On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 23:46 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> The recipients don't have to use the same server for meeting requests
> to work, although when creating one you only see the availability
> of the people that are.
That's because the servers synchronize their stores. In fact, server
distribution is why Microsoft doesn't do server-side scheduling. They
merely replicate the stores.
The clients then use those stores. That's why when you are creating,
you are limited to seeing only the availability of those people. ;->
Now if you're using "Shared Folders" inside of the client itself (client
attached meta-data for calendaring info), that doesn't require a server
at all. Of course, most of that automated functionality _breaks_ if you
install security patches for various Outlook versions and lock them
down.
Evolution supports the standard vCalendar attachment for scheduling
without a server-store. Unfortunately, pretty much _nothing_ else does.
|-<
> What I really want is interoperability among clients, not leaving
> outlook behind.
As I said, that's the problem. The best way to mitigate is something
like OpenGroupware.ORG (OGo). It has a _true_ collaboration back-end.
It's based on the source code release of SKYRiX 4, not quite as good as
SKYRiX 5, but still one of the bests Freedomware suites out there.
Although you still have to pay for the MAPI Service Provider for
Outlook.
> When outlook is used in a smtp/pop/imap environment
> some versions will interoperate with evolution calendar when meeting
> requests are sent.
Yes, because Ximian is very resourceful, and they've been able to learn
how to read the "Shared Folder" attachments inside of Outlook e-mails
when they don't have a server store to put them on.
> However, when using pre-2000 exchange server and evolution working
> with it in imap mode, all the attachments show up as non-standard
> tnef's instead of mime vcal/ical format.
AFAIK, Outlook-TNEF don't do vCalendar, but a variation.
iCalendar (iCal) is not a MIME attachment format, but just way to read
(via HTTP) and publish (via FTP) free/busy time.
[ BTW, I forgot that OGo _does_ iCal as well, and can use it for its
server-side scheduler with the other stores/methods/interfaces. ]
> I'm looking for something that will eliminate the need to keep a
> windows box on my desk just to beep at me when I'm supposed to join
> a conference call.
In other words you want a way for Freedomware/Standardware** clients to
keep up with the moving target of Hostageware** clients/servers that are
being mandated in your organization. It's one thing to expect
Freedomware/Standardware** to work with Commerceware**, because
Commerceware vendors value their customers and won't break compatibility
between versions. But Hostageware vendors do precisely that with each
version, to _prevent_ compatibility.
Gartner said it best (paraphrased), "Organizations must be vigilant in
Open Source adoption, as a vendor will never offer a way out of lock-
in."
That's why I call it Freedomware. User vigilance is not an option left
to others. It requires effort against Hostageware vendors.
[ **NOTE: Yes, these are my own, eccentric terms.
Freedomware (Open Standard, Open Source)
Standardware (Open Standard, Proprietary Source)
Commerceware (Proprietary Standard, Proprietary Source)
Hostageware (Unmaintained Standard, Unmaintained Source) ]
> However I expect most of the other people involved to keep using outlook.
Which means you foresee interoperability with Hostageware in the future.
That's the problem.
> But, exchange2000 will probably work right with evolution as the
> client. Does anyone know if the notifications and updates get
> into the evolution calendar when received even if you don't
> open/accept the request?
Good question.
Because Exchange is _not_ a server-side collaboration system, but only a
store for client-side collaboration, the question becomes ...
- Does the Outlook client making the request do this?
- Or does the Evolution client receiving the request do this?
Now exchange _is_ an e-mail server, with e-mail rules. So it might be
tied into this and the user store. It's a good question.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you
to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them
will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below
them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele-
mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism.
So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->
