OpenGroupware? -- not looking at the solution, only looking at vendor lock-in

[Bryan J. Smith]

Quoting Maarten Stolte <maarten.stolte at papuaos.org>:
> It's the mix of proprietary and open that I was referring to in my
> remark about its openness. The plugins for MAPI are indeed for both
> proprietary, so thats not really a difference. For kolab you can
> indeed only use specific ftp and ldap servers, but they are totally
> open.

The fact that they offer a MAPI solution should _not_ detract from the fact 
that it is, indeed, Freedomware at the core, as well as to other 
Freedomware/Standardware clients.  Furthermore, OpenGroupware is designed to 
work in conjunction with your existing OpenLDAP, MTA, etc...  Which makes it an 
ideal "standard package" from the standpoint of "least intrusive" (_unlike_ 
other solutions that "take over" your FTP, HTTP, MTA, etc... functionality).

It's just like Bynari's solutions.  They basically sell a MAPI "workaround" in 
their InsightConnector, which leverages an IMAP server (and allows it to store 
than just email over IMAP).  You can use whatever IMAP server you want, 
including InsightServer (which is rather "intrusive"), but you don't have to.

> Kolab doesn't do ftp+IMAP spefically, it can do specific things with
> ftp if needed for Outlook compatibility, but most is stored in IMAP. The
> formats that are used for storing it in IMAP are normal open calendar
> and vcard formats, so maybe the good outcome of this discussion can be
> that both are rather open?

Right.  The _only_ solution I know that allows you to store non-Email data over 
IMAP is Bynari's InsightConnector.

BTW, I think people forget that most of these MAPI-Outlook solutions have code 
that is _licensed_ from Microsoft, or a 2nd party on behalf of Microsoft.  As 
such, they can _never_ become Freedomware or even Standardsware.

The problem is the product, it's the Commerceware/Hostageware clients people 
_expect_ it to work with.  If you choose "vendor lock-in" as your enterprise 
solution (e.g., Outlook, IE, etc...), don't expect vendors to not take 
advantage of your willing to "pay" to get out of it.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.  mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org  http://thebs.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
[NT-based] Windows itself has never been the primary issue with
security.  Secure configuration of Windows prevents 98% of Windows
software from working properly, especially Microsoft's own.
Hence why a secure Windows is not an option for enterprises and
consumers alike, since it would prevent them from working.