[selowitch]

Would Zimbra, with its iSync Zimlet, function like a free version of dot-Mac, and as such, would it be worth installing on a Mac OS X-client-only network?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Would Zimbra, with its iSync Zimlet, function like a free version of dot-Mac, and as such, would it be worth installing on a Mac OS X-client-only network?

Hey Selowitch,

I did a lot of research into Zimbra for our environment of about 130,000 users not too long ago, allow me to share some info I picked up along the way (some by talking to the Zimbra reps that I got a chance to speak to)...

Running any Groupware solution, including Zimbra, is expensive (in terms of resources required). How many users do you have?

Last I checked, the connectors (including iSync connector) were only available in the paid version of Zimbra, not the open source edition.

Zimbra is a MS exchange competitor. As such, it is a giant monolithic thing, and it is difficult to swap out individual parts to use for your environment. This means, you'd have to route all of your mail to the Zimbra store, and use this to replace any IMAP server you might already be using or running.

Zimbra uses a proprietary IMAP store, and according to the Zimbra reps I spoke with, this was written to accommodate the fancy indexing features they wanted to implement. As it stands, since our group decided to pass on Zimbra, I'm not sure what sorts of problems or maintenance issues might be associated with running Zimbra if you will be the sys-admin of the mail server.

Zimbra's feature set is extremely impressive, but there is a lot which needs careful consideration if you are planning to migrate to it (as there would be for any other mail system).


What features are particularly compelling to you? If this turns you off, perhaps we could recommend you something else to check out?

[selowitch]

Well, my needs are extremely modest. I'm looking for a solution at home for a family of three (soon to be four) and am too cheap to pay for .Mac. It's beginning to look like Zimbra is overkill for my needs. Mostly I just want to share my contacts and calendar across my home LAN, and I'd prefer to do so via iCal.app/AddressBook.app. I tried implementing an LDAP server (using Tiger client) but it was difficult and didn't work all that well.

*Sigh* So, I guess I'll have to spring for .Mac. Do I need multiple licenses, or can a family work off of a single account (ethically and legally speaking)?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Well, my needs are extremely modest. I'm looking for a solution at home for a family of three (soon to be four) and am too cheap to pay for .Mac. It's beginning to look like Zimbra is overkill for my needs. Mostly I just want to share my contacts and calendar across my home LAN, and I'd prefer to do so via iCal.app/AddressBook.app. I tried implementing an LDAP server (using Tiger client) but it was difficult and didn't work all that well.

*Sigh* So, I guess I'll have to spring for .Mac. Do I need multiple licenses, or can a family work off of a single account (ethically and legally speaking)?

You can publish your calendar to any WebDAV server today (including your own Mac), but others cannot write/make changes to your calendar they have subscribed to, as this won't be supported under iCal until Leopard using iCal Server. If this isn't a concern, this part is taken care of fairly easily.

You can download, compile, and install Apple iCal Server today by grabbing the source: Mac OS Forge if you are brave. The Chandler client will work with the CalDAV standard supported in iCal Server which you can use today, or wait until Leopard when the next version of iCal will include this support (and, presumably, work on iCal Server will be complete).

As far as sharing your Address Book contacts, this is also a feature promised in Leopard. There are utilities that will sync your contacts at the file system level, but you'll have to wait until Apple builds in the mechanism to publish these to a server.

The LDAP server will allow read only access to your contacts through a simple email client such as OS X Mail.

There are several web-based open source Groupware solutions, but they are probably overkill for what you need.


In short, your best bet is to learn how to publish to a WebDAV server in iCal, and to come up with some mechanism for syncing your Address Book contents at the file system level. There are GUI utilities you can download to do this, I believe, or use Unix rsync if you want more control, dont' mind not having a GUI, and/or don't want to pay a shareware fee (if applicable).

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You can publish your calendar to any WebDAV server today (including your own Mac), but others cannot write/make changes to your calendar they have subscribed to

Don't I know it! I have an account at Box.net - Free Online File Storage, Internet File Sharing, RSS Sharing, Access Documents & Files Anywhere, Backup Data, Share Files, which provides WebDAV and 1GB of space for free. I publish all my calendars to that and my family accesses it from each of their computers. Not a bad solution, since really I'm the only one motivated enough to maintain the calendars anyway.
Will Leopard, the shared Address Book and iCal Server make .Mac functionally obselete?

Originally Posted by besson3c

In short, your best bet is to learn how to publish to a WebDAV server in iCal, and to come up with some mechanism for syncing your Address Book contents at the file system level. There are GUI utilities you can download to do this, I believe, or use Unix rsync if you want more control, dont' mind not having a GUI, and/or don't want to pay a shareware fee (if applicable).

Could rsync keep two Address Books synchronized when both are being edited/changed at the same time?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Don't I know it! I have an account at Box.net - Free Online File Storage, Internet File Sharing, RSS Sharing, Access Documents & Files Anywhere, Backup Data, Share Files, which provides WebDAV and 1GB of space for free. I publish all my calendars to that and my family accesses it from each of their computers. Not a bad solution, since really I'm the only one motivated enough to maintain the calendars anyway.

Cool!

Will Leopard, the shared Address Book and iCal Server make .Mac functionally obselete?Could rsync keep two Address Books synchronized when both are being edited/changed at the same time?

It won't make .Mac obsolete, as one would still need to have access to a server running iCal Server. I think Apple's development of iCal Server (and their decision to open up the source code and make it freely available on the macosforge site they are running) is a political one - in supporting the CalDAV standard necessary for managing file locks necessary to facilitate multiple users writing to the same calendar, it helps move us closer to being able to replace Microsoft Exchange for this purpose. Of course, there are also other features that .Mac offers too (although I personally think they are overpriced).

With rsync you can schedule the syncing of this data as often as you like, but no, this won't happen in real time. It also isn't always safe to be pulling files in and out that may be being written to at that precise time.

You could use rsync to do an automated nightly sync, or sync on demand via a double-click of an icon.

[selowitch]

Should I consider downloading and installing iCal Server now, on my local LAN? Would it help me? I still wouldn't have two-way sync, would i?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Should I consider downloading and installing iCal Server now, on my local LAN? Would it help me? I still wouldn't have two-way sync, would i?

I'm not sure whether iCal Server is what Apple plans to use to provide support for Address Book syncing, but it is definitely clear that it will be used to allow multiple users to write to the same calendar file.

However, the only client right now that supports the GroupDAV protocol is Chandler. I suggest downloading Chandler and checking it out, and if you like it, try using it with iCal Server. I had no problems compiling iCal Server with an older version I downloaded and ran, but I didn't bother testing it much because Chandler seemed buggy at the time.