not require anything but an office suite to do all their work?
Why do people get the impression that most of the working people are lawyers or secretaries (the only type of workers that could arguably do all their work with on an office suite)? Even accountants use software other than a spreadsheet... And only the bad lawyers and secretaries use only office suites. Documents needs to be cataloged, indexed, searchable, and probably versioned. Those things are *groupware* applications. If an employee thinks they don't need groupware then company doesn't provide sufficient training.
Seriously though, I have used Lotus Notes in a global corporation which made extensive use of custom forms, applications,... was a terribly counter-intuitive and unresponsive piece of software, I'm not defending Notes, but it would be very useful to the discussion if anyone making these claims would mention what *version* they used last. I've got Notes server + client in a VM for playing with on my $1,200 laptop and it seems just fine. And I know of Notes shops where I've watched the client - and performance seems just fine.
I definitely like the chances of a hybrid OSS solution like Zimbra, Zimbra is not truly comparable to Notes and/or Exchange. That is like comparing MySQL with Oracle or DB2 - sure they can do some of the same things, but that doesn't make them "the same".
Notes & Exchange/Sharepoint are both *platforms* where is is easy through custom-forms, workflow, etc... to built custom applications and solutions. If you just use either of these as a mail server then of course you don't see the point and they appear bloated.
>I have some experience trying to round up Linux gamers over the past >couple years and what I've found is that there are some out there, but >a lot of the people in my local LUG just weren't interested in playing >games.
I think you've hit something here. I am a LINUX desktop user (and a developer), and I know lots of other LINUX desktop users (many of whole are not developers), and as a rule they have little or no interesting in gaming. I think "power users", those most likely to use LINUX, are demographically distinct from gamers. There may be some overlap [LINUX developers who play games] but I think these are primarily just separate groups. I am a gamer, but not a video gamer, we play traditional board and/or paper games with friends. Most of the people I know are either not gamers AT ALL or are non-computer gamers. Gamers really look like a distinct group. When I want to relax and have fun I'd much prefer spending time with people and not bothering with "technology", and I don't think I'm in an isolated demographic in that regard. Technology in gaming, IMHO, adds little or nothing to the gaming experience except for standing in when you have no other players available.
>I don't know about where this guy works, but where I work, >the primary use of the network is to communicate *internally*.
He's probably one of the many people who think GMail is a killer application, a web calendar is groupware, and ERP is.... well, they have no idea what an ERP is. If they do they seem clueless to the fact that most ERP deployments are highly customized (they think an ERP is a really big installation of QuickBooks).
Oh, and social networking / Web 2.0 is a critical enterprise application too. Don't forget that. Because every manager is going to take time out of there day to update a Wiki.
Hub-n-Spoke, just like we had with frame-relay. It should have been a mesh given that it was frame-relay but the telco wanted basically the same monthly fee for each additional PVC as it was for the frame-connection itself. An additional PVC was "effectively" an additional circuit. So it was really point-to-point over a frame-relay cloud where you couldn't burst and with crappy latency just for extra fun.
To be fair they fixed the latency issue after a couple of years. Wow, I was impressed.
"Rather, the PVC was a simple replacement for a leased line at a fraction of the cost with better performance."
Eh? I'll take a leased line over a PVC anyday in regards to performance. My experience with Frame Relay has been that performance is subpar, the provider overbills, burst capability is crap [and doesn't work with most QoS scenarios - as in you have to disable bursting]. I also question the cheaper part as we just switched from a 15 location frame-relay (256/512) WAN to point-to-point T1s for 1/3 the price.
But maybe it depends on your location and the competence of your local bell.
>Problem with modified versions is long-term support. You need someone to come >in for maybe four weeks a year to keep your modifications up to date with recent >releases of the source project.
The Open Source model is to send your patches, fixes, enhancements upstream and then they are tested and packaged in the next release. I work on Open Source projects in this manner and everyone wins.
>Why would a company want to spend precious developer time modifying someone elses > software which has little or nothing to do with their core business?
Don't. That isn't what the comment suggest, nor is it the Open Source model.
>It makes more sense to spend money buying a solution in and use your developers >to write the things they are supposed to be writing.
Build on existing solutions as was suggested. This is what we have done with OpenGroupware, the core (all the hard work) is done, we just built the part we needed.
>Besides, if I make modifications to an application for internal use, I'm going to >have to make those changes for every release
Nope, that isn't the Open Source model. Changes you make to the core app get sent upstream and are packaged in the next release. This is actually how most Open Source code gets developed. Again, we've done that with OpenGroupware and everyone is happy.
> Which is why the answer to your previous question about seeing shrink wrapped Linux software anytime soon is: no. > Supply and demand
You are correct here, but not for any of the reasons you specify. The reason there is no shrink-wrapped software for Linux is (a) because there is a categorically better and more cost effective distribution system (package repositories) and (b) the revenue model for off-the-shelf shrink-wrapped software is much much much worse/lower-yield than most people believe. Developing software is extremely expensive, then add licensing, packaging, and distribution. A package has to sell a horribly lot of packages in order to offer ROI.
And there are a lot of desktop packages available for Linux from Office Suites, to accounting packages, to project management, and on own the line. People who can't find them don't know how to look - http://www.freshmeat.net/
>Notes consumes 256 MB of my memory (yes, resident memory).
Big deal, lots of apps do that. Java running a DbVis app currently taking 226Mb and firefox 104. So a real groupware client consuming twice what a web browser requires? No problem.
With 2Gb or RAM 256Mb is 12.5% of my RAM. For an application as critical an feature-rich as Notes that is very acceptable.
>Evolution 28M (not light weight, but still)
Comparing Evolution (a glorified PIM client, not a real groupware client) and Notes is comparing apples & oranges. And my evolution is currently at 48Mb for RSS.
>Lotus Notes is about the crappiest of Groupwares right behind Outlook/Exchange
That isn't saying much, at least not about the Outlook part. Exchange is actually pretty cutting edge, but with a pile of dung as a client. I'd almost (note I said, almost) argue that Outlook isn't really even a groupware client.
>Give the traction Linux and OSS in general has gained in professional businesses >I doupt that this is needed.
It is needed if you have a Domino/Notes server. People who actually *USE* groupware can't exactly switch at the drop of a hat. Groupware servers contains tons of critical information.
>If it helps Lotus Notes shops migrate easyer - all the better. But I'm recommending >all my business customers to stear clear of any proprietary thick-client-server > groupware. Given the state of rich internet applications and web-based solutions >nowadays the concept strickes me as totally backwards.
Then I'm assuming your clients don't actually need [or understand they need, more often the case] groupware. The "state of rich internet applications" is pretty bad, and obviously they can never provide offline access to data [very critical in most parts of the world]. Most "rich internet applications" are PIM, not groupware.
> Oh, and I say theoretically, because maybe someone somewhere has OpenGroupware > working, but it sure isn't me. Even the self-contained demo images don't work, > let alone trying to install and configure the pig.
Really? Have your tried posting your problems on the list? Because I've installed the InstantOGo demo dozens of times and never ever had it fail to come up? Are you sure the hardware you used is supported by the underlying CentOS distro?
And for being a pig.... No way. OpenGroupware is entirely modular and developed in Objective-C using roughly the same bundle technique pioneered by NextStep. OpenGroupware is light and fast. It is complicated, but of course, it is an groupware server after all.
>How about this: >1. It needs to have a client/server architecture (for mobile clients who don't >have always-on connectivity). Pure web-based calendars don't do this.
Agree 100%. That is why we use OpenGroupware. Support for common protocols as well as a great API - http://code.google.com/p/zogi/ - we've integrated OGo into our company Intranet for scheduling & workflow as well as built a very effective CRM tool which sits on top of the excellent groupware engine provided by OGo for universal access to all the data, one calendar, one task list, etc... Fabulous.
There is NO other *truly* Open Source groupware server than can do what OpenGroupware can do.
> 2. It needs to have Windows and Linux clients.
Ok
> 3. Outlook plug-ins don't work. This is a limitation of Outlook. The plug-in > can't be the default calendar, and Outlook will only pop up reminders for the > default calendar. Also, my experience of OpenGroupware's plug-in is that it is unstable.
Sorry to hear that, it has worked pretty well for us. Although we only have a few users. I work with another shop that has lots of users, and they've been successful. Have you contacted Skyrix support? You very much need to keep the connector up to date as Outlook and the MAPI tags it uses evolve at Microsoft's discretion.
If you aren't willing to use a plugin (and ZideLook is a MAPI provider, many plugins are just miserable PST sync things) then I'm afraid you have to abandon Outlook or use Exchange.
ZideOne, an alternative Outlook provider, is scheduled for release at the end of Q4 2007. http://www.zideone.com/ ZideOne will provide access to any CalDAV / GroupDAV server.
Alternatively to that you can use Thunderbird / Lightning with OpenGroupware using the GroupDAV connectors provided from the SOGo project. http://www.inverse.ca/english/contributions/sogo_connector.html That should also work, I believe, with the Citadel groupware server.
> 4. It needs to have a means for one person to schedule an event on > someone-else's calendar (if the appropriate permissions are given).
OpenGroupware does that.
> 5. It needs to have a way for people to view the details of other > people's calendars (if the appropriate permissions are given).
You're kidding right? Comparing google calendar to what is provided by Exchange is just absurd. I can't even begin to image 250 people trying to use google calendar to schedule meetings & manage resources, what a nightmare.
It works pretty well, although some people seem to have problems. There is also a ZideOne plugin under development with a target for initial release at the end of Q4 2007; that is a MAPI provider for CalDAV & GroupDAV servers. Both of which OpenGroupware is... so you'll have two options. http://www.zideone.com/
>> Yep; Gentoo is a distribution that makes no sense at all. Mostly a whole bunch of people >> who think burning CPU time to compile stuff, verses stuff compiled by someone else, is >> actually going to benefit them somehow. > You don't think so?
I know so; no, it doesn't matter.
> So, compiling specifically for my laptop, my P4 desktop and my P3 router doesn't matter?
No, it does not matter. Other factors are going to constrain the performance of any commodity hardware before the minor (and often theoretical) CPU specific optimizations will be able to present themselves. On a modern desktop or router the ~1-3% performance bump you might get isn't even going to be noticeable and certain isn't pragmatically worth the effort of having to install an entire development environment (now there is a real loss; empty filesystems are faster then ones with more stuff in them).
> My applications contain support for ONLY what I require.
And the catalytic converter on my car is orange, and the one on my neighbors car is blue.
The sophisticated virtual memory logic in any current OS makes the "don't link to that library to save me memory" argument bogus, and it has been for quite some time. This is the same as people looking at ps output of an app like evolution and seeing 196Mb and going "OMG! What a bloated cow! This thing should be modular!". Only Evolution, and GNOME, is highly modular and that size in ps doesn't mean anything like you've actually 'lost' anywhere close to 196Mb by running evolution.
Yep; Gentoo is a distribution that makes no sense at all. Mostly a whole bunch of people who think burning CPU time to compile stuff, verses stuff compiled by someone else, is actually going to benefit them somehow.
It isn't. Compiling code isn't magick. It is just a boring, tedious, and fantastically consistent, process. The "fantastically consistent" means it doesn't much matter where, or by who, some chunk of code gets compiled. And, yes, I know about compiler options, etc... In reality, "-O2" verses "-O1" ain't going to buy you anything noticable, and there are reasons not to use "-O2"; if you don't know what those are.... you shouldn't be diddling with compiler options.
The real questions is, why do I waste my time typing something like this? Won't matter. Gentoo is 31337!!
There are several (OpenGroupware, SOGo, Citadel, and others) groupware servers that support GroupDAV. Funambol will sync with everything but the kitchen sink [pun intended].
> Linux is surrounded by proprietary IT firms. Some of them view > Linux as a profit maker, others as a threat to their profits. > Both sides represent a challenge for Linux in holding to its > ideals of freedom and openess.
Blah blah, woof woof. Maybe the best part of all this is that the fundamentalists will pull up camp and mover over to BSD leaving LINUX and related Open Source projects to do what software is meant to do - provide solutions. Because the solutions are what it is about, most of the "proprietary IT firms" get this. There isn't any loss in an Open Source solution because most users, certainly Enterprise users, don't give a *6*&^*@&$ about the source, why want a *solution*. IBM certainly gets it, I think most companies do.
So the fundamentalists can boot up their proprietary Macs, listen to music on their DRM encumbered iPods, and post about the terribly threats to the pure ideals of freedom and openness of BSD; and leave the useful people alone so they can write code.
From the article: "Linux and free software are here to stay."
Yep, because they provide solutions. They will remain free and open, in the useful sense, because it benefits everyone. There is no market for a MTA, there is a market for e-mail solutions, there is no market for file-servers, there is a market for corporate storage & data-retention solutions.
Ditto, this is the hard part. Funny the Open Source double-speak on these issues. Openness, standards, blah, blah... so enter CalDAV, GroupDAV, etc... and oh-man-that-is-too-complicated, nah we can't support that, whine, whine.... All the standards required to implement good groupware interoperability exist.
Slashdot Mirror
> Does it support PAM? You should be able to get Kerberos that way, yes?
1.) *NO* it is not possible to do Kerberos via PAM, ever, for any services. PAM is a chat-expect authentication mechanism and is fundamentally incompatible with Kerberos. You can use PAM to authenticate to a KDC using a username/password, but that isn't the same as using Kerberos (the PAM module just checks that it can acquire the TGT from the KDC). Using PAM in a Kerbized network is just side-stepping Kerberos and throwing away all of the security advantages.
2.) The OpenGroupware services perform authenticated themselves via either the database or LDAP (including the possibility of using Active Directory). OpenGroupware does not support the use of PAM nor does it rely on Apache to perform authentication.
OpenGrouwpare has made some advanced but the big advances will come in June 2008 when the Java stuff will probably start to hit the servers.
OpenGroupware does offer a new XML-RPC that is very easy to work with and we have constructed quite a few applications around it. The best of these is Consonance which is a Gtk# fat-client that is coming along very nicely.
Just the simple use-case of figuring out what was going on with a project or customer when a another user is terminated, ill, or goes on vacation is a powerful illustration of this. Most small and medium business flounder when faced with just this situation - lots of time is lost and often it is easier just to start things over (waste of resources).
Why do people get the impression that most of the working people are lawyers or secretaries (the only type of workers that could arguably do all their work with on an office suite)?
Even accountants use software other than a spreadsheet... And only the bad lawyers and secretaries use only office suites. Documents needs to be cataloged, indexed, searchable, and probably versioned. Those things are *groupware* applications. If an employee thinks they don't need groupware then company doesn't provide sufficient training.
Notes & Exchange/Sharepoint are both *platforms* where is is easy through custom-forms, workflow, etc... to built custom applications and solutions. If you just use either of these as a mail server then of course you don't see the point and they appear bloated.
>I have some experience trying to round up Linux gamers over the past
>couple years and what I've found is that there are some out there, but
>a lot of the people in my local LUG just weren't interested in playing
>games.
I think you've hit something here. I am a LINUX desktop user (and a developer), and I know lots of other LINUX desktop users (many of whole are not developers), and as a rule they have little or no interesting in gaming. I think "power users", those most likely to use LINUX, are demographically distinct from gamers. There may be some overlap [LINUX developers who play games] but I think these are primarily just separate groups. I am a gamer, but not a video gamer, we play traditional board and/or paper games with friends. Most of the people I know are either not gamers AT ALL or are non-computer gamers. Gamers really look like a distinct group. When I want to relax and have fun I'd much prefer spending time with people and not bothering with "technology", and I don't think I'm in an isolated demographic in that regard. Technology in gaming, IMHO, adds little or nothing to the gaming experience except for standing in when you have no other players available.
>I don't know about where this guy works, but where I work,
>the primary use of the network is to communicate *internally*.
He's probably one of the many people who think GMail is a killer application, a web calendar is groupware, and ERP is.... well, they have no idea what an ERP is. If they do they seem clueless to the fact that most ERP deployments are highly customized (they think an ERP is a really big installation of QuickBooks).
Oh, and social networking / Web 2.0 is a critical enterprise application too. Don't forget that. Because every manager is going to take time out of there day to update a Wiki.
Hub-n-Spoke, just like we had with frame-relay. It should have been a mesh given that it was frame-relay but the telco wanted basically the same monthly fee for each additional PVC as it was for the frame-connection itself. An additional PVC was "effectively" an additional circuit. So it was really point-to-point over a frame-relay cloud where you couldn't burst and with crappy latency just for extra fun.
To be fair they fixed the latency issue after a couple of years. Wow, I was impressed.
"Rather, the PVC was a simple replacement for a leased line at a fraction of the cost with better performance."
Eh? I'll take a leased line over a PVC anyday in regards to performance. My experience with Frame Relay has been that performance is subpar, the provider overbills, burst capability is crap [and doesn't work with most QoS scenarios - as in you have to disable bursting]. I also question the cheaper part as we just switched from a 15 location frame-relay (256/512) WAN to point-to-point T1s for 1/3 the price.
But maybe it depends on your location and the competence of your local bell.
>Problem with modified versions is long-term support. You need someone to come
>in for maybe four weeks a year to keep your modifications up to date with recent
>releases of the source project.
The Open Source model is to send your patches, fixes, enhancements upstream and then they are tested and packaged in the next release. I work on Open Source projects in this manner and everyone wins.
>Why would a company want to spend precious developer time modifying someone elses
> software which has little or nothing to do with their core business?
Don't. That isn't what the comment suggest, nor is it the Open Source model.
>It makes more sense to spend money buying a solution in and use your developers
>to write the things they are supposed to be writing.
Build on existing solutions as was suggested. This is what we have done with OpenGroupware, the core (all the hard work) is done, we just built the part we needed.
>Besides, if I make modifications to an application for internal use, I'm going to
>have to make those changes for every release
Nope, that isn't the Open Source model. Changes you make to the core app get sent upstream and are packaged in the next release. This is actually how most Open Source code gets developed. Again, we've done that with OpenGroupware and everyone is happy.
> Which is why the answer to your previous question about seeing shrink wrapped Linux software anytime soon is: no.
> Supply and demand
You are correct here, but not for any of the reasons you specify. The reason there is no shrink-wrapped software for Linux is (a) because there is a categorically better and more cost effective distribution system (package repositories) and (b) the revenue model for off-the-shelf shrink-wrapped software is much much much worse/lower-yield than most people believe. Developing software is extremely expensive, then add licensing, packaging, and distribution. A package has to sell a horribly lot of packages in order to offer ROI.
And there are a lot of desktop packages available for Linux from Office Suites, to accounting packages, to project management, and on own the line. People who can't find them don't know how to look - http://www.freshmeat.net/
>Notes consumes 256 MB of my memory (yes, resident memory).
Big deal, lots of apps do that. Java running a DbVis app currently taking 226Mb and firefox 104. So a real groupware client consuming twice what a web browser requires? No problem.
With 2Gb or RAM 256Mb is 12.5% of my RAM. For an application as critical an feature-rich as Notes that is very acceptable.
>Evolution 28M (not light weight, but still)
Comparing Evolution (a glorified PIM client, not a real groupware client) and Notes is comparing apples & oranges. And my evolution is currently at 48Mb for RSS.
>Lotus Notes is about the crappiest of Groupwares right behind Outlook/Exchange
That isn't saying much, at least not about the Outlook part. Exchange is actually pretty cutting edge, but with a pile of dung as a client. I'd almost (note I said, almost) argue that Outlook isn't really even a groupware client.
>Give the traction Linux and OSS in general has gained in professional businesses
>I doupt that this is needed.
It is needed if you have a Domino/Notes server. People who actually *USE* groupware can't exactly switch at the drop of a hat. Groupware servers contains tons of critical information.
>If it helps Lotus Notes shops migrate easyer - all the better. But I'm recommending
>all my business customers to stear clear of any proprietary thick-client-server
> groupware. Given the state of rich internet applications and web-based solutions
>nowadays the concept strickes me as totally backwards.
Then I'm assuming your clients don't actually need [or understand they need, more often the case] groupware. The "state of rich internet applications" is pretty bad, and obviously they can never provide offline access to data [very critical in most parts of the world]. Most "rich internet applications" are PIM, not groupware.
> Oh, and I say theoretically, because maybe someone somewhere has OpenGroupware
> working, but it sure isn't me. Even the self-contained demo images don't work,
> let alone trying to install and configure the pig.
Really? Have your tried posting your problems on the list? Because I've installed the InstantOGo demo dozens of times and never ever had it fail to come up? Are you sure the hardware you used is supported by the underlying CentOS distro?
And for being a pig.... No way. OpenGroupware is entirely modular and developed in Objective-C using roughly the same bundle technique pioneered by NextStep. OpenGroupware is light and fast. It is complicated, but of course, it is an groupware server after all.
>How about this:
.NET fat client - Consonance
>1. It needs to have a client/server architecture (for mobile clients who don't
>have always-on connectivity). Pure web-based calendars don't do this.
Agree 100%. That is why we use OpenGroupware. Support for common protocols as well as a great API - http://code.google.com/p/zogi/ - we've integrated OGo into our company Intranet for scheduling & workflow as well as built a very effective CRM tool which sits on top of the excellent groupware engine provided by OGo for universal access to all the data, one calendar, one task list, etc... Fabulous.
Want screenshots?
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddv5htgd_14zrg6zm&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddv5htgd_12gqn63p&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddv5htgd_8c225bq&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddv5htgd_4dpzjmz&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=ddv5htgd_0sb385m&hl=en
I'm also working on a
http://code.google.com/p/consonance/
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/whitemice/consonance/ConsonanceLogin/image_view
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/whitemice/consonance/ConsonanceTaskWindow/image_view
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/whitemice/consonance/ConsonanceScreenshotContacts/image_view
There is NO other *truly* Open Source groupware server than can do what OpenGroupware can do.
> 2. It needs to have Windows and Linux clients.
Ok
> 3. Outlook plug-ins don't work. This is a limitation of Outlook. The plug-in
> can't be the default calendar, and Outlook will only pop up reminders for the
> default calendar. Also, my experience of OpenGroupware's plug-in is that it is unstable.
Sorry to hear that, it has worked pretty well for us. Although we only have a few users. I work with another shop that has lots of users, and they've been successful. Have you contacted Skyrix support? You very much need to keep the connector up to date as Outlook and the MAPI tags it uses evolve at Microsoft's discretion.
If you aren't willing to use a plugin (and ZideLook is a MAPI provider, many plugins are just miserable PST sync things) then I'm afraid you have to abandon Outlook or use Exchange.
ZideOne, an alternative Outlook provider, is scheduled for release at the end of Q4 2007. http://www.zideone.com/
ZideOne will provide access to any CalDAV / GroupDAV server.
Alternatively to that you can use Thunderbird / Lightning with OpenGroupware using the GroupDAV connectors provided from the SOGo project.
http://www.inverse.ca/english/contributions/sogo_connector.html
That should also work, I believe, with the Citadel groupware server.
> 4. It needs to have a means for one person to schedule an event on
> someone-else's calendar (if the appropriate permissions are given).
OpenGroupware does that.
> 5. It needs to have a way for people to view the details of other
> people's calendars (if the appropriate permissions are given).
OpenGroupware does that.
>Free/Busy information is not enough i
You're kidding right? Comparing google calendar to what is provided by Exchange is just absurd. I can't even begin to image 250 people trying to use google calendar to schedule meetings & manage resources, what a nightmare.
It works pretty well, although some people seem to have problems. There is also a ZideOne plugin under development with a target for initial release at the end of Q4 2007; that is a MAPI provider for CalDAV & GroupDAV servers. Both of which OpenGroupware is... so you'll have two options.
http://www.zideone.com/
>> Yep; Gentoo is a distribution that makes no sense at all. Mostly a whole bunch of people
>> who think burning CPU time to compile stuff, verses stuff compiled by someone else, is
>> actually going to benefit them somehow.
> You don't think so?
I know so; no, it doesn't matter.
> So, compiling specifically for my laptop, my P4 desktop and my P3 router doesn't matter?
No, it does not matter. Other factors are going to constrain the performance of any commodity hardware before the minor (and often theoretical) CPU specific optimizations will be able to present themselves. On a modern desktop or router the ~1-3% performance bump you might get isn't even going to be noticeable and certain isn't pragmatically worth the effort of having to install an entire development environment (now there is a real loss; empty filesystems are faster then ones with more stuff in them).
> My applications contain support for ONLY what I require.
And the catalytic converter on my car is orange, and the one on my neighbors car is blue.
The sophisticated virtual memory logic in any current OS makes the "don't link to that library to save me memory" argument bogus, and it has been for quite some time. This is the same as people looking at ps output of an app like evolution and seeing 196Mb and going "OMG! What a bloated cow! This thing should be modular!". Only Evolution, and GNOME, is highly modular and that size in ps doesn't mean anything like you've actually 'lost' anywhere close to 196Mb by running evolution.
http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006/02/understanding-memory-usage-on-linux.html
Most "bloatware" is only bloated between the viewers ears.
Yep; Gentoo is a distribution that makes no sense at all. Mostly a whole bunch of people who think burning CPU time to compile stuff, verses stuff compiled by someone else, is actually going to benefit them somehow.
It isn't. Compiling code isn't magick. It is just a boring, tedious, and fantastically consistent, process. The "fantastically consistent" means it doesn't much matter where, or by who, some chunk of code gets compiled. And, yes, I know about compiler options, etc... In reality, "-O2" verses "-O1" ain't going to buy you anything noticable, and there are reasons not to use "-O2"; if you don't know what those are.... you shouldn't be diddling with compiler options.
The real questions is, why do I waste my time typing something like this? Won't matter. Gentoo is 31337!!
> I'm not familiar whith those replacements that work with PDAs. Can you pls name them for me?
Not to be a jerk, but you haven't looked very hard.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/410688/bionicmessage-GroupWare-sync-server-install-gude
There are several (OpenGroupware, SOGo, Citadel, and others) groupware servers that support GroupDAV. Funambol will sync with everything but the kitchen sink [pun intended].
http://www.funambol.com/opensource/
There is a GroupDAV plugin for Thunderbird @ http://www.inverse.ca/english/contributions/thunderbird_groupdav_plugin.html
And several of the Open Source groupware servers, including OpenGroupware, are feature competitive with proprietary solutions like Microsoft Exchange.
> Linux is surrounded by proprietary IT firms. Some of them view
> Linux as a profit maker, others as a threat to their profits.
> Both sides represent a challenge for Linux in holding to its
> ideals of freedom and openess.
Blah blah, woof woof. Maybe the best part of all this is that the fundamentalists will pull up camp and mover over to BSD leaving LINUX and related Open Source projects to do what software is meant to do - provide solutions. Because the solutions are what it is about, most of the "proprietary IT firms" get this. There isn't any loss in an Open Source solution because most users, certainly Enterprise users, don't give a *6*&^*@&$ about the source, why want a *solution*. IBM certainly gets it, I think most companies do.
So the fundamentalists can boot up their proprietary Macs, listen to music on their DRM encumbered iPods, and post about the terribly threats to the pure ideals of freedom and openness of BSD; and leave the useful people alone so they can write code.
From the article: "Linux and free software are here to stay."
Yep, because they provide solutions. They will remain free and open, in the useful sense, because it benefits everyone. There is no market for a MTA, there is a market for e-mail solutions, there is no market for file-servers, there is a market for corporate storage & data-retention solutions.
> It's true that with OOo and Thunderbird's plugin architecture,
> you would soon see it supporting other groupware solutions,
It already supports GroupDAV for shared addressbooks
http://www.inverse.ca/english/contributions/thunderbird_groupdav_plugin.html
This works with multiple groupware servers including OpenGroupware, SOGo, and Citadel.
>Which no one has figured out how to do yet.
Ditto, this is the hard part. Funny the Open Source double-speak on these issues. Openness, standards, blah, blah... so enter CalDAV, GroupDAV, etc... and oh-man-that-is-too-complicated, nah we can't support that, whine, whine.... All the standards required to implement good groupware interoperability exist.