Re: Suggestion for SME...

Hi,

Brad Hards wrote:
> I see e-smith as the events/actions/templates core. Everything 
 > else is  changeable. See http://www.e-smith.org/architecture/
 > and http://www.e-smith.org/concepts/

...seems to me like there _are_ different ideas on "what is e-smith?"
around... looking forward to seeing feedback from other people here.


>>I think that the gateway functionality is just a minor part in 
 >>the whole concept. (BTW: I think that for security reasons this
 >>is the component that should be the first one to be put on a
 >>different box in real world scenarios - which should be the case
 >>for most installations anyway (DSL-Routers...); it can be done
 >>very easily with another low end box running e.g. http://fli4l.de/
 >>(ISDN, DSL))
> 
> I tend to agree, except for my home network, where I want it all 
 > in one little (mini-ITX, say) box.

I perfectly agree on that: all in one box. As soon as you decide to
split this up into two boxes I'd rather take the gateway and firewall
function to another box and have e-smith do all the rest instead of
stripping e-smith down to its gateway function and setting up another
box to replace all the other functions of e-smith.


>>Extending the collaborative concept by a workgroup server would be 
 >>a great idea in my opinion.
> 
> We could, instead of the kolab approach, try eGroupware - 
> http://www.egroupware.org/ or another system

Personally I like solutions that give the user the chance to use a
standalone client over a web based solution. It's good to have an
optional web interface - but most users want to keep their client
application (which normally gives them a better user interface anyway).

Now I know neither kolab nor egroupware in detail. To me it looks like
eGroupWare (currently) only has a web based interface whereas
kolab (as you've mentioned before) tries to interoperate with outlook
seamlessly. I think it's much easier to convince people to change their
backoffice tools than to make them change their desktop tools.
Offering a solution with less capabilities makes it even harder.


>>There should not be many components missing, anyway - should there?
>>
>>Brad: did I get you right here: there are some the fileserver bits
>>missing in e-smith? Or does that read "these are the parts that are
>>missing in Kolab"
> 
> kolab has no fileserver (or gateway) functionality. The question is 
 > - would you rather add the groupware functionality to e-smith, or the
 > fileserver functionality to kolab?

IMHO only the first option should be discussed here. I wouldn't see, why
the second option is not a good idea - but this would simply not be the
right place to discuss this.


Regards, K.

-- 
  Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Klaus J. Mueller
  http://internet-sicherheit.net


--
Please report bugs to [email protected]
Please mail [email protected] (only) to discuss security issues
Support for registered customers and partners to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org