[clue-tech] Zimbra rocks

[David L. Willson]

> >>> 1) Zimbra is meant as a unique product which can replace Exchange, but it is not an
> >>> Exchange clone and does not attempt to replicate all of Exchange's features.
> >> I hadn't looked at it in a while.  Looking through the website, they 
> >> appear to have created "something nice" there, but...
> >>
> >> Pricing was horrible.  Many small companies would just go ahead and 
> >> continue paying the licensing for Exchange, if presented with Zimbra's 
> >> pricing.
> > 
> > Did you notice that there's a free version?  And that there are
> > different price-levels, depending on desired connectivity options?
> 
> Yep.  I figured businesses would want ALL of those connectivity options, 
> and be forced to the full-blown (very expensive) Network version.
> 
> I can't think of a business that doesn't want Crackberries involved in 
> the mix these days (at least for executives and management, if not for 
> everyone) and all that other "interesting" stuff.
> 
> Seemed like their matrix was carefully set up to take you right up the 
> ladder to the high priced end, if you were a "typical" business IT 
> person.  The low/free versions just seemed "dull".  Those versions could 
> be replicated with simple tools.

You ~definitely~ haven't tried it.  I am using the free version and it
is neither dull nor easy to replicate with simple tools.  This is NOT
just an IMAP and Squirrel setup.
> 
> Zimbra's value-add seems to be in the high end toys that are already 
> used heavily in the Exchange world.  They give you a way to run it on 
> another platform, and do things a *little* differently... but pricing 
> seemed about on par with deals that MS gives on Exchange for small business.

That seems appropriate.  I'm not sure your feelings on the price issue,
but I really don't think "it's cheaper" should always be our primary
source of value.
> 
> I don't like Exchange, and I really don't like Outlook, but they're 
> still doing things for me at work -- where I'm forced to use them -- 
> that no Linux/Mac/anything app has ever managed to catch up to and do as 
> simply.  Apple's tools are close, but being the second-runner, they 
> really need to flawlessly and natively integrate with Outlook to start 
> playing in Corporate space.  (In other words, they need to reverse 
> Microsoft's usual tactic of "embrace and extend"... out-do Outlook, but 
> start by copying it.)

Evolution does exactly that.  Copy Outlook, I mean.  And there are
products that clone, or attempt to clone, Exchange, but that wasn't what
I was looking for, or what I'd recommend.  I think it's important to
have a similar feature-set, but clones are always judged by how closely
they imitate what their cloning, rather than on their own merits, and in
case of Exchange/Outlook, that comparison will always go poorly for the
clone, until the clone achieves binary compatibility and Microsoft sues
the maker into non-existence.  Zimbra is an original and attractive
alternative to Exchange.  It happens to talk to MAPI, iSync, and
Blackberry Enterprise Server if you want to buy that feature-set,
otherwise, it just gives you an awesome feature-set within web-mail, and
compatibility with the usual set of Internet protocols.
> 
> Web-based stuff stinks (for those about to e-mail me that Google 
> Calendar is the best thing since sliced bread).

Why does web-based stuph suck?  Back in the day that was what we wanted.
Wasn't it Exchange & Outlook that gave us the impression that scheduling should be presented in a fat client?
What makes that rock and web-based suck?

You really ought to try the "boring" free version of Zimbra.  AJAX makes Zimbra rock hard.  :-)