[Kroupware] Kroupware replacing Exchange

[Ivaylo Toshev]

На ср, 2003-02-05 в 14:07, Bo Thorsen записа:
> On Wednesday 05 February 2003 12:22, Ivaylo Toshev wrote:
> > На ср, 2003-02-05 в 12:00, Tassilo Erlewein записа:
> > > The KDE client AFAIK does not yet support IMAP shared folders.
> > > Support for shared folders is not part of the existing contract.

> You misunderstand us here. What we're saying is that you can access shared 
> folders like any other IMAP folders. But they won't look like the shared 
> folders in Outlook.
> 
That's OK !
> > support them and cannot write contacts,calendars and tasks on IMAP
> > server but just locally on hard-disk
> ......
> True. This is what we have been saying all along. The client won't have 
> this capability in 1.0, and we know this is a thing that needs 
> improvement.
> 
> I think Evolution is a fine client, and it's my hope that the developers 
> of it will adapt it to work with Kolab, so we can have more applications 
> to choose from.
> 
Agree ;-)
> > Of course, that's the point of both applications. But as I said, shared 
> folders is one of the next steps. And now we even have the foundation to 
> make it possible.
> 
Great ! ;-)
> about client machine stability - this is also something companies value 
> highly. Third, the ability to use IMAP as the storage makes it incredibly 
> simple to prepare my laptop for going on trips - just sync the mails.
> 
Agree, i just wanted to point user functionality !
>Groupware Solution, 
> people start thinking of a myriad of features they all claim are 
> completely basic in any groupware app. From the beginning we laid out a 
> feature list, and anyone who bothered to read that list knew exactly what 
> we were going to do.
I read it, and because i just saw that "Shared Folder will not be
implemented" i just decide that they will completely not be used by
client, now i know that i misunderstand , as you mentioned above.
> I too have a long list of things I want to have - shared folders now being 
> one of them. But I also have to put out a stable client, and I will *not* 
> sacrifice stability over features for 1.0. Even if it will be stable 
> around beta 7 :-) (I'm actually confident that we can get it stable by 
> beta 6.)
> 
Agree!
;-)
> > Keep the good work.
> 
> We will :-)
> 
> Bo.