I think we need some clarification from Zentyal as maybe I am in the dark as usual.
Zentyal never made a fully working, full featured sbs solution. The attempt to make it was there but for me it was never stable enough to use in production.
I am not knocking Zentyal as wow with a small team of experts this was a massively ambitious project.
I can understand why they may feel the need to concentrate on a smaller core.
I can also understand why many don't think its worth investing in.
https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,22671.msg88275.html#msg88275I don't think I have ever seen an Opensource company ever just say what the contents of that message says.
Usually the idea of forking is from the community but the precedent set by what is said seems to point to "We have our own agenda". "If you want to do something different we will not stop you" "It will not be part of our project".
The zarafa module was just one I picked I also did some work with round-cube and I guess maybe they are right even though I am totally bemused.
XP EOL threw a complete spanner in my Samba3 ability with newer versions of windows requiring AD to provide any real form of sysadmin.
I always saw Linux and samba as a professional alternative to M$ and not just some hotch potch of using Home versions on a network.
I would be laughed at if I went out to some clients and offered Home versions of windows. Yes it would work but the image it sets.
I am still very much stuck with windows desktops this is a devil they know scenario of clients and users and frustrating at times.
Samba4 is my get out of jail card as its an opensource linux platform that as it matures I expect it to offer more in terms of interoperability.
Samba4 opens things up and it was always the reason why I initially went with Zentyal.
Its great that JK has come on board with Zentyal and absolutely superb that openchange is offering a 100% exchange replacement.
My own opinion would be that it would be fantastic to have a 100% exchange replacement that simultaneously supports industry standards of imap, caldav, webdav, pop, ical and so forth.
Because openchange is based on opensource that offers these natively you might understand my confusion to why these are being turned off?
Surely one of the massive advantages of openchange is that it can be a bridge to industry standards and an essential step out of M$ lockin of exchange and outlook?
Surely someone must see if that you are going to enforce a M$ only style offering many might think that actually I might as well use M$.
I work in non-profits, education and M$ dumps it product here so it isn't a matter of cost.
I am desperately trying to make in roads with libre-office as to be honest teaching my kids a commercial platform of office whilst perfectly good alternatives are available is distasteful to say the least.
Outlook is very much the same and great that you support it, but honest please.
I am not trying to cause waves but someone is having a brain fart, please I am positive that again your direction is closed only to one solution.
Opensource is much more than just having public code it is open for choice.
Please don't just tell us to fork off.