Exchange is not a mail server. It is a messaging server (with integrated calendar functionality).
And I am just going to have to conclude that you know snot and didn't RTFA, or bother looking at the links in the submission. If you did, you would notice that Zimbra is also a messaging server (with integrated calendaring functionality), that also can manage directory services and is Open Source.
Either way, the product being touted is interesting, but your comment is crap.
You really don't need (ie, won't use) the Exchange functionality, especailly now that the Desktop sync is available. The Web GUI is faster and no where near the hog that Exchange is.
It seems to me that the best approach here might be to see if we, Microsoft's customers , could convince them to pren the specs under a organization such as the w3c . Unless that happens no one will trust that Microsoft will not yet to leverage this to attack their competitors.
I think it's a solid move, but there are some things here that give me pause. Part of the reason HTML and CSS have worked so well for the internet is because View Source is always available. AS a compiled technology, that's not true here. XAML extends the basic principles of HTML, with spiffy graphic tools, but keeps the same basic markup structure and semantics as HTML/CSS.
Now, since Microsoft isn't about to open XAML, that's a quandary, but I would love to see Flex integrated directly into Firefox/XUL to significantly improve user experience on the Internet, without loosing view source.
Other then both involve the idea of killing another human being? The only difference is that one has virtual consequences, the other real. I don't agree with Jack Thompson on many things (or perhaps anything), but you may want to avoid the same rush to judgment he made, and see what occurred here.
I agree that's pretty neat (also, being able to open an attached spreadsheet in Google Docs and work on it without installing anything is pretty slick, too). However, there's no reason why you couldn't have that in a desktop/client-side email client.
It's just harder. With a web based system, it's always going to be easier to do mashups.
Not true. The Zimbra guys released Zimbra deskop, which allows for a full offline mode for Zimbra. That isolates you from network latency issues, lets you view and edit, send and edit email, calendar entries and contacts, and queue it in a outbox. It's also open source.
I was a huge advocate for these types of programs... Then Gmail came out. I rationalized sticking with them in that I didn't want Google reading my email. Then I started using Zimbra. It doesn't make sense to have thick clients anymore, when the web apps can do everything that the desktop apps can, and there is a solid open source program for hosting it yourself.
The Zimbra guys even have connectors for Evolution and Exchange if you want to stick with thick desktop apps, but if there is one thing Gmail has proven is that users are willing to give up functionality for remote accessibility, and with Zimbra, they don't even have to do that.
I have been pretty under impressed with SCALIX, which really doesn't do anything that Outlook does. Zimbra I think is breaking new ground, but they really need some serious speed boost to make it competitive with outlook. I do think that if the Zimbra folks get mashups right they will leapfrog Outlook and Exchange, one of the weakest areas out there.
I think people complaining here are missing the fact that Linux has had a bitch of a time breaking into the enterprise messaging market. That market really drives out Linux IT shops, and replaces them with expensive exchange servers. The larger a company grows, the more you have to make the executives happy. And nothing makes executives happy like blackberries, integrated email and calendaring.
I would just point out that Alan Cox's statement is the exact reason Fedora has been loosing seats to Ubuntu as rapidly as possible. Never mind that that he ignores all real problems that led me to leave Feodora for Ubuntu, he focuses on the multimedia codecs issue, and issues a screed against open source. That arrogance is what led Fedora to it's current shrinking place in the world.
Some technical background. The wireless technology they were trying to use was actually draft 802.11n. Obviously part of the problem is the delays that the 802.11n stuff has had getting to spec. The secondary part of that is without a ISO spec, at least one large government(who might have a interest in pushing a native spec) refused to permit 802.11n in the airspace, claiming it might interfere with military applications.
Boeing pitched this solution pretty hard when they started selling the 787. The 787 overall appears to be a runaway success. It's the fastest selling commercial airliner in history. Airbus has been playing catch up, and currently is in their 7th revision of the plane they are trying to sell to compete with it directly.
So far the wireless is the only feature spec'd for the 787 that Boeing hasn't been able to make work. Given the huge technical risks (incredibly high usage of composites, larger electrical system, increased FBW, huge global supply chain, bleedless engines (normal planes use a portion of the planes airflow to power de-icing and air conditioning) etc. It really will be the state of the art when the plane flies.
That's actually not true. It's a fallacy to believe that the only Christian sect was Roman Catholicism. In fact, the Pope's position was actually pretty week going into the crusade. The Patriarch of Constantinople was considered by the largest power of the time (what remained of the Romans) to be the leader of the church.
In fact, after the great schism, there was no united church then. The only time where there was a united church was in the very short period after the Muslims finished sacking Constantinople and the reformation.
The infallibility of the pope doctrine, also really wasn't well established in such a world. Nevermind the fact that pope who responded to the threat to constantinople by calling for the crusades had actually had to reclaim Rome from other powers that had siezed it.
This is why revisionistic history is so dangerous. It bears no resemblence to reality.
Roman Catholic != Christian then or now. Even then, people pointed out that the Pope had no right to justify what he said. For that matter, trying to find any justification for the Pope in the Bible is Hard (by which I mean np-complete).
The question still remains, how is it that the Islamic concept of Jihad (which drove their efforts in taking all of the land in the first place) made it into Christianity? A lot of the horrors of the pre-crusade period have been ignored by revisionist historians, but it's still hard to jive turn the other cheek with getting killed in the service of Christ gets you into heaven (of which there is not even a single Biblical reference, but plenty of ones from the Koran).
The above is exactly correct.More to the point, the Moor Invasion and Reconquista was part of the Crusades. The Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic invasion of Isreal, the direct attack on Spain,and the threat to what remained of the Roman empire.
The Thirty years war, and the hundred years wars, where directly attributable to trance trying to keep a consolidated Germany from emerging and challenging them for power on the continent.
Huh? Hula implements SMTP, POP3, IMAP, LDAP, HTTP amongst other very well established industry standards. How is that not building on industry standards? Your definition of a 'stack' being a mish-mash or mediocre and difficult to configure applications is a bit odd.
As I made clear on another post, I am talking about the software stack, not the standards. In other words,instead of Apache, DSPAM, MySQL ClamAV,Postfix, OpenLDAP, and Tomcat or Php, it has it's own web server, It's own (incompatible) LDAP database, it's own dynamic web technology, it's own proprietary database, it's own spam functionality, it's own anti-virus technology, and it's own SMTP and IMAP server.
Hula built on top of the industry standard, but they sure didn't build on top of the industry stack. If nothing else go look at some of the discussions since the announcement. They are talking about dragonfly off from the hula code, and using that on top of other open source software. That is what they should have done in the first place a year ago.
This deserves Flamebait all on its own. Sendmail has a history of being the buggiest and most insecure software of all time. Check out the history of security advisories. Replacing it with buggy and possibly insecure mail? I heard Novell's Netmail had a reasonably good reputation. As for the laughable statement "duplicates sendmail and postfix"... wtf? Every server app that implements the SMTP protocol is duplicating sendmail and postfix? Nonsense. Different clients have different needs and complexities of an SMTP server.
Maybe part of the problem with sendmail is that email is complex in the first place? Attack sendmail, but what about postfix? Not using existing proven systems is a sure way to set oneself up for the exact same type of problems as both of those packages encountered by re-investing the wheel.
As far as different needs, and different complexities, can you really defend the statement that somehow the needs and requirements for Postfix and Hula are so different as the justify the thousands of lines of duplicated effort?
So you want to install apache and tomcat just to serve up some webmail? Isn't that extreme overkill? You can use Hula for webmail and apache for web on the same machine... each one serving its purpose and appropriately isolated from each other.
It might be overkill, but then again, you might need that functionality in the future anyways. For example, last I saw the Hula guys were trying to rewrite the web server to have pretty urls, support AJAX and do renaming. Apache already has all of those things.
I am guessing you aren't particularly well qualified to talk about fundamental architectural problems.
I am getting really tired of these attacks on my qualifications from people who don't bother to read what I wrote in the first place, and have a knee jerk reaction that because I differ with their point of view, I must not be qualified.
Here is a hint. Go look at the top selling Unix administration handbook. I wrote part of it, and am in the acknowledgments. You can also try to tell my customers that I didn't know what I was doing when I built intranet, internet and email systems over the last 10 years. For the record, that includes a fair number of ISPs, The US Navy, and several fortune 100 companies.
Check out the wiki, it has loads of details on how to do this. In particular check out Imapsync. Works like a charm.
As for the "parrallel copy of everything" that's because Zimbra uses each of thoose components as part of it's stack. They have optimized versions of each of thoose platforms to provide functionality and allow a easier install.Given that Zimbra generates their config files via variable substitution the install proccess would be feasable but very ugly otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can use regular LDAP for authentication, or you can integrate any other system in via preauth keys.
Exchange is not a mail server. It is a messaging server (with integrated calendar functionality).
And I am just going to have to conclude that you know snot and didn't RTFA, or bother looking at the links in the submission. If you did, you would notice that Zimbra is also a messaging server (with integrated calendaring functionality), that also can manage directory services and is Open Source.
Either way, the product being touted is interesting, but your comment is crap.
You really don't need (ie, won't use) the Exchange functionality, especailly now that the Desktop sync is available. The Web GUI is faster and no where near the hog that Exchange is.
I am running Zimbra on a Xen instance off a Pentium-D with 1GB of Ram (512mb allocated). Works perfect.
Zimbra can use multiple calendars, and the beginnings of CALDAV is in the source tree as well.
It seems to me that the best approach here might be to see if we, Microsoft's customers , could convince them to pren the specs under a organization such as the w3c . Unless that happens no one will trust that Microsoft will not yet to leverage this to attack their competitors.
I think it's a solid move, but there are some things here that give me pause. Part of the reason HTML and CSS have worked so well for the internet is because View Source is always available. AS a compiled technology, that's not true here. XAML extends the basic principles of HTML, with spiffy graphic tools, but keeps the same basic markup structure and semantics as HTML/CSS.
Now, since Microsoft isn't about to open XAML, that's a quandary, but I would love to see Flex integrated directly into Firefox/XUL to significantly improve user experience on the Internet, without loosing view source.
Other then both involve the idea of killing another human being? The only difference is that one has virtual consequences, the other real. I don't agree with Jack Thompson on many things (or perhaps anything), but you may want to avoid the same rush to judgment he made, and see what occurred here.
It simply works better. And it's not just mail, it's also calendaring, contacts and documents.
IMAP is for mail retrieval, not mail submission.
I agree that's pretty neat (also, being able to open an attached spreadsheet in Google Docs and work on it without installing anything is pretty slick, too). However, there's no reason why you couldn't have that in a desktop/client-side email client.
It's just harder. With a web based system, it's always going to be easier to do mashups.
Not true. The Zimbra guys released Zimbra deskop, which allows for a full offline mode for Zimbra. That isolates you from network latency issues, lets you view and edit, send and edit email, calendar entries and contacts, and queue it in a outbox. It's also open source.
Actually, Zimbra has that as well. As well as salesforce.com integration, and integrated mashups via Zimlets.
I was a huge advocate for these types of programs... Then Gmail came out. I rationalized sticking with them in that I didn't want Google reading my email. Then I started using Zimbra. It doesn't make sense to have thick clients anymore, when the web apps can do everything that the desktop apps can, and there is a solid open source program for hosting it yourself.
The Zimbra guys even have connectors for Evolution and Exchange if you want to stick with thick desktop apps, but if there is one thing Gmail has proven is that users are willing to give up functionality for remote accessibility, and with Zimbra, they don't even have to do that.
No, because I mistyped that. It should have read that SCALIX only does what Echange and Outlook do. No innovation. Just a different code base.
I have been pretty under impressed with SCALIX, which really doesn't do anything that Outlook does. Zimbra I think is breaking new ground, but they really need some serious speed boost to make it competitive with outlook. I do think that if the Zimbra folks get mashups right they will leapfrog Outlook and Exchange, one of the weakest areas out there.
I think people complaining here are missing the fact that Linux has had a bitch of a time breaking into the enterprise messaging market. That market really drives out Linux IT shops, and replaces them with expensive exchange servers. The larger a company grows, the more you have to make the executives happy. And nothing makes executives happy like blackberries, integrated email and calendaring.
I would just point out that Alan Cox's statement is the exact reason Fedora has been loosing seats to Ubuntu as rapidly as possible. Never mind that that he ignores all real problems that led me to leave Feodora for Ubuntu, he focuses on the multimedia codecs issue, and issues a screed against open source. That arrogance is what led Fedora to it's current shrinking place in the world.
If you are so pathetic that you can't be a fan of someone you don't agree with politically, I suspect he would rather not have you as a reader.
Some technical background. The wireless technology they were trying to use was actually draft 802.11n. Obviously part of the problem is the delays that the 802.11n stuff has had getting to spec. The secondary part of that is without a ISO spec, at least one large government(who might have a interest in pushing a native spec) refused to permit 802.11n in the airspace, claiming it might interfere with military applications.
Boeing pitched this solution pretty hard when they started selling the 787. The 787 overall appears to be a runaway success. It's the fastest selling commercial airliner in history. Airbus has been playing catch up, and currently is in their 7th revision of the plane they are trying to sell to compete with it directly.
So far the wireless is the only feature spec'd for the 787 that Boeing hasn't been able to make work. Given the huge technical risks (incredibly high usage of composites, larger electrical system, increased FBW, huge global supply chain, bleedless engines (normal planes use a portion of the planes airflow to power de-icing and air conditioning) etc. It really will be the state of the art when the plane flies.
Wireless would have been nice though.
That's actually not true. It's a fallacy to believe that the only Christian sect was Roman Catholicism. In fact, the Pope's position was actually pretty week going into the crusade. The Patriarch of Constantinople was considered by the largest power of the time (what remained of the Romans) to be the leader of the church.
In fact, after the great schism, there was no united church then. The only time where there was a united church was in the very short period after the Muslims finished sacking Constantinople and the reformation.
The infallibility of the pope doctrine, also really wasn't well established in such a world. Nevermind the fact that pope who responded to the threat to constantinople by calling for the crusades had actually had to reclaim Rome from other powers that had siezed it.
This is why revisionistic history is so dangerous. It bears no resemblence to reality.
Roman Catholic != Christian then or now. Even then, people pointed out that the Pope had no right to justify what he said. For that matter, trying to find any justification for the Pope in the Bible is Hard (by which I mean np-complete).
The question still remains, how is it that the Islamic concept of Jihad (which drove their efforts in taking all of the land in the first place) made it into Christianity? A lot of the horrors of the pre-crusade period have been ignored by revisionist historians, but it's still hard to jive turn the other cheek with getting killed in the service of Christ gets you into heaven (of which there is not even a single Biblical reference, but plenty of ones from the Koran).
Welcome to my friends list.
The above is exactly correct.More to the point, the Moor Invasion and Reconquista was part of the Crusades. The Crusades were a reaction to the Islamic invasion of Isreal, the direct attack on Spain,and the threat to what remained of the Roman empire.
The Thirty years war, and the hundred years wars, where directly attributable to trance trying to keep a consolidated Germany from emerging and challenging them for power on the continent.
Huh? Hula implements SMTP, POP3, IMAP, LDAP, HTTP amongst other very well established industry standards. How is that not building on industry standards? Your definition of a 'stack' being a mish-mash or mediocre and difficult to configure applications is a bit odd.
As I made clear on another post, I am talking about the software stack, not the standards. In other words,instead of Apache, DSPAM, MySQL ClamAV,Postfix, OpenLDAP, and Tomcat or Php, it has it's own web server, It's own (incompatible) LDAP database, it's own dynamic web technology, it's own proprietary database, it's own spam functionality, it's own anti-virus technology, and it's own SMTP and IMAP server.
Hula built on top of the industry standard, but they sure didn't build on top of the industry stack. If nothing else go look at some of the discussions since the announcement. They are talking about dragonfly off from the hula code, and using that on top of other open source software. That is what they should have done in the first place a year ago.
This deserves Flamebait all on its own. Sendmail has a history of being the buggiest and most insecure software of all time. Check out the history of security advisories. Replacing it with buggy and possibly insecure mail? I heard Novell's Netmail had a reasonably good reputation. As for the laughable statement "duplicates sendmail and postfix"... wtf? Every server app that implements the SMTP protocol is duplicating sendmail and postfix? Nonsense. Different clients have different needs and complexities of an SMTP server.
Maybe part of the problem with sendmail is that email is complex in the first place? Attack sendmail, but what about postfix? Not using existing proven systems is a sure way to set oneself up for the exact same type of problems as both of those packages encountered by re-investing the wheel.
As far as different needs, and different complexities, can you really defend the statement that somehow the needs and requirements for Postfix and Hula are so different as the justify the thousands of lines of duplicated effort?
So you want to install apache and tomcat just to serve up some webmail? Isn't that extreme overkill? You can use Hula for webmail and apache for web on the same machine... each one serving its purpose and appropriately isolated from each other.
It might be overkill, but then again, you might need that functionality in the future anyways. For example, last I saw the Hula guys were trying to rewrite the web server to have pretty urls, support AJAX and do renaming. Apache already has all of those things.
I am guessing you aren't particularly well qualified to talk about fundamental architectural problems.
I am getting really tired of these attacks on my qualifications from people who don't bother to read what I wrote in the first place, and have a knee jerk reaction that because I differ with their point of view, I must not be qualified.
Here is a hint. Go look at the top selling Unix administration handbook. I wrote part of it, and am in the acknowledgments. You can also try to tell my customers that I didn't know what I was doing when I built intranet, internet and email systems over the last 10 years. For the record, that includes a fair number of ISPs, The US Navy, and several fortune 100 companies.
No. The web interface honest to god is much better then outlook. I use that, and then sometimes export/import .ics files.
Check out the wiki, it has loads of details on how to do this. In particular check out Imapsync. Works like a charm.
As for the "parrallel copy of everything" that's because Zimbra uses each of thoose components as part of it's stack. They have optimized versions of each of thoose platforms to provide functionality and allow a easier install.Given that Zimbra generates their config files via variable substitution the install proccess would be feasable but very ugly otherwise.