Bug 0 review pls
kincera at gmail.com
Tue Jun 3 12:18:15 UTC 2008
The connector has an MSI package, so you can push it out and configure it
without any hands on with the client.
Drop-in solution would be a better phrase. Part of that solution is some
reconfiguration and installation albeit automated.
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Dan Shearer <dan at shearer.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 10:48:03PM -0400, Aaron Kincer wrote:
> > By the way, I'm not sure what you mean by "modify their client Windows
> > machines", but with Zimbra, you don't have to modify. Reconfigure, maybe.
> > But you don't even have to touch a machine. You can create Outlook
> > and push those out with login scripts or via GPO (I believe).
> I keep hearing "Zimbra is a drop-in replacement for Exchange that
> requires no modification on the client side." Read zimbra.com to see
> how this is false:
> Those three links between them list all the possible ways that a client
> can communicate with a Zimbra server: via web, RFC protocols or their
> special, proprietary Outlook connector installed on every Windows client
> machine. And the only way Outlook gets calendar sharing etc from Zimbra
> is with that connector. Other such connectors exist, quite a few
> actually. The thing they all have in common is that their existence is
> required because the server can't talk MAPI over MSRPC.
> Your assertion "you don't have to modify" is not one Zimbra can or do
> make, although I'm sure they would dearly love to be able to.
> That story could potentially change if Zimbra start to incorporate
> openchange code, which unlike anything from Zimbra or its equivalents,
> can indeed speak native MAPI. However Zimbra so far has shown they don't
> want to be a drop-in replacement, being wedded instead to the idea that
> they can replace Outlook with a webapp. I wish them luck but I don't
> think they'll get the success they are hoping for that way.
> Some Zimbra customers are happy to install a protocol convertor on all
> Windows machines in order to move away from Exchange servers. That's
> nice for them.
> That's also the problem that openchange.org addresses. Some of that will
> be shippable with Intrepid, the rest should be shippable with
> > I'm not pimping Zimbra, I just don't think your assertion of complex
> > barriers is accurate.
> Here is my assertion:
> Zimbra has no technological distinction over many other groupware
> solutions aimed at Exchange: it can't speak MAPI over MSRPC and that
> means it can never interoperate natively with Outlook or Exchange
> to deliver the groupware features .75 billion people rely on for
> their businesses (big number courtesy of Dodgy Bros Gartnerquest :-)
> Zimbra has put a lot of effort into polish and making it easy to deploy.
> I give them all credit for that.
> > To put it simply, there is a clear and manageable migration path from
> > Exchange to Zimbra if one is willing.
> The level of willingness required is not one that most companies wish to
> be a coalition of, in my experience. If you know how to persuade
> companies to switch en masse, please tell us! Getting companies to move
> away from Zimbra will be a lot easier than getting them to switch away
> from Exchange :-)
> Dan Shearer
> dan at shearer.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ubuntu-server