Re: Kolab Now vs Kolab groupware
Geoff Nordli <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.kde.devel.kroupware |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <78999753-542d-0141-dbcf-7731f0554a28__48966.2889902078$1578288023$gmane$org@gnaa.net> |
Hi Mihai. comments inline. On 2020-01-05 1:47 a.m., MIhai Badici wrote: > > Hi Aleksander. >> >> I have been using Kolab as an e-mail server only. Probably about 15 >> years now with various installations for small businesses. I keep >> circling back every few years hoping I can replace Exchange Server. >> >> I think it would help if there was a clients page like we used to >> have on the 2.x wiki. >> >> https://web.archive.org/web/20070516081516/http://www.kolab.org/about-kolab-clients.html >> >> >> If it could list the different clients people are using and what the >> expectations are. >> >> If people are having success with Outlook we should be shouting from >> the rooftops. >> >> I will even volunteer to write it up. If people can send me what >> they have working, then I will put it in a document and we can post >> it somewhere. >> >> thanks, >> >> Geoff > > Hello Geoff > > I will wrote few words about "replacing Exchange Server" from my > experience. I joined this project with similar ideas ( in fact I first > started to build my own ldap-centric project because i wasn't aware of > kolab ) > > Replacing Exchange with ... exchange is neither an easy task :) I > recently migrated from 2007 to 2013 ( because there is no path to > migrate directly to 2016) and I had enough troubles to postpone the > migration to the current version few months in order to allow the > situation to stabilize( for example i discovered they used a public > folder and this feature was removed in next versions). There are a lot > of changes in exchange and outlook and the compatibility between > versions is poor. > > Now, about mail client: > > IMHO in a corporate environment is nearly impossible to remove > outlook. Even if you will find a better client, you will find someday > a stupid feature who is missing. But the real problem is to deploy the > client. Thunderbird work pretty well and it has plugins for each > feature you want. But can we deploy the plugins via group policy? > Never tried but it will be tough. And you will deploy Outlook anyway, > because you cannot avoid MsOffice. A corporation without powerpoint > is not a corporation, without powerpoint people will be forced to > work :) Yes, for most corporations they need Outlook. I work for small business clients (<25 desktops). Sometimes it is possible to get away from Outlook and use Thunderbird. They just want e-mail to work. Their Line of business apps don't require the use of Outlook. > > So there is only Outlook you can consider. I made some tests with > Outlook2010 in the past and seems to work well with ActiveSync. But I > didn't use it daily. Also there are plugins for caldav if you want to > use it with IMAP (here there is the same problem , you will need to > configure them one by one because the autoconfiguration is only about > the e-mail account). The newest versions of outlook are dificult to be > configured manually, I don't know, for example, how to force it to use > ActiveSync instead of IMAP via autoconf. The big pain here is the IMAP > implementation on Outlook is not always work flawless but it looks it > was improved in newest version. I wonder how motivated MS is to make IMAP work well. It seems it would be to their disadvantage for it to be flawless. I find the manual configuration of a client to not be a show stopper. If it takes me 5 extra minutes to configure a client, that is not a big deal. > > Now, about the features: > > I had a HTC corporate smartphone around 2008 running windows CE and > outlook. This years having ActiveSync with contacts and calendar was > "THE BIG THING". Everybody want it and I installed a lot of Windows > SBS with exchange precisely for this feature. > > Nowadays people with android smartphones are more or less forced to > use a google account and will syncronize the contacts with this one. > The big advantage is when you leave the company you will go with the > contacts, which is an unwrited law among corporate people :) . I > have enough installs of kolab servers with ActiveSync working well but > I know maybe two people who really use the address book. The one client I have just uses IMAP with their phones to connect. That seems to be working well enough for them. I assume the caldav/cardav sync should be more than enough. > > There is still the global agenda which is more or less useful. But the > only install I had where the global agenda was maintained properly ( > with phone numbers, at least, maybe photos) was one where I used > openldap on linux and I made a small "site" where the HR department > can upload/change those data. Here Active Directory is not an example > at all. I don't know HR people willing to use the AD MMC and you > cannot maintain GAL with IT department. Here we can do more with kolab :) > > The only important thing remaining seems to be the calendar. I use > dovecot for IMAP where seems to be difficult to use shared contacts or > calendars but in fact nobody want to manage multiple calendars. You > receive an invite and add it to your calendar. If you have an working > calendar ( with iRony on desktop and ActiveSync on mobile) will be > great and in fact it works. Having shared calendars for objects ( > conference rooms, cars, demo devices) will be also great and I think > it works with kolab ( i can't do it with dovecot) Isn't Cyrus the only option? When I look at other mail projects they are either using Sogo or Nextcloud for calendaring. I think part of the benefit of Kolab is having Contacts/Calendars built right into the mail server. Are you thinking different? > > Now, I think the most used new feature in Exchange is "skype for > business" . There is no big integration deal ( just having the same > account) but group calls are more and more popular. Here you will > need a solution if you want to replace Exchange. I spent lot of time > triyng to use ejabberd or openfire for xmpp but it look this is a dead > end . Probably using mattermost is the right way to do it. I used for > 2-3 years for a 20 users company RocketChat as conference solution. > This is a sort of "hipster-driven" server, their ldap implementation > is rather hilarious ( it need periodic sincronization, sort of offline > sync) and I was loosing the chat history at nearly every upgrade but > peoples where rather happy with this apps, working either from browser > or using a client . OK, I wasn't even thinking about conferencing. One client that wants chat I use Openfire and Jitsi. I am not thinking conferencing is that big of a deal. Is RocketChat the default conferencing engine for Nextcloud? I see that Nextcloud has a "talk/text/video" feature. I haven't checked it out yet. > > There are also some "small things" who can become more important than > the "big ones". You can't use "sieve filters" with outlook. When using > Exchange ( or any other groupware) you will need to create filtering > rules on the server. ATM, you can do that only using roundcube. There > is a sieve plugin for thunderbird but it require sieve syntax > knowledge so it is unusable anyway. The most stupid missing feature is > the ability to set vacation messages ( you can do it from roundcube > because it is a sieve filter too but nobody will search for this > feature in the "filters" tab). One of my most successful solution was > to rename this tab "autoresponder and filters" :) Anyway , we will > need an user friendly sieve outlook (and thunderbird) plugin . yes, that is a pain. If people are doing an OOF, they actually contact me and I do it for them. It is not ideal. > > As I said, Microsoft removed the "public folders" feature in Exchange. > It was, indeed, a wrong way to use file sharing. That's why I prefer > to use the owncloud integration: sharing files is a different thing, > there are different product implementing it; but is nice to have the > possibility to attach those files. I have webdav owncloud implemented > for one customer, it works pretty well now but is not so popular. But > maybe for larger companies could be useful. I am not deploying nextcloud for the few clients that needs file sharing. It seems to be working well. > > > Well, it was pretty long. Maybe I missed things but the fact is the > major issues are solved but the devil is in the details.. > > Mihai The devil is always in the details that is why we need to have a public discussion on what is working and what isn't working. If you set proper expectations then people are happy. I put together a document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UtZXATe_qRw1UJWluT9ABq6hkd4OcoBf33bjZ7o6sXc/edit?usp=sharing I am hoping we can expand on this and offer some configuration options too. Geoff _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.kolab.org/mailman/listinfo/users