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))
> in one little (mini-ITX, say) box.
I tend to agree, except for my home network, where I want it all
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.
>>a great idea in my opinion.Extending the collaborative concept by a workgroup server would be
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
