Bug 0 review pls

[Serge van Ginderachter]

----- "Dan Shearer" <dan at shearer.org> wrote:
> > For Exchange, the non-free version of Zimbra works great for
> Outlook
> > connectivity.
> 
> Zimbra is fine for people who are able to modify their client Windows
> machines. And that is something many, many large corporates refuse to
> do, often for very good configuration management reasons. Until
> recently
> this has been an impasse, because nothing else is a native Exchange
> server except for Exchange. OpenChange is addressing that impasse.
> 
> > The problem is that creating fully open source software to fill
> enterprise
> > niches is non-trivial and the best model of it so far I've seen is
> Samba.
> > The Samba team deserves some serious credit for the work they've
> done.
> 
> With SAmba the barriers have been first and foremost non-technical.
> Thanks to legal work in the EU the non-technical barriers have gone
> away, and now Samba development has changed nature dramatically. For
> Intrepid, there won't be a full Active Directory server. But there
> can
> potentially be two kinds of proxies in Intrepid (CIFS and AD) that
> will
> help stop companies making their internal borg bigger.
> 
> > On the off chance that anybody is good friends with Warren Buffett,
> see if
> > you can convince him to make significant investment into Yahoo  with
> strings
> > attached so that they will open source all of Zimbra. That would
> really
> > turbo charge this idea. Hey, it could happen.
> 
> Zimbra can only help in the rip-and-replace scenario, which is pretty
> rare in large corporates. Zimbra can't be dropped in to a group of
> Exchange servers, it can't natively interoperate with MAPI clients
> and
> existing MAPI infrastructure including backup tols, it can't be a
> MAPI
> client itself. In an Exchange infrastructure with thousands of
> mailboxes
> you have to commit to replacing all of the servers *and* all of the
> surrounding infrastructure.
> 
> I'm not against Zimbra, but I don't think it addresses the most
> common
> use cases involving Exchange in corporates.


I couldn't agree more with this. Whether we like ot or not, A lot of Microsoft technologies have become the (de facto) standard for long.

Every solution who tries to replace them with yet another solution, won't cut it far enoug. Whether that new soluion is proprietary or not, doesn't make any difference. Application compatibility is what it's all about, and Outlook is one of those killer apps people want to stick to. Zimbra's Outlook connector is good technology, but it remains an extra step.

Choices will only be viable when everybody speaks the same (MAPI) langue. The problem with standards is that there are too many to choose from.






        Serge

 Serge van Ginderachter          http://www.vanginderachter.be/ 

 Kreeg u een "odt" bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie http://ginsys.be/odf