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, 05:03 PM
Mark Schouten
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 12:19 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > 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.

True.

> 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.

I think the power of linux is the openess and the use of open standards.
Trying to conform to non-standard solutions like the solutions from
Microsoft instead of building a platform based on open standards will
not be a solution. More and more governments request stuff to be built
on open standards. Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux'
based on the Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones.

Try to make a full Linux environment work first, or where else would you
want people to migrate to.

(There is no solution like Exchange in Ubuntu, even if you use Linux
clients)

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, 05:31 PM
"Aaron Kincer"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux'

based on the Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones

Is supporting Outlook functionality and providing open standards mutually exclusive? Somehow, I doubt you will be very successful making that argument.


*

Try to make a full Linux environment work first, or where else would you

want people to migrate to.
If you don't meet some basic expectations, people will NEVER migrate. "You want clustered mail servers that offer shared calendaring to thousands of people? Let me introduce you to this instead . . ."


Good luck with that. Identify what matters to enterprise users, provide the same or better facilities in Linux and then you are on your way.

Migration of platforms should not involve compromising on features.




--
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, 06:41 PM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 06:00:49PM +0200, Mark Schouten wrote:

Good comments. I'll answer at length, because I can use the text
elsewhere :-)

> On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 07:37 -0500, Luke wrote:
:
> > (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.
:
> You should not focus on how to copy M$. You should focus on making the
> opensource stuff work.

Absolutely 100% the way I see it too. So long as there's understanding
about what the real protocols involved actually are, and where the
opportunties are to do new and radically useful things. And about how
long and how much effort it takes for a new communications mechanism to
become suitable for large-scale use, and become acceptable for
large-scale use (the answers are: a long time, and a lot of effort :-)

To address a very common area of concern first, there are two important
protocols Microsoft uses that free software doesn't have any better *or*
pragmatically useful alternative to:

* CIFS for file and resource-related tasks (not AD.)

Comments: Linux doesn't have any networked filesystems that are even
close to as functional as CIFS, nor are there any relevant
standards, nor is there any chance of a from-scratch effort
succeeding in finite time. There are some interesting experimental
network filesystems in Linux, but they don't pass the 'pragmatically
useful' test in that you can't put someone else's terrabytes on them
right now nor does anyone seem interested in making that possible.
The fact that the most functional Unix <-> Unix filesystem also
happens to be the only fully-functional filesystem for Windows
clients is helpful. But for practical purposes today on any ordinary
network, you get more functionality for less work with CIFS. And,
interestingly, free software is leading the charge in some areas as
CIFS is developed; Microsoft is learning from Samba how to do
clustered CIFS, for example, which turns out to be a lot better than
clustered NFS. And SMB2 shows promise of being a collaborative
effort, with a community ready to participate who have already
gathered around Samba as Microsoft obeys the regulators and lets the
engineers collaborate on taking SMB2 forward. Microsoft sent its
most senior CIFS engineers to the SambaXP conference and they were
actively participating.

* MAPI over MSRPC for Exchange-type groupware.

Comments: This is a Microsoft protocol, and it delivers unique
benefits compared to anything in RFC space (if you don't count the
Notes protocol, which you shouldn't.) The unique benefit comes from
something that RFC standards in calendaring and email can't match by
their very design: every object in a MAPI store is considered a
groupware object, and is acted on by the same operations. RFC
standards by contrast have no concept of groupware and nothing you
can do in software will truly smooth that over. There are very
different operations for mail and calendaring and the servers are
very different. When you want another kind of MAPI object, you just
create it, and all existing clients and servers can use it.

There is also one special case of a truly bad protocol that nevertheless
we have to implement well in free software, and that is Active
Directory. No matter that AD is a corrupted melange of
LDAP/Kerberos/DNS/MSRPC/more, its ubiquity means that it is a
requirement for success on most of today's networks behind the firewall.
That's another story and I won't go into it here, but AD is an
essential. A bit like FAT filesystem support or Frontpage extensions in
their day, this is something we just have to do in order to develop
better and better solutions. And here I am on the Ubuntu Server list,
which was the OS that first included likewise-open; take a bow, people.
You truly get it :-)

> Please do not try to copy M$, including their non-standard solutions.

Relax, we're not :-) I wrote a paper in 1998 and presented it in Paris
in 1999 on "How to Replace Windows NT with Linux" that started with
using standard protocols for everything possible. The people in the
Samba and OpenChange teams who deal with this stuff every day really do
understand the value of open standards.

So, with OpenChange, have a look at *how* we're implementing the very
useful MAPI protocol. Oh yes, we're doing it compatibly. We talk to
Exchange and Outlook natively. But look deeper: the MAPI layer is a thin
disguise over well-known OSS components underneath. In the tradition of
unix tools, we're assembling known-reliable bits and glueing them
together. Bits that are the better for being used like this, but not
tied to openchange in any way. With Samba, when the CIFS protocol needed
extra Unix features, it got them. With MAPI, when we want to do better,
we will. First we want to get the Linux world to parity in groupware,
then we'll do what we always do and keep making it better.

If you're familiar with programming, come and give us a hand at
openchange.org. There's plenty to do that doesn't require specialised
knowledge.

I could say somewhat similar but different things about Samba, but my
dinner is calling me so I won't just now :-)

> Go for the slower but safer approach..

In the three areas I have highlighted, there is no such approach. In
other areas, very interesting areas, progress is neither slow nor at
times particularly safe! For example, point-to-point protocols, and
anonymous systems, and vastly distributed computing. And modern kinds of
virtualisation, and amazing new on-disk filesystems, and even a 3D open
source printer whose goal is to be able to print itself. It's a fun time
to be in technology and no, Linux doesn't need to bow and scrape to any
other OS.

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
 
Old 06-03-2008, 06:56 PM
Dan Shearer
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:03:45PM +0200, Mark Schouten wrote:

> I think the power of linux is the openess and the use of open standards.
> Trying to conform to non-standard solutions like the solutions from
> Microsoft instead of building a platform based on open standards will
> not be a solution. More and more governments request stuff to be built
> on open standards.

All this is good and true.

As per previous (and I'm sorry if people get tired eyes before they get
to the end!) we have to acknowledge where there are *no* effective
formal standards from the IETF or anyone else, and go with the very good
solutions we have in order to make it even better. The fundamental point
is that mail and calendaring RFCs can't deliver what hundreds of
millions of people expect from their groupware experience, especially if
you include the non-mail non-calendaring components. I do know about
Mozilla Lighening and so on, but that isn't even close to seamless
groupware as all those hundreds of millions of people know it (and, I
should say, use effectively.)

Thankfully, and recently, the three protocols I highlighed in the last
mail have become open.

> Were will we be when we've built 'Exchange for Linux' based on the
> Microsoft standards, instead of the open ones.

There aren't any open ones that can help... but I already said that. I
can't imagine what Exchange for Linux would look like, pretty horrible I
think! But a Linux server that uses an SQL server, an LDAP server, a
fast filesystem, a Samba server, a DNS server, an SMTP server and many
more to be a backend for a new server that talks MAPI... that's where we
will be and I think the view will be stunning :-)

> (There is no solution like Exchange in Ubuntu, even if you use Linux
> clients)

Working on it, working on it. Intrepid timeframe will see the clients
and some server components (try them out today!) Intrepid+1 timeframe
should see most of the rest of the server components.

--
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 06-05-2008, 09:49 AM
Malcolm Yates
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

On Tuesday 03 June 2008 09:05:29 Serge van Ginderachter wrote:
> ----- "Brett Alton" <brett.jr.alton@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am an Ubuntu user (both desktop and server platforms) and I want
> >
> > to
> >
> > > give my point of view. When I install a server with LTS I want to be
> > > able to update bugs found in the software for the whole LTS-period.
> >
> > If
> >
> > > I install a new server (with fresh hardware) in the middle of an
> > > LTS-period I want to be able to use the last released LTS-release
> >
> > and
> >
> > > upgrade drivers to support my new hardware that was not supported
> >
> > when
> >
> > > the LTS-release was first released. I do not want to install a
> >
> > normal
> >
> > > release just because the LTS-resease didn't support my hardware at
> >
> > the
> >
> > > release time (when for example my hardware was not manufactured
> >
> > yet).
> >
> > That makes a lot of sense. Almost all server users want to use the LTS
> > version as their needs for the absolute latest and greatest is not as
> > pressing as a desktop user's but the need for support is much higher.
> >
> > Only releasing LTSes might be a bit of a stretch (6.06 -> 8.04 ->
> > 10.04) but if the point releases had more meaning behind them, like
> > Anders said, supporting newer hardware, then releasing only LTSes
> > might make more sense.
> >
> > This becomes more apparent when you realize that developers are
> > supporting up to four (!) releases at the same time. Currently
> > (Dapper, Feisty, Gutsy, Hardy). By the next LTS it will be five (!!)
> > releases (Dapper, Hardy, Intrepid+1, Intrepid+2, Intrepid+3 LTS) [see
> > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/ubuntu-release
> >-cycle.png and then remember that Dapper is supported until
> > 2011-06]. If they only released LTSes with major point upgrades then
> > they would have to handle three releases at maximum.
> >
> > That sounds easy to me.
>
> Let me throw in some post of a CentOS guy (Dag Wieers) which (rightfully, I
> think) points out some of the difficulties about supporting releases during
> a lot of years.
>
> http://dag.wieers.com/blog/ubuntus-need-to-catch-a-wave
>
> Now, I'm not sure what the point of this article exactly was, so I can't
> say I agree with the general tence of it, but let me repeat I just mention
> this article as extra info in this thread. He does put his finger on what
> is needed when one wants to support servers for enterprise environments.
>
It may be 'difficult' to support long term, but ask any business that relies
on IT ( and I believe that is pretty much all of them these days ;-) and
making then test and deliver on very short cycles is just not possible.

Ask the same of any business built around delivering applications, and they
will give the same answer !

Malc

>
>
>
>
>
> 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 - Linux for Human Beings
http://www.ubuntu.com http://www.canonical.com
-------------------
Looking for a Linux Server, desktop or virtual appliance base OS ?
Ubuntu 8.04 LTS is perfect for all three
Grusse/Cordialement/Saluti/Saludos/Med Venlig Helsning/Saygilarimla
Office : +44 (0) 207 630 2440
Fax : +44 (0) 207 630 2401
Mail : Canonical Ltd, MillBank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP UK
-------------------

--
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 06-06-2008, 03:12 PM
"James Dinkel"
 
Default Bug 0 review pls

(sorry mdy, I did not mean to send that last email directly to you, oops)

I believe we can learn a lot from Microsoft here with their motto of
"embrace, extend and extinguish".

In regards to the Outlook/Exchange issue, I think this means: First,
we have to come up with a server that can be a drop-in replacement to
Exchange with full mapi support. Users should not be able to tell any
difference, and all features though Outlook should work with this
replacement (Openchange) as well as Exchange. BUT, this is only a
means-to-the-end, and not the end itself. Once Exchange is usurped,
the server can be extended with open protocols that will work equally
well with other groupware clients such as Thunderbird-w/Lightning or
Evolution.

So, while I personally would prefer to use an open standards
alternative to MAPI, I think the only way to get to that point is by
first mimicking MAPI and then extending it with an alternative open
standard.

Also, while I'm on groupware (though I think we could employ "embrace,
extend and extinguish" to much more than just groupware... server and
workstation management and administration for example), I think
Zimbra's usuability is pretty awesome and I personally prefer their
cached desktop "web" client (mainly for the "one interface to rule
them all" factor, which keeps uses from getting confused). There logo
thing doesn't even really bother me either. HOWEVER, I really hate
the fact it installs it's own version of Apache, Postfix, etc. I
would much prefer being able to install Apache, Postfix, etc from the
repo and then install Zimbra on top of that standard stack. This is
why I like eGroupware better, but it is ugly and bloated, so I'm
really looking forward to Tine2.0.

James

--
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 10:04 PM.

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