> One of the issues mentioned was a replacement for Exchange. Of
> course, Exchange is more than e-mail, it is an entiregroupwaresystem
> and simply dropping in an IMAP system would garner a negative
> response, I think, unless your users *only* use the e-mail part of it.
> One system I know of is Hula. This is agroupwareproject, perhaps a
> bit more like Lotus Notes than exchange, but I am not sure how
No, it isn't anywhere even close to what Exchange or Lotus Notes
offers; Hula is also effectively defunct. Both Notes and Exchange
offer vast amounts of functionality, it is a question of what
functionality you need or your users expect. It is very important to
remember that because you do not need the features of product A it
does not make product's A and B the same - it just means you don't
need to features of product A. Remembering this will help you keep
your arguments credible. In order to be the guy who makes a
convincing case for Open Source the first thing you have to avoid is
being the guy who finds MySQL 100% satisfactory for his needs... so he
runs around comparing it to Oracle and DB2 (especially if he is not
trained in, and maybe has never even used, Oracle or DB2).
> development has progressed lately.
Novell isn't committing resources to it anymore.
> The website appears down right
> now, but here is Novell's page about it:http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/Hula
> Citadel is another very good-lookinggroupwaresuite. I like how it
> installs with the modules, but keeps them disabled, allowing you to
> turn on the ones you actually want.
Citadel is a very nice system. Both it an OpenGroupware (http://
www.opengroupware.org), the system I use and hack on, also support the
GroupDAV standard which opens up the possibilities of local clients.
OpenGroupware also supports WebDAV and CalDAV. Citadel may as well,
I'm not as familiar with its features.
An essential feature of a REAL groupware solution - separating
groupware from web-based/collaberative PIMs - is that real groupware
is very much a *platform*. You build upon it, using its scheduling,
contact management, and workflow facilities in your applications,
processes, and intranet. With groupware you create a solid foundation
for integrated applications (which is what users like and smart users
expect). Groupware helps you avoid creating silos when you have
application X over here and database Y over there, and probably CMS Z
over yonder for you intranet/extranet. Silos eat productivity,
frustrate users, and eventually lead to management buying Exchange &
Sharepoint. I am 100% pro-Open-Source and I am the chief admin for a
multi-state hundreds-of-users corporate network built on OpenLDAP,
Bind, Samba, OpenGroupware, etc.. so I am NOT dissing Open Source when
I say this --- but Open Source can be the garden path to a confused
infrastructure with myriad silos and disparate niche apps everywhere.
Not nearly enough attention has been paid to this issue and making a
quality smooth-running Open Source corporate network takes a real
willingness to get into the technologies; I think LJ and most of the
articles that take up this issue glide right over some very serious
issues.
> One application that looked especially good in hte _LJ_ issue was
> Win4Lin, allowing you to deliver windows applications to desktops
> runningLinuxuntil you are able to migrate or replace that application.
I think you'll find using such techniques with average users on
average hardware will yield unsatisfactory results.
> I would also work on the backend systems first. (I think someone said
> somethignt to this effect). Do easy things like printing and file
> servers.
Yes. And if your backend services are crap, then no matter what you
put on the desktop the end-user experience will suck.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
