FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-03-2008, 08:14 AM
Serge van Ginderachter
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

----- "Dan Shearer" <dan@shearer.org> wrote:
> Actually when I re-read it, I wasn't lost, just confused about the
> implied goals :-) There's a very big difference between the use cases
> that involve keeping the MS desktop untouched and moving away from MS
> servers, and keeping the MS servers and moving the clients to
> Linux+Crossover/Wine. What would the goals be where one is a
> substitute
> approach for the other?

Sticking to the same protocols to leverage choice of applications?



Serge

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

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

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 09:00 AM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

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 profiles
> 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:
http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop_compatibility.html
http://www.zimbra.com/products/collaboration.html
http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html

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
Intrepid+1.

> 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@shearer.org

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 09:09 AM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 10:13:04AM +0200, Serge van Ginderachter wrote:

> 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.

The langue spoken by Outlook can be downloaded and compiled
today in a GUI client:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution/branches/EXCHANGE_MAPI_BRANCH/
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution-data-server/branches/EXCHANGE_MAPI_BRANCH/

This is built on libmapi from openchange.org. Openchange provides a
commandline client around the same library so you can access mailboxes,
back them up, send email (eg from a webapp), create a public folder etc.
Try it out for yourself. All using native protocols.

On the server side, and available for shipping with Intrepid if the
server team decide to do so, is mapiproxy.openchange.org. As you can
imagine, an effective proxy indicates a full understanding of the
server-side protocols so it is just a matter of engineering completion
to produce a full serverside solution. Openchange can be viewed as a
thin wrapper around existing FOSS.

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 11:20 AM
"Brett Alton"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, Brett Alton wrote:
>
>> I also got frustrated last summer when I had to rollout my new Dell
>> PowerEdge 2950 with a release (Feisty) that was only supported for 18
>> months because Dapper couldn't install properly on it. If 6.06.1 added
>> support for my new hardware then I would have been able to enjoy five
>> years of support, just like an IT manager would expect from their
>> server OS.
>
> Did 6.06.2 solve the problem for you?
>
> Scott K
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>

Sorry, I couldn't tell you. I'm now (happily) using 8.04 .

I'll take a look sometime soon and report back.

--
Brett Alton
brett.jr.alton@gmail.com

Do you really need to print this email? Help preserve our environment!

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 11:49 AM
Matt Darcy
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Brett Alton wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:52 PM, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu@kitterman.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday 02 June 2008 19:20, Brett Alton wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I also got frustrated last summer when I had to rollout my new Dell
>>> PowerEdge 2950 with a release (Feisty) that was only supported for 18
>>> months because Dapper couldn't install properly on it. If 6.06.1 added
>>> support for my new hardware then I would have been able to enjoy five
>>> years of support, just like an IT manager would expect from their
>>> server OS.
>>>
>> Did 6.06.2 solve the problem for you?
>>
>> Scott K
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-server mailing list
>> ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
>> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I couldn't tell you. I'm now (happily) using 8.04 .
>
> I'll take a look sometime soon and report back.
>
>
Scott,

6.06.2 solved some of the issues with some of the dell servers, not all,
and I don't believe (not fact) it resolved the issues with the HP or Sun
servers. Thats not quotable but my belief.

Matt.


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 12:03 PM
Matt Darcy
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Dustin Kirkland wrote:
>
>
>> As it happens there's a new set of opportunties and we aren't limited to
>> just aping wherever Microsoft has gone... but refusing to acknowledge
>> clear failings does not bode well for the bold new wave.
>>
>
> True--tons of new opportunities. Personally, I'm more interested in
> new frontiers than replacing Microsoft infrastructure as such Active
> Directory and Exchange servers. I think it would be great if Ubuntu
> were the default choice for Web 2.0 servers, such as wiki's, gobby's,
> pastebin's, streaming media, etc.
>
>
>> As to numbers... I think even if this is Bug #7346492, if people take
>> the content seriously it's going to be turning up in the mainstream
>> press and maybe even in Microsoft PR.
>>
>
> 2^2,079,460,347 perhaps? ... Strangely, this is also the telephone
> number of an Islington flat where Arthur Dent went to a fancy dress
> party, and met a very nice young woman whom he totally blew it with.
> ;-)
>
>
>> [chopped advice on going through the lp process. I'll study it and
>> probably just follow it as given. So far I have worked out that
>> Blueprint == MRD in enterprise speak.]
>>
>
> Right, "Blueprints" are equivalent to "Line Items" in IBM-speak. It's
> a loose suggestion of work that could be done. Note that the
> "Drafter", "Assignee", and "Approver" can all be different people.
> You can write a blueprint, approved by someone, and implemented by a
> third person (or team). Perhaps someone from Canonical will work on
> the item, or perhaps you or someone else in the community will run
> with it.
>
>
>> I get the feeling that if people just create content in launchpad it
>> gets ignored unless there was buyin in the first place... is that fair?
>>
>
> True. It sounds like the UDS->Blueprint->Spec process has been
> changed recently. Based on the sessions, discussions, and lessons
> learned at UDS Prague, we're rapidly writing Blueprints and Specs for
> the functionality we'd like to see make it into Intrepid.
>
> See the Intrepid schedule, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IntrepidReleaseSchedule
>
> Specification (Blueprints) are due by June 5th (that's Thursday). The
> powers that be will go through the submitted Blueprints and explicitly
> bless some of them for Intrepid.
>
>
>> Can you point me to anything online about these discussions, or should I
>> start blueprinting?
>>
> ...
>
>> I'll need some help working through the process. Thanks for your advice.
>>
>
> If I understand the process correctly, Blueprinting (and the
> corresponding Specs) should represent the results of discussions and
> sessions at UDS. At least that's the intention. I'd say you can
> start Blueprinting anything we discussed at UDS and you felt like you
> got some support behind. Understand that not ever Blueprint can be
> "approved" for the current release. Keep in touch with people in
> #ubuntu-server and #ubuntu-devel to make sure you're on the right
> track and not spinning your wheels.
>
> :-Dustin
>
>
It does seem that while a bug report may have spured this discussion ( a
good one may I add ) it would be a better idea to try to split the
points made here into seperate discussion/projects/blueprints. Launchpad
has the ability to create sub projects so I'd like to see at least some
of these issues put in a place where people can contribute and bring
them forward, there are certainly dicussion points on this thread that
have been in my head for a while as well as pointing focus at
alternatives and additional sub issues.

Matt.


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 12:18 PM
"Aaron Kincer"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

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@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 profiles

> 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:

http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop_compatibility.html

http://www.zimbra.com/products/collaboration.html

http://www.zimbra.com/products/desktop.html



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

Intrepid+1.



> 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@shearer.org



--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 12:37 PM
Luke
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

(I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail).
*
While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak) MS.*This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies.

*
Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do with ODF.

*
As far as the release schedule goes, I had a Brainstorm idea related to this topic.
*
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/8831/
*
It's a little lengthy, I know, but the summary is this: Cut Ubuntu's non-LTS support time to 6 months. This means a non-LTS release is only actively monitored while it is the current release. This would give more focus to development of "testing" and keeping the LTS stable AND up-to-date. Read the link for more details, and vote if you have an account.


*
On 5/30/08, Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org> wrote:
I have put some text for Bug 0 up at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Bug0#preview . I didn't get into the

solutions we worked on at UDS, thinking this is what bug report followup
comments are for and the body was already too long.

Edit away people, but please don't try to turn it into a classic bug
report. This bug has a different purpose :-)


Regards,

--
Dan Shearer
dan@shearer.org

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com

https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam



--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 04:00 PM
Mark Schouten
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote:
> (I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail).
>
> While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large
> businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak)
> MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux
> (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server
> management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be
> careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies.
>
> Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way
> as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on
> penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making
> our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration
> like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the
> benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we
> need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do
> with ODF.

I totally agree with this.

You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the
opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which
still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when
using a calendar..

People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within
Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others.

Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go
for the slower but safer approach..

Mark



--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 
Old 06-03-2008, 04:19 PM
Scott Kitterman
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 12:00, Mark Schouten wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote:
> > (I hope this works, this is my first reply in a mailing list (Gmail).
> >
> > While Linux might be picked up by new businesses, existing large
> > businesses will never migrate off MS unless we emulate (so to speak)
> > MS. This very well might be a futile effort. While I believe Linux
> > (Ubuntu especially) should continue to push into better server
> > management and technologies SIMILAR to MS, I think we should be
> > careful about focusing too much on MS-swappable technologies.
> >
> > Does that make sense? If we try to implement software in the same way
> > as MS, then we'll just be a Windows clone. We need to focus not on
> > penetrating existing large marketsby cloning Windoze, but by making
> > our product more competitive and functional (via easier administration
> > like web interface, for just one example) and by promoting the
> > benefits of open software and standards. Make MICROSOFT think "Man, we
> > need to write some linux-compatible software" like they're going to do
> > with ODF.

It's not clear to me that this will actually happen. If it does it's because
there are substantial markets that demand it. MS won't support ODF because
it's a good standard, they'll support it because they may get shut out of
contracts if they don't. Helping to shape policies that encourage standards
based acquisition is a really good thing for those who can. It's not what
Ubuntu is or can do. It's a different piece of the puzzle.

> I totally agree with this.
>
> You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the
> opensource stuff work. (Start with a working calendar-solution, which
> still isn't there, afaik). Try to get Evolution below 150MB memory when
> using a calendar..
>
> People aren't tied to Outlook. They're tied to their schedule within
> Outlook, to their addressbook which is shared with others.
>
> Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions. Go
> for the slower but safer approach..
>

But what this misses is that people aren't tied to Outlook, they are tied to
Outlook/Exchange. Trying to replace Outlook OR Exchange first is much easier
than trying to convince someone to replace the whole thing in one go.

Any transition strategy that starts out, turn off all your Exchange servers
and your Windows desktops with Outlook and turn on new Linux servers and
desktops is an obsolute non-starter. In areas where Microsoft is dominant
(and this is one) we need a co-existance/interoperability strategy to get
started so that later we can eat their lunch.

Scott K

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org