Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions
-
Just for the record @JaredBusch thinks I'm arrogant too. He's not saying I'm not
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
Just for the record @JaredBusch thinks I'm arrogant too. He's not saying I'm not
A bit moreso than myself, yes. Pots and kettles and all that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
There there was some back and forth with the vendor to help to explain to them how Ubuntu support works as they were not familiar with it. They kindly pointed out that Kopano doesn't support the same versions that Ubuntu does, so they have a "production mismatch" which we consider non-viable. So that's fine. It is what it is. Then Patrick picks up with this as his further response. Sure sounds like someone trying to get us to pay...
Actually I felt it was more about Patrick either not understanding or not agreeing with Scott's explanation on Ubuntu's LTS support situation.
From my reading, Patrick only picked up on the fact that Scott wanted Enterprise level support. Which isn't what Scott wanted - Scott wanted the software to run on a fully supported OS, of which 16.04 no longer qualifies.
But because Patrick is thinking Scott wants enterprise support, he's telling Scott to go buy support, because enterprise support isn't free, and free support isn't fast.
I have no idea why Patrick thinks Scott's in a hurry to get this resolved, perhaps the fast back and forth between them gave Patrick the impression that Scott was in a hurry to get this resolved, perhaps the flurry of new threads Scott created implied and expedience that wasn't real. Again, not really sure. But frankly, I've been in Patrick's position like this before, and it's very easy to think there is a need for fast response that's not real.
-
@romo wanted me to point out that this was the support matrix we were working from last night, it was updated this morning so is a bit better now, 16.04 for example. Just for reference.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
So in the subject of production readiness that's again a matter of judgement and I do believe the opposite than you do.
That's fine. But that wasn't an issue on their community, that was never mentioned.
Actually, I think this is at the heart of the issue on their forums post between you and Patrick.
-
@Dashrender said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
So in the subject of production readiness that's again a matter of judgement and I do believe the opposite than you do.
That's fine. But that wasn't an issue on their community, that was never mentioned.
Actually, I think this is at the heart of the issue on their forums post between you and Patrick.
It might be the source of the issue (that we are looking for a production system and they see this as a hobby system where operational readiness of a business is not a concern) but it was not mentioned, so if that was the cause of Patrick's response, he brought it to the table himself and that's an issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@Dashrender said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@scottalanmiller said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
@mcostan said in Finding the Best Open Source Email Solutions:
So in the subject of production readiness that's again a matter of judgement and I do believe the opposite than you do.
That's fine. But that wasn't an issue on their community, that was never mentioned.
Actually, I think this is at the heart of the issue on their forums post between you and Patrick.
It might be the source of the issue (that we are looking for a production system and they see this as a hobby system where operational readiness of a business is not a concern) but it was not mentioned, so if that was the cause of Patrick's response, he brought it to the table himself and that's an issue.
Scott is one of the rare few people I know who will basically not accept any compromises if there is an option that allows you not to compromise.
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. Think of it another way - Scott considers Windows 7 a dead platform because MS isn't making fixes for it anymore. Sure they make security updates, but not fixes. To him, it's business suicide to stand up any solution that uses Windows 7 today, and the same goes for standing up any solution that uses Ubuntu 16.04.
Because of this point of view Scott considers Kopano as a company who doesn't care about keeping their product current, because they are not supporting the fully supported/fixed OS.
Some will consider this point of view as arrogant.
-
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.
