Sounds good until you get to the details
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Jul 14, 2008 5:08 PM EDT |
When I first heard about postpath, it sounded like what I've been looking for: a collaboration suite with the features of the leading commercial products, which runs on linux. I wanted to become a beta tester and use it in my own environment, to get up to speed before recommending it to clients who were looking for a replacement for ms exchange. Oops. it requires microsoft active directory. full stop. Novell Edirectory won't do, openldap won't do, IBM ldap server won't do, fedora directory server won't do... You have to set up a microsoft infrastructure to even get started with postpath and it depends intimately on that microsoft base. I lost interest. The postpath sales guys contact me from time to time, and when they do, I explain what I'm looking for, and tell them about the several excellent ldap servers in common use today, and how they could really become an attractive option if their product could work with any ldap server, rather than requiring a full-on microsoft commitment... But their eyes glaze over and they make some sort of vague statement about possible future enhancements... and so it goes. |
| tuxchick Jul 14, 2008 5:19 PM EDT |
I sympathize, herzeleid. I reviewed it some time ago for Serverwatch, and it was a big fat pain setting up the infrastructure. The thing is, it's designed to be a drop-in replacement for Exchange, and Exchange and AD have been inextricably intertwined since, what, Win2k? So their target market is suffering Exchange admins who want out. Are there any MS networks that don't depend on AD these days? The cool thing about PostPath is they reverse-engineered the horrid Exchange network protocols, and as far as I know they are the first. Maybe they took lots of anti-nausea pills. |
| rijelkentaurus Jul 14, 2008 8:07 PM EDT |
Quoting: Are there any MS networks that don't depend on AD these days? Even the ones with three whole users.......we just set up a three-user client with SBS Premium to get SQL for their app. It was a huge server, so much blasted overkill. A three-user network needs hosted applications, not gigantic servers! |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 14, 2008 9:54 PM EDT |
@herzeleid: You might want to take a look at Zarafa: http://zarafa.com/Quoting:Are there any MS networks that don't depend on AD these days? Hardly. But that will change when Samba 4 hits the street. Samba 4 can play domain controller for Windows networks, which means that regular WIndows boxes can authenticate through any LDAP server instead of just AD. The lock-in point in an MS network isn't really AD itself but the domain controller who only supports AD authentication. |
| gus3 Jul 14, 2008 10:00 PM EDT |
I thought Samba could already be a domain controller? Or what am I not understanding here? |
| herzeleid Jul 14, 2008 10:07 PM EDT |
> I thought Samba could already be a domain controller? Or what am I not understanding here? IIUC samba could be a domain controller with the old style nt domains. Samba 4 brings the power to be an AD domain controller. Now that I think about it, I wonder if that couldn't be made to work with postpath... |
| rijelkentaurus Jul 15, 2008 3:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: samba could be a domain controller with the old style nt domains Which means it can be a handy little stand alone domain controller for your little Win2000/XP domains. Not sure about Vistar. When is Samba 4 gonna be ready? |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 15, 2008 4:43 AM EDT |
Probably "When it's done". I didn't find any release target date on their website. They do have several alpha versions available though... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!