Comments on: Is ActiveSync an “Open” Apple Trojan Horse? – Wait-a-Thon

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 05:33:58 +0000

That's unusual. In my experience IT is typically far more resistant to IMAP than MAPI.

(Would that MS would provide easier, more secure IMAP options for Exchange... though it would break the pesky proprietary lock in...)

By: Dyvim

Dyvim — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:44:51 +0000

Now if only my company would set up Exchange ActiveSync on their Exchange server. They only have IMAP access configured, so I’ve never been able to get push email on my WM devices either. Maybe one day.

By: cmaier

cmaier — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:56:01 +0000

not a h8er. i have 2 64-bit servers running windows xp pro 32. Just don’t want to install a new OS just for exchange for two users.

By: surur

surur — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:43:38 +0000

I've been looking into hosting it on my own server, but MS does seem to make it a pain - it seems to require a 64-bit OS? Doesn't seem to be any real open source alternative that doesn't require client software such as outlook plugins, unless I missed something?

There is an open source exchange activesync implementation. This way M$-h8ers can have their cake and eat it too.

Z-push Mobile data synchronization is becoming increasingly important for many people, and various standards have arisen to perform this two-way copying 'over-the-air'. The most important platforms that can do wireless synchronisation are ActiveSync that is used to communicate with Exchange Server and Research-in-Motion's BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES). Both solutions require proprietary server-side software from the vendor, therefore limiting the use of PIMs (personal information managers) to either wired synchronization or irritating 3rd-party synchronizers requiring the installation of client software on the PDA. This is where Open source Z-Push comes in; it is an implementation of Microsoft's ActiveSync protocol which is used 'over-the-air' for multi platform active sync devices, including Windows Mobile and active sync used on Ericsson and Nokia phones. Open source Z-Push enables any PHP-based groupware package to become fully syncable with any ActiveSync-compliant device. Being an opensource project under the GPL, it allows developers to add their own backend so that Z-Push can communicate with their groupware solution. Currently, Z-Push is available with only four backends: the IMAP and the maildir backend for e-mail synchronisation, the vCard backend for contact synchronisation and one for the commercial Zarafa package which is sold by allowing full synchronization of E-mail, Calendar and Contacts. We expect that other backends arise in the near future as the opensource community gets to grips with the new possibilities

http://z-push.sourceforge.net/soswp/

Modaco wrote about it over here. Seems to work reasonably well. http://www.modaco.com/content/Windows-Mobile-News/265175/Z-Push-open-sources-Server-Activesync/

Surur

By: cmaier

cmaier — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:23:55 +0000

No need to make it sound like such a pain. Hosted Exchange is very popular, costs from $5-10 per month (and there are even some free services) and gives you a lot of benefits and control over your device, e.g. you could do a remote wipe of your phone if you lose it, and you can keep multiple devices in sync with PIM and e-mail. Its well worth it if you have more than 1 device which you use actively (including laptops). Surur

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:37:35 +0000

No, getting “hosted” exchange isn’t a pain. The pain comes after you get it

By: surur

surur — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:02:18 +0000

For a home user, you can usually find service providers running Exchange who charge you a monthly or yearly subscription fee for an Exchange account. If you *really* want Exchange at home and you're not a rich, uber-geek, with a tolerance for frustration approaching the infinite, this is probably the way to go.

Surur

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:06:28 +0000

Yes and no. Exchange is a server-side application which talks to local client-side apps like Outlook, Entourage, and ActiveSync-licensees.

To run your own Exchange server, even if you get in on one of the entry-level (cough traps cough) "action pack" style promos, or abuse an MSDN subscription (which is technically for development work, not production use), you're looking at forking out for Windows Server and Exchange (I think each may come with 5 client licenses, but additional licenses can quickly increase costs). Some are one-time expenses, others can require yearly fees.

Plus, you have the pleasure of running, hardening, and maintaining a server and Exchange, which can be a full time network admin job.

For a home user, you can usually find service providers running Exchange who charge you a monthly or yearly subscription fee for an Exchange account. If you really want Exchange at home and you're not a rich, uber-geek, with a tolerance for frustration approaching the infinite, this is probably the way to go.

By: NPR_aficionado

NPR_aficionado — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:44:19 +0000

This sounds great that apple is bringing exchange support to the iPhone, I am sure many business professionals will like the option of using the iPhone. I am not familiar enough with exchange (not being a business user of it), is it cost prohibitive for a casual home user?

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:49:27 +0000

It wasn't just IE that caused the litigation, it was Microsoft abusing their monopoly by extorting vendors into deliberately excluding Netscape that went to the heart of the matter.

Opinion is mixed about the browser as file viewer, since Mac's finder offers both browser and spatial representation views. Old school believes you should never be able to have more than one representation of a file viewable at any one time, which a browser-based view clearly allows.

(I personally like the browser-view option).