[CentOS] Re: Using CentOS as a file server on a win2K domain -- nothing to do with alternatives

[Les Mikesell]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 14:55, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> [ We really need to take this off-list ]

I think we're done - I was just hoping that someone would jump
in and say they were using Evolution with Exchange2000 and verify
what works or doesn't on the scheduling side.

> > But I gave up on it because it didn't interoperate with
> > OutlookXP 
> 
> Are you starting to understand why I call it "Hostageware"?

Yes, I do understand that, but I don't see you listing
a big set of other interchangable clients/servers.  I'm
even less interested in being a hostage to some other
product that does not allow mixing clients and servers.

> Some of it is intentional.  Some of it is sloppy, non-aligned
> x86 programming (e.g., MS Office for Windows -> Mac, ask some
> of the developers of the Mac suite what they think of their
> counterparts on the Windows version ;-).

I also didn't see you mention any bug-free alternative. I pointed
out that when I was testing Evolution it didn't work right even
on its own.  Admittedly that was a version or two ago and I haven't
tried the reminder notifications lately.

> Scheduling has been done before Windows, after Windows with
> non-Microsoft tools, after Windows NT/95 with non-Microsoft
> tools and all-of-the-sudden, Exchange/Outlook appears, and
> people think it's the only thing.

No - but none of the earlier ones worked with free or other
vendor's clients either.

> Maybe you used Groupwise (which was an issue early on) and
> that's why.

Yes, we did have that here long ago, and yes that's probably
why everyone likes outlook by comparison now.

> > I'm not at all a fan of Microsoft but outlook2003 basically
> > works. 
> 
> And many other solutions work very well.
> The question is that are you willing to look at them?
> Or are you insistent that they must work with the latest
> Outlook version?

Outlook isn't going away here, so I am only interested in something
that will interoperate, preferably without needing windows on my
own desktop.  However I'd like to know about alternatives in case
I'm ever in the position of setting a system up from scratch
again, and in particular I'd like to know if there is anything
fully standards compliant to the point that there are 2 or more
servers that can replace each other without touching the clients
and likewise two or more clients that can be used alternatively
against the same server without losing any functionality.  Without
that you still have the same degree of lock-in even if the price
is less.

> > Exchange2000 is supposed to be much better too,
> 
> Man, re-read that.  ;->

That was regarding the web client which I don't care much about.

> > Microsoft bugs have caused enough trouble for me in the
> > past that I'll never be pro-Microsoft, but I'm trying to 
> > stay vendor-agnostic on this issue.
> 
> Actually, I would say you're very much vendor-aligned.
> What you're expecting is Freedomware/Standardware to be
> Microsoft-aligned, not vendor-agnostic.

When someone shows me the scheduling server that can be
transparently replaced with a different type because both
use only standard protocols this argument will mean something.

> E.g., I don't think Ford is useless because they don't
> provide parts that work on Chevy's.

I just want them to drive on the same road.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell at gmail.com