On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, David Nalley wrote:
> 2009/3/1 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > What are your concerns about ogo stagnation? Does sogo have more
> > momentum or is it just a new fork?
> >
>
> I see the following potential things which lead me to believe that OGo
> is stagnated or close to it:
> September of 2007 appears to be the last time the website was updated for OGo.
> The -users list had 36 messages in February, 16 in January, none in
> December and 8 in November.
> Moreover of the two projects OGo is far more complex. Latest packages
> for the Fedora/RHEL world include FC[1-3], RH9 and RHEL3.
>
> Contrast that with Scalable OGo
> The users mailing list had 123 messages in February and 85 in January.
> (and I didn't look further)
> Website last updated 2009-01-30
> Packages exist for RHEL5
>
>
> Scalable OGo was really a project that Skyrix (the company behind OGo)
> took on as project work for a customer and eventually released as open
> source. So yes it's technically a fork, but not in the bad sense of
> the word. Moreover the fact that SOGo doesn't have the public file
> storage and document management system aspect which means it's less
> complex for us. Regardless it does seem to have more momentum. That
> said I merely toss that out there for consideration. Others are doing
> the work, and I don't want to bikeshed this, so feel free to ignore
> me.
>
WORKSFORME, lets set it up. No harm in taking a look at it.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
