attachment.htm (161 Bytes)
--8<--
You can sign up for the service on the official website currently but the makers plan to release repositories that you can install on servers you have control over to create a self-hosted version of Open365 that you have more control over.
--8<--
I'm sorry but until this happens I consider this just as closed source as any other proprietary solution.
I've seen already way too many "open source" projects with siloed development turn open core or something else.
Ciao,
Daniele
>Open365: open source Office 365 alternative - gHacks Tech News
>From the linked page:
--8<--
You can sign up for the service on the official website currently but the
makers plan to release repositories that you can install on servers you
have control over to create a self-hosted version of Open365 that you have
more control over.
--8<--
I'm sorry but until this happens I consider this just as closed source as
any other proprietary solution.
I've seen already way too many "open source" projects with siloed
development turn open core or something else.
Ciao,
Daniele
Stick to the core components Daniele which are GNU/Linux, LibreOffice,
KMail, Kontact and ownCloud. As far as I know, the only black sheep is the
eyeOS technology. Let's see if they're going to free it soon.
Fuggedaboutit!
Paolo.
attachment.htm (1.46 KB)
Ciao,
http://www.ghacks.net/2016/04/25/open365-office-365-alternative/
>From the linked page:
--8<--
You can sign up for the service on the official website currently but the makers plan to release repositories that you can install on servers you have control over to create a self-hosted version of Open365 that you have more control over.
--8<--I'm sorry but until this happens I consider this just as closed source as any other proprietary solution.
I've seen already way too many "open source" projects with siloed development turn open core or something else.
Daniele, you are 101% correct about this, but as Paolo highlights, the
same infrasctructure can be set up with just a little effort: a
central server managed by yourself equipped with libreoffice,
owncloud, seafile, jitsi, etc., and a set of (thin) clients for the
users, until open36t5 does not become free.
The only drawback of open365's is that its linux client is available
only for ubuntu. On debian it does not install, as well as on
non-deb-based distros.
Cheers,
Stefano
--8<--
The only drawback of open365's is that its linux client is available
only for ubuntu. On debian it does not install, as well as on
non-deb-based distros.
--8<--
This a strong drawback, may be solvable if the source code will be released
diego
attachment.htm (2.82 KB)
Daniele, you are 101% correct about this, but as Paolo highlights, the
same infrasctructure can be set up with just a little effort: a
central server managed by yourself equipped with libreoffice,
owncloud, seafile, jitsi, etc., and a set of (thin) clients for the
users, until open36t5 does not become free.
You know, when I see "open" in a name without seeing the actual code I
get utterly suspicious. Here's the wikipedia[1] page about eye os:
--8<--
EyeOS released 2.5 on May 17, 2011. This was the last release under an
open source license. It available in SourceForge for download under
another project called 2.5 OpenSource Version.
--8<--
Further, it's unclear to me how this solution is technically different
than kolab + collabora effort ("cloudsuite", IIRC) to integrate
libreoffice online.
Knowing kolab history (and some guys there), my money is on them to
release a truly free-software solution. Further, kolab already can be
integrated with seafile, hence I see an eventual integration easier/more
likely.
BUT, as far as I know, at the moment collabora has two offers: the open
source "CODE" edition and a commercial alternative. Which one is going
to be integrated is out of my radar. I trust the kolab guys to do "the
right thing", but we can't be sure until release.
Please note that I also believe that public administrations around the
world should support efforts like these, under clear requirements (e.g.
license-wise). That's my point of view (for the people who don't know it
yet):
1 - Public administrations should act in the public interest.
2 - Free/libre software is software in the public interest.
3 - You close the syllogism 
The only drawback of open365's is that its linux client is available
only for ubuntu. On debian it does not install, as well as on
non-deb-based distros.
Until I see the source code and the attached license, I can't agree that
this is the "only" drawback :-). It certainly is one.
Cheers,
Stefano
Ciao,
Daniele
Ma scusa cosa centra il tuo discorso?
Lo studio di Alpin (su cui si basa la scelta della provincia) afferma una cosa evidentemente sbagliata.
Punto
Diti
You know, when I see "open" in a name without seeing the actual code I get
utterly suspicious. Here's the wikipedia[1] page about eye os:
--8<--
EyeOS released 2.5 on May 17, 2011. This was the last release under an open
source license. It available in SourceForge for download under another
project called 2.5 OpenSource Version.
--8<--
I didn't mention eyeos: my point is that if you don't like open365
because it's closed (which I agree on), you can deploy an exactly same
infrastructure on your own server.
Further, it's unclear to me how this solution is technically different than
kolab + collabora effort ("cloudsuite", IIRC) to integrate libreoffice
online.
There are probably tens of better founded and more established suites
(even not as features-full as Zimbra, or eGroupware -just to name the
first coming to my mind) than open365. Something that hasn't yet been
highlighted is that none of these has been mentioned in the Alpin's
study. Open365 just seems to be a better counterexample than all those
other suites because it fits, or seems to fit with many of the
requirements of the local government for its needs.
Please note that I also believe that public administrations around the world
should support efforts like these, under clear requirements (e.g.
license-wise). That's my point of view (for the people who don't know it
yet):
1 - Public administrations should act in the public interest.
2 - Free/libre software is software in the public interest.
3 - You close the syllogism
You can't close a syllogism when one of the premises is a dubitative clause.
Until I see the source code and the attached license, I can't agree that
this is the "only" drawback :-). It certainly is one.
In the context of the discussion, it was, IMHO. But I get your point.
Cheers,
Stefano
I didn't mention eyeos: my point is that if you don't like open365
because it's closed (which I agree on), you can deploy an exactly same
infrastructure on your own server.
Agreed ("almost" exactly, I'd say
There are probably tens of better founded and more established suites
(even not as features-full as Zimbra, or eGroupware -just to name the
first coming to my mind) than open365. Something that hasn't yet been
highlighted is that none of these has been mentioned in the Alpin's
study. Open365 just seems to be a better counterexample than all those
other suites because it fits, or seems to fit with many of the
requirements of the local government for its needs.
I believe it's making the rounds mostly because of its name which
"resembles" office365. Please note that I don't refer to our mailing
list: There are a lot of articles about this solution coming out lately.
1 - Public administrations should act in the public interest.
2 - Free/libre software is software in the public interest.
3 - You close the syllogismYou can't close a syllogism when one of the premises is a dubitative
clause.
ARGH: never invoke logic when a PhD is listening 
Thanks for the correction, much appreciated. I hope my message was clear
though
In the context of the discussion, it was, IMHO. But I get your point.
Agreed, again
Cheers,
Stefano
Ciao,
Daniele
Please note that I also believe that public administrations around the
world should support efforts like these, under clear requirements (e.g.
license-wise). That's my point of view (for the people who don't know it
yet):
1 - Public administrations should act in the public interest.
2 - Free/libre software is software in the public interest.
3 - You close the syllogism
I try ...
3 - Public Administrations don't care about 1 and 2 and in the meantime buy
Office365 while we pick holes in Open365 and discuss the sex of angels.
Paolo.
attachment.htm (788 Bytes)
Howdy,
I didn't mention eyeos: my point is that if you don't like open365
because it's closed (which I agree on), you can deploy an exactly same
infrastructure on your own server.Agreed ("almost" exactly, I'd say
I'm curious about the "almost" part
I believe it's making the rounds mostly because of its name which
"resembles" office365. Please note that I don't refer to our mailing list:
There are a lot of articles about this solution coming out lately.
Yes, possibly this one is too hyped: I subscribed for the beta almost
a week ago and still no answer/access, not a good point.
The advantage/strength of open365 *MAY* come from ist funding company,
which apparently is Spain's Telefonica.
You can't close a syllogism when one of the premises is a dubitative
clause.ARGH: never invoke logic when a PhD is listening
At least don't choose a PhD with a background in formal languiages to
argue with.
Thanks for the correction, much appreciated. I hope my message was clear
though
yes, obviously.
Cheers,
Stefano
At least don't choose a PhD with a background in formal languiages to
argue with.
The typo in "languages" merits a comment here, I guess
Bye,
Chris.