[clue-tech] Zimbra rocks

[Nate Duehr]

David L. Willson wrote:

> 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.

But I don't see any *compelling" feature that would drive me to wanting 
to tear apart my personal IMAP setup.  And there's zero chance 
(literally zero) that the large corporation I work for would switch to 
it... so it's just a "interesting side investigation" for me, 
personally.  If I were setting up a new small biz, I'd certainly be 
happy to try it.  Additionally, I would think that a hosting company 
might make a killing selling hosted Zimbra... maybe.  Most companies 
don't want outsourced e-mail, yet.

> 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.

Agreed.  I'm not debating that.  Free is not always better.  Otherwise 
none of us in the industry would be getting paid.  (Case in point: 
There are free videoconferencing solutions, but sitting down in one of 
my company's fully-integrated videoconferencing rooms and talking to 
people without having to mess with it, is nice.  No, I'm not pushing any 
products here... the rooms are multiple thousands of dollars. 
Interestingly many of the components of the room run Linux under the 
hood.  But they're "appliances", not something you connect to a 
command-line and diddle with.  Linux really has come into its own in the 
embedded marketplace.)

> 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.  

Heh... yep.  In another forum earlier this week I had to explain to 
someone that their "XYZ evil company holds all the patents on this 
technology to keep people from making new ones" didn't hold much water. 
  You see patents busted every day... the trick is to make a product 
that makes so much money while you're busting the patent, that the 
lawyers can later agree to a settlement.  (RIM/Blackberry being an 
excellent example of how the strategy works.)  Some people may find that 
a crude way to do business, but it's done all the time.

> Why does web-based stuph suck?  Back in the day that was what we wanted.

I never did.  Web browsers are horrible UI's and always have been.  We 
keep slapping stuff on top of them to make them into desktop tools, but 
you can still break most stuff (or at least have to wait 10-20 seconds 
for a full screen refresh) by just hitting the back button, no matter 
how smart the dang UI tools running inside the browser are.  I'll take a 
well written, well-layed-out real binary UI that talks to a server any 
day of the week over a web-based one.

> 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.  :-)

AJAX is one of those examples of stuff slapped on top of web browsers to 
make them into UI's.

Nate