Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

besson3c · Aug 21, 2005, 03:02 PM

I posted my general survey about some of the open source Exchange alternatives in this thread. I'd be happy to hear your input and feedback there.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss what Apple ought to do about the whole Groupware thing. Groupware is a very cool and useful idea, and it has been keeping many systems running Microsoft products. I think we can all benefit from a strong groupware product on the Mac, whether your entire system is run off of a particular mail server, or if you are able to cherry-pick particular groupware features in a very open way with a server. I'd assume that once such a solution exists, it will be a standard part of what is offered from any ISP that now offers IMAP based email.

Does Apple need to improve .Mac to make this its proprietary groupware solution, or should Apple work with open source projects like Hula?

Is the email client/web client/server integration the way to go?

Does Apple need to get into this business, or leave this to third parties?

Should this system be some monolithic take-it-or-leave it "thing", or should it consist of a bunch of interoperating open parts?

Should Apple be more prominent in pushing and developing open standards like GroupDAV, or take a more hands-off approach?

Would Apple benefit from work put into this area? Do people care? Would you like Groupware-type functionality? Do you know what Groupware is (i.e. do you know what you're currently missing?)

Y3a · Aug 21, 2005, 03:39 PM

Does Apple need to improve .Mac to make this its proprietary groupware solution, or should Apple work with open source projects like Hula?

-OPEN SOURCE! This is the best way to dislodge users from thinking about Brand names.

Is the email client/web client/server integration the way to go?

-YES!! parts exist already, but need to be a pure Web Application set that can interface with all the calanders, e-mail, contact, text edit, database sharing etc types of server based apps.

Does Apple need to get into this business, or leave this to third parties?

-Apple would do "OK" but as I suggested earlier, WEB BASED.

Should this system be some monolithic take-it-or-leave it "thing", or should it consist of a bunch of interoperating open parts?

-Parts you add on for a price.

Should Apple be more prominent in pushing and developing open standards like GroupDAV, or take a more hands-off approach?

-They need the skilled hands of Apple doing this so the 10 tumbs approach from MS won't be defacto.

Would Apple benefit from work put into this area? Do people care? Would you like Groupware-type functionality? Do you know what Groupware is (i.e. do you know what you're currently missing?)

I would like to log into a system (which knows MY security level etc) get my mail, submit changes to doc's, be involved in a VTC type discussion, make scribble type marks on a proposal for someone else to deal with, and edit a part of a proposal while others are ALSO editing different parts. ALL over the internet with a standard groupware browser app to be developed.

Oneota · Aug 21, 2005, 03:41 PM

Well, there's always FirstClass, but quality-wise, it blows goats (and badly, at that).

besson3c · Aug 21, 2005, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

Does Apple need to improve .Mac to make this its proprietary groupware solution, or should Apple work with open source projects like Hula?

-OPEN SOURCE! This is the best way to dislodge users from thinking about Brand names.

Agreed, but would this be a good return on investment for them? Would it bring more people to the Mac platform? Would Apple benefit in a tangible way? Those are probably the motivating factors and decisions for them in embracing an open source solution over .Mac.

Is the email client/web client/server integration the way to go?

-YES!! parts exist already, but need to be a pure Web Application set that can interface with all the calanders, e-mail, contact, text edit, database sharing etc types of server based apps.

-Apple would do "OK" but as I suggested earlier, WEB BASED.

Web application? Like a Java applet you'd access in your browser or something? Or, do you mean web based system? If it's a web based system, why is the answer to this question yes? If the system is based within a web browser, how would this integrate with an email client?

Should this system be some monolithic take-it-or-leave it "thing", or should it consist of a bunch of interoperating open parts?

-Parts you add on for a price.

A price? I thought you were advocating an open source solution? Confused...

besson3c · Aug 21, 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Oneota

Well, there's always FirstClass, but quality-wise, it blows goats (and badly, at that).

I"m weary of a paid solution that doesn't have a demo available on their site, and is proprietary to boot. They say that their directory services is their own "Firstclass". How can one be assured that this will work well? At least with something OpenLDAP based, we know what we are getting into.

They seem like a company that preys on naive Windows-centric administrators who can be attracted by a site with lots of techno buzzwords they don't really understand.

That is just my knee-jerk reaction, but of course I have nothing to base this on without a demo. If somebody here has a positive testimony about Firstclass, I'd be happy to shift my stance.

Oneota · Aug 21, 2005, 07:09 PM

We just migrated away from FirstClass at my institution (hence my assessment of its quality). It had its genesis on the Mac platform (during the System 6 days, if memory serves), but has never really embraced Mac OS X technologies. The development team has a definite "Windows-first, Mac-when-we-get-around-to-it" mentality. The directory services plugin was an add-on for version 8, and it requires a Windows server (and I doubt its Open Directory support is all that great).

It's pricey, proprietary, it doesn't act like a very good Mac OS X citizen. But it does allow shared calendaring, an address book that's available both from the client interface and the web interface, requires absolutely no client-side storage other than the disk space needed by the client app, provides shared mailboxes (known as Conferences), its own chat server....

We finally decided that Mac OS X's built-in mail server (extended to support shared mailboxes) was an okay solution for our environment, given how little of FirstClass's capabilities we were using and how expensive it was (and how cheap Tiger's mail server is).

Y3a · Aug 21, 2005, 07:39 PM

I was suggesting a Web based CLIENT, and a server part that was able to interface all that you wanted to share. you would buy the server side bits to customize your usage, like the email and databases, even to using a combo of winders and OS X and UNIX servers. You could use webDEV and Now-Up-To-Date & Contact, and CommuniGate Pro or kario and Excel, Word, FileMaker Pro and even DreamWeaver - all with interfaces so as to be accessible and multi-user accessed.

besson3c · Aug 21, 2005, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Oneota

We just migrated away from FirstClass at my institution (hence my assessment of its quality). It had its genesis on the Mac platform (during the System 6 days, if memory serves), but has never really embraced Mac OS X technologies. The development team has a definite "Windows-first, Mac-when-we-get-around-to-it" mentality. The directory services plugin was an add-on for version 8, and it requires a Windows server (and I doubt its Open Directory support is all that great).

It's pricey, proprietary, it doesn't act like a very good Mac OS X citizen. But it does allow shared calendaring, an address book that's available both from the client interface and the web interface, requires absolutely no client-side storage other than the disk space needed by the client app, provides shared mailboxes (known as Conferences), its own chat server....

We finally decided that Mac OS X's built-in mail server (extended to support shared mailboxes) was an okay solution for our environment, given how little of FirstClass's capabilities we were using and how expensive it was (and how cheap Tiger's mail server is).

Just out of curiosity, did you look at any of the other solutions I've listed? If so, I'm wondering what your impressions were?

besson3c · Aug 21, 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Y3a

I was suggesting a Web based CLIENT, and a server part that was able to interface all that you wanted to share. you would buy the server side bits to customize your usage, like the email and databases, even to using a combo of winders and OS X and UNIX servers. You could use webDEV and Now-Up-To-Date & Contact, and CommuniGate Pro or kario and Excel, Word, FileMaker Pro and even DreamWeaver - all with interfaces so as to be accessible and multi-user accessed.

So, you're suggesting a client that uses something like ODBC to retrieve the latest shared information from the server databases to provide a summary/overview, and an open protocol that would enable transport of information to the server from individual apps?

WebDAV is a means of connecting to a server (like AFP), but it is not a file format. So, in addition, common file formats would need to be developed to allow sharing with other apps. This is already emerging with calendar information, email mailboxes are already in a common format (mbox or Maildir), and Microsoft is moving to an open XML based document format. Filemaker can connect via ODBC, Dreamweaver/Contribute will generate HTML files that can be transferred, and Address Book content can be handled with vcards or CSV files (although there would need to be a common database structure).

Interesting idea... There are some new protocols which would need to be developed and ratified (e.g. tasks/to-do stuff), database structures that would have to be published in an open fashion for app developers to build their data around, etc.

Do you think it is likely that Apple would spearhead a project like this?

Oneota · Aug 21, 2005, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Just out of curiosity, did you look at any of the other solutions I've listed? If so, I'm wondering what your impressions were?

Nope; FirstClass was there when my coworker and I started the job, and we decided that our campus wasn't making enough use of the groupware features of FirstClass to make investigating anything other than a plain 'ol mailserver worth our time.

iXavier · Aug 21, 2005, 09:58 PM

What about Novell GroupWise?

It has a Mac client, a Windows client and a web interface, too. Plus, Novell has awesome servers and support, highly scaleable.

x.

spacefreak · Aug 21, 2005, 10:19 PM

Could you use and/or modify features of SugarCRM to accomplish some of the same functionality?

besson3c · Aug 22, 2005, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by iXavier

What about Novell GroupWise?

It has a Mac client, a Windows client and a web interface, too. Plus, Novell has awesome servers and support, highly scaleable.

x.

Do you happen to know how much the server costs? I didn't know that they had a Mac client!

theolein · Aug 22, 2005, 05:39 AM

http://www.opengroupware.org/ Open Source, written partly in ObjectiveC (GNUStep was the original dev platform), integrates with Exchange clients, web clients, Mac Mail etc, and could very probably be easily adapted to make more comprehensive clients on the Mac side including calandering etc.

besson3c · Aug 22, 2005, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by theolein

http://www.opengroupware.org/ Open Source, written partly in ObjectiveC (GNUStep was the original dev platform), integrates with Exchange clients, web clients, Mac Mail etc, and could very probably be easily adapted to make more comprehensive clients on the Mac side including calandering etc.

Yes, OGo was on my list of options I've explored, and this is the best option I've found to date...

Isn't it written in WebObjects though?

dcmacdaddy · Aug 22, 2005, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Do you happen to know how much the server costs? I didn't know that they had a Mac client!

Another vote for GroupWise from Novell. Current Mac client is at 6.5.4 but version 7.0 (client and server) is in beta. I've seen and briefly used the 7.0 Mac client and it looks good. Novell is working on full feature parity between the Windows and Mac clients--The mac client is missing some features, natch--and they will have almost achieved feature parity by 7.0. The server side can run on Novell NetWare, Windows 2003, and some Unix boxen. My organization moved from running it on NetWare servers to running it on Windows 2003 servers. It has improved reliability but I don't know if that is due to switching the OS or the fact they got all new servers when they moved to the Windows platform.