Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions
-
great, I'll happily keep my hobby system in my production environment.
It is productive every day and never goes down.
-
Frankly I have the opposite view.
And so do most organisations at least financial institutions.
Last time I worked at Morgan Stanley (last year actually) they were running RHEL 5 and they are intending to do so for longer...
The point is: you choose the most STABLE platform in terms of OS.
So Kopano rightly so, in my opinion, targets what most users RUN on their servers rather than the latest and the greatest.
-
that's precisely why, in other installations I have on the cloud (nothing to do with Kopano whatsoever in this case) I am still running Centos 6 and Ubuntu 16.04
And I have no intention of upgrading any time soon.
-
@Dashrender said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
In Scott's opinion, Ubuntu LTS is a dead platform. It's dead because Canonical has stated that it doesn't get the same level of support as the current released OS does.
No, you are making it way too dramatic. Canonical has said that LTS are "not fully supported" and that for full support you "must be current." It's not dead, it's "not fully supported." We simply want "fully supported."
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
Last time I worked at Morgan Stanley (last year actually) they were running RHEL 5 and they are intending to do so for longer...
CentOS 5 is under actual LTS and is exactly the opposite of Ubuntu LTS. And yes, I learned my operational mindset from Wall St. too. And that's where I learned that Ubuntu LTS isn't supported like CentOS. The support is done at six months. So that is a perfect example of how I'm following exactly what Morgan Stanley wants... support. It's not about current, it's about support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@Dashrender said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
In Scott's opinion, Ubuntu LTS is a dead platform. It's dead because Canonical has stated that it doesn't get the same level of support as the current released OS does.
No, you are making it way too dramatic. Canonical has said that LTS are "not fully supported" and that for full support you "must be current." It's not dead, it's "not fully supported." We simply want "fully supported."
Yeah
you're right - I was being overly dramatic... but I think it really drove my point home.Again, Windows 7 fits nicely into this exact situation. MS will provide support, but it won't be fully supported, i.e. they won't pass a bug problem along to be fixed if you aren't calling in about Windows 10.
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
that's precisely why, in other installations I have on the cloud (nothing to do with Kopano whatsoever in this case) I am still running Centos 6 and Ubuntu 16.04
And I have no intention of upgrading any time soon.
That's the opposite of your example, though. In one case, you care about support (CentOS) and in the next you don't. What makes one an issue, and one not? Why intentionally give up support for Ubuntu when you could keep it supported just by updating?
-
yes and the companies producing software, Kopano, video games, word processors, whatever.
Will spend their time and energy to produce packages for the most widely used operating system for one way or another.
I cannot be bothered to upgrade Fedora every 6 months nor Ubuntu every cycle therefore I stick with Centos and Ubuntu LTS whether it is entirely supported or partially or whatever.
It appears that a lot of people do this, hence that's why the vendors (or at least some of them) target these platforms.
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
that's precisely why, in other installations I have on the cloud (nothing to do with Kopano whatsoever in this case) I am still running Centos 6 and Ubuntu 16.04
And I have no intention of upgrading any time soon.
So this is an interesting question. Why do you feel that this is the way to go? It might be more stable, for the moment, but it's lacking security and other enhancements that make it safer, and more secure.
At what point do you move to the new version? What makes that line in the sand for you?
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
So Kopano rightly so, in my opinion, targets what most users RUN on their servers rather than the
latest and the greatest.actively supported.No one is looking for the latest and greatest here - that's never once been suggested. Only looking for "actively fully supported by the vendor." That means latest and greatest to Canonical, it does not with CentOS. But the RPMs are missing, so that wasn't an option.
-
in terms of RPMs were missing I think you did have your answer in the forums and if the conversation did go down a different route (one way or another) I am sure you would have had your installation working in Centos.
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
I cannot be bothered to upgrade Fedora every 6 months nor Ubuntu every cycle therefore I stick with Centos and Ubuntu LTS whether it is entirely supported or partially or whatever.
Same here, hence our conflict. Ubuntu doesn't have an LTS product - that's their own statement. It's just a name. That's why we'd prefer not to run it - we want a long term supported product and Ubuntu does not offer that. So we wanted CentOS. When CentOS didn't work, we were willing to settle for Ubuntu which, to get support, requires the six month upgrade cycle that Fedora has.
You keep mentioning things that are in conflict. You want support, but you run out of support (full support that is) Ubuntu. Which is it?
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
in terms of RPMs were missing I think you did have your answer in the forums and if the conversation did go down a different route (one way or another) I am sure you would have had your installation working in Centos.
I posted what the docs said was required (you actually posted it) and posted today's package list and one of the necessary packages does not exist.
-
I run whatever makes sense in my environments. If I can I run Centos if I can't I run Ubuntu but only LTS because I can not be bothered to upgarde every 6 months (this has nothing to do with Kopano, I am talking about other software).
-
I cannot comment whether the package exists or not as I did not have the chance to look at Centos (in fact I run Kopano on debian as you know).
All I said is that with a little bit of patience you would have had your answer and your system.
Anyway that's the end of the day so I am going home.
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
It appears that a lot of people do this, hence that's why the vendors (or at least some of them) target these platforms.
Of course, this is something we cover continuously in IT groups - the average company does things horribly. They are out of support, they don't follow good practices, they don't have operational mindsets. That loads of people run systems poorly and don't update, don't patch, don't take backups is common. That vendors keep those people happy is logical. But doing it instead of providing for people trying to do things well doesn't jive well. That suggests that target audience is not the operational one, but the hobby one.
-
I'd love to know how this has boiled down, can someone TL;DR this 200 post saga for me?
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
I cannot comment whether the package exists or not as I did not have the chance to look at Centos (in fact I run Kopano on debian as you know).
I pulled the tarball an hour ago, it's still missing.
-
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
yes and the companies producing software, Kopano, video games, word processors, whatever.
Will spend their time and energy to produce packages for the most widely used operating system for one way or another.
I cannot be bothered to upgrade Fedora every 6 months nor Ubuntu every cycle therefore I stick with Centos and Ubuntu LTS whether it is entirely supported or partially or whatever.
It appears that a lot of people do this, hence that's why the vendors (or at least some of them) target these platforms.
I think by not upgrading when releases become available is leaving something on the table. What if upgrading gave you 10% more performance? would you do it then?
I think it's the job of us IT personal to keep our systems as up to date as possible. It's one of the massive advantages to using free software. I'm not saying you need to install it on the day it's released, but within a month doesn't seem unreasonable. That gives you a month to stand up a test environment and try it out, while also watching the forums for problems other people are having.
I know - I think I see the hitch. It's bloody well expensive to do this. And you know what, You're RIGHT! But IT isn't cheap. It never has been. But it's also core to many businesses, you wouldn't buy cheap tools if you're a mechanic, I hope. So why be cheap with your IT?
-
I entirely disagree. Plenty of vendors still produced software for Windows XP although it was dead years ago.
The software you produce is for your customers, not for the beauty of it.
In Brasil cars run on ethanol, so you have to make engines for that.
Same.
