[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: OpenGroupware? -- OGo = iCal server, university viewpoint,software cat, FUD v. ORTS v. CIN ...



On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 13:56, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> So are you suggesting that Red Hat take one direction because it is
> the only direction feasible (in your view) at the moment?  Even when
> that direction will require changing the standard bundled ftp server,
> changing the standard bundled imap server, and forsaking every mail
> client currently included in the distribution in the process?

That is my view.

But to back up my view, the UF study also quoted the University of
Maryland:  

   "The most important thing the university should be doing is looking
    for a strong back end, with the expectation that within a couple of
    years, the Internet calendaring standards will have been
    incorporated into all products..." 

The university studies are not just significant, but they are some of
the _most_ significant ones.

Why?  First off, shared calendaring is something they have had for
_decades_!  And time isn't the only factor, it's the _number_ of people
connected!  We're talking hundreds to thousands over a large campus. 
Terminals connected to Open Systems (e.g., UNIX), etc...  Now they are
faced with endless departments running their own, segmented solutions.

Most are looking for the "hoil grail," the combination of a
standards-based server, with thin clients as well as fat clients too!

Hence why they are coming to a common denominator now ... iCalendar. 

iCalendar thin clients are already here.
And more/complete iCalendar fat clients being added every day.

> I've got to disagree that a plugin for the Evolution / Kolab is more
> logical than making Evolution 'just work' with OGo.  It's much more
> logical to make Evolution work with the established standards that OGo
> implements than have some weird plugin required to make it work with
> Kolab.

Exactomundo.

Before a solid, _featured_ back-end, I met Ximian "half-way" with
regards to their Connector.  I mean, if companies are going to run with
Exchange Hostageware, they might as well push a little of that dough to
Ximian for their Commerceware Connector.

But with a solid iCalendar scheduling and WebDav storage collaboration
server in OGo, I don't see this being a good excuse anymore.

> Why the hell should we be required to *need* a plugin to make a
> FREE SOFTWARE mail client work with a FREE SOFTWARE collaboration
> suite?  That makes no sense when a standards based Freedomware
> collaboration suite is available and all that remains is modifying
> Freedomware clients to work with those established standards.  Then you
> get the bonus that those clients will also work with other *standards
> based* collaboration suites out there (current or future) without the
> need to write some plugin to connect each client / server combination.

Exactomundo.

A lot of people like to bash Apple, but I've gotta say, they've really
"turned it around" in recent years.

You need look no further than MacOS X's Rendevous, an extensive IETF
Zeroconf implementation.

Add in the iCalendar support in its tools, an 100% LDAP-focused server
and client, etc... and Apple's really showing what a Standardsware
platform _can_ do.

[ Side Note:  And given the fact that an Apple notebook is really no
more "proprietary" than most PC notebooks these days, combined with the
fact that BIOS vendors and Microsoft are in cohorts, I think PPC-MacOSX
is the way to go for a portable system rather than a PC notebook running
Linux. ]

> As has been stated in this thread, the bastardized ftp/imap calendar
> implementation is unlikely to be implemented by other Freedomware
> (thanks for the better terms, Bryan)

I try.  I need to update the terms with a new, and better article, but
here is my original WebLog post here:  
 
http://www.smithdot.net/display.php?category=freedom&article=categorizingsoftware.txt


I also have introduced some terms that are more descriptive than FUD for
some items, although FUD should still be used where appropriate.
- ORTS (Outside Reality, Technically Speaking)
- CIN (Confusion, Ignorance, Naivity)

FUD is bad, but it is not libelous or slander.  FUD is a common
marketing tactic.

ORTS is borderline or actual libel or slander.  It's statements that are
absolutely false, but try to cater to popular view.  E.g., Microsoft's
statements on the GPL.  Many times ORTS can backfire.  Again,
Microsoft's comments on the GPL.  ;-ppp

CIN is typically committed by the innocent.  Many times it is FUD or
ORTS relayed by the "less familiar."  Other times it is just the
proliferation of a popular, but very incorrect or at least debateable
issue, as fact.

> in the near, or even distant future.  The standards based calendaring
> features used in OpenGroupware, however, ARE likely to implemented by
> other email/collaboration clients since they are standard.

Again, I reference the University studies.

> If you haven't figured it out yet, Red Hat rarely, except in a few
> rare, relatively non-disruptive cases, takes a path that it going to
> make changes harder later down the road just to get something out the
> door.  Personally, I like that about the company, and hope it never
> changes with respect to that quality.  It's refreshing in the
> just-get-it-out-the-door mentality of most software companies today.

People daemonize Red Hat far too much.

Or they daemonize companies that release older versions of their
software as Freedomware.

Heck, in many cases, companies that do such end up going 100%
Freedomware in the end.  The Freedomware release is typically either a
"test" or a "transistion" to see if the business is sustainable.

E.g., MySQL AB, TrollTech, etc...


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.  mailto:b j smith ieee org  http://thebs.org





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]