Topic: SME has Competition ?? ClarkeConnect now = ClearOS

[soprom]

As this thread will be read by newcomers as well as the usual croud on contribs, it's important to present relevant info.  Quite a few posts are not usefull at all in this thread to this regard.

The key point, comparing SME7/8 and ClearOS is the contributors activity.  CLearOS is still carrying its "commercial" way of thinking when SME-Server is well into a more general open source minding.

Multi-WAN
If you are looking for this, ClearOS would be your choice since it is so rare to see this feature free and easy.  psSense is costly and complex but it might do more than ClearOS.

Exchange Substitute
If you need this, ClearOS could also be your way to go.  SME-Server won't help you much on this.  But this community is starting to use Zarafa (which also recently became free open-source).  So you might evaluate both solutions.

Php5
It is touchy to select ClearOS on this criteria alone because when SME8 will move into final release, the criteria will disappear...  As a server is selected for many years, a short term evaluation could be misleading.  Some apps are already requiring php5.2.  The problem will be the same with either servers.

Web Applications
SME-Server is much more easy to work with.  Many contributors and developers are publishing howto's and contribs to make this task very easy.  Then SME-Server is your way to go.

Specialized solutions
SME-Server is better and has a long history.  Just look here to make a good comparison of both server: http://wiki.contribs.org/Category:Contrib and http://wiki.contribs.org/Category:Howto.  From what I read and the tests I did, ClearOS still have to reach this far and is working with the notion of "partners".  With SME-Server you won't spend your time compiling solutions.  You'll generally install "rpm" (pre-compiled).  Those rpms are published by a contributor that did all the hard work for you.

VoIP and unified communication
SME-Server is far more in advance on this point with selintra, ejabberd, etc.  CLearOS has a howto to compile asterisk and install FreePBX.  SME-Server has rpms ready to use.

LDAP Authentification (added)
There is some integration of LDAP in clearOS with samba and kolab,  SME-Server do not use much of LDAP. This is a shaky comment of mine.  I don't really know what I'm talking about.


So, for those SME-Server users who "jump the ship", frustrated, I think the water will be colder than they thought.

The great news is that free and open-source solutions are more and more available to build an extraordinary set of network services.  And both SME-Server and ClearOS are demonstrations of this non-proprietary approach.

[kevinb]

Excellent summary soprom.

I would like to add the following:

LDAP Authentication

More and more applications require LDAP Authentication to function as a single sign-on application. ClearOS I believe has LDAP authentication. SME has a LDAP contrib which may have fallen idle at beta.

Exchange Substitute
If you need this, ClearOS could also be your way to go.  SME-Server won't help you much on this.  But this community is starting to use Zarafa (which also recently became free open-source).  So you might evaluate both solutions.

If you add the LDAP contrib (beta) to SME 8 with SOGo and Thunderbird then you have Exchange/Outlook replacement and not just an Exchange replacement. ClearOS may have an advantage here since I believe it already has LDAP authentication.

IMHO SOGo has more to offer than Zarafa if you want to replace Outlook with Thunderbird and it will use the existing SME IMAP server and configuration (you do not have to pick which system [Zarafa or SME mail] your users will be using).

Kevin

[soprom]

By referring to "Exchange Substitute" I meant to use Outlook with functionalities similar to Exchange.  Replacing Outlook is quite a different subjet.

I did not see how far goes LDAP implementation in clearOS. And you are right to bring this point.  It should be considered.

[purvis]

I can understand why many things are the way they are.
Equipment and software have both evolved and also how we use equipment or software has changed, or you might just say the way we  use equipment or software may not be the way it was years ago.
I can see where many users where interested in development during the previous years.
The current version of sme 7.4 meets most of my needs and it is stable.
Yes it would be nice to have the more current applications such as php and mysql.
I am still running on windows 2000 pro, i have not left that os because it does what i need and i know how to use and administer it.
But I do not know how long i am going to be able to stay with windows 2000. A lot of it has to do with equipment, drivers and compatibility. 
The same goes for SME. When somethings works good for you, we are not that subject to just up and leave it and look for something else, even a newer version of SME.
Many of the changes we make are forced on us because of certain environmental needs in computing.
Simplicity is more difficult with added computing functionality.

So i can understand why there might not be an interest in something other when the thing that is working for most of us(i am guessing here) currently now. I am not one looking to jump from the frying pan into the fire, so to say.

With few development personnel, i can understand how changes(upgrading) can be a very large and long task.
I believe there are many more people interested in upgrading to sme8, but how interested.
For me to upgrade or change to anything else, and i would only do that on the side of what i already have, i would need a stable os that gives me file sharing with all windows nt flavors with no hassle , web server, and some utilities to where i could monitor the os for failures and recover from them. Should it be a windows server, NO, if you want a windows server, buy one, but it should have basics to get along with windows without problems.
I believe if sme was trying to be the all-in-one server ever, then they are missing the point in what probably most the users are interested in, the basics first, even at the point of not having a gui interface for anything other than standard uses.
Documentation can even be written as user needs are asked, there is no need to have something great and pretty up front.

I left one thing out, maintenance, our systems software maintenace, be it for anitvirus, spam, bugs in software, whatever. This is important also and this might even force a change(upgrade) in server software.

Nothing stays the same, but hopefully we do not need to change everything at once. If there is a bright spot to all this, at least equipment has become more easily to purchase to run side(multiple, beta,etc) operating systems on.

ps  about a month ago, we started using our first vista os computers, they where laptops and yes it was one hell of a learning curve i have put off, and yes their so called better gui interface, i hate it and find it very unproductive. We are only using those to surf the internet.

I also want to say that i have not tried sme8, i am still learning sme7.4 or you could say sme. I believe sme 7 was the first version i really liked, because i was able to get my feet wet good then gradually enter the more difficult things i wanted to do.

have a nice weekend, finally some good weather here in louisiana has come.





 

[arne]

My point of view:

I have used the sme server a number of years under its former name e-smith, and i'm still using it.

I think that the basic design of the SME server is very good, but may be the product could be even bether with some kind of rethinking and new innovation.

May be it could be an idea to look into as a idea to make that big system of perl configuration tools so fully integrated into each other ? May be there could be ways to build in more modularity so that new developments and revisions is not that complicated .. and takes so long time .. Just a question..

Like the firewall configuration question that is one of my personal favorites. There is no problem at all to make the SME server to run any combinition of network cards and security zones, wireless zones, dmz zones etc, and I have used it this way for years.

The SME server can do these things without a problem, if you just know how to turn off the existing automated firewall configuration tools. 

The SME server is also a very good candidate for virtualization alternatives (as guest) and ther could also be spezialized configuration alternative for this. (Yes I sendt in a proposal with already tested configuration alternatives, but nobody wanted to listen.)

I'm anyhow very happy that someone is giving me a free operating system, and I don't feel I'm in the position to give any complaint, but I believe that the SME developers might have had a even bether product to maintain, if they were willing to pick up a few new ideas about some basic design.

Anyhow I hope that the SME 8.0 will come out of it's beta stage and that there still will be a SME server at least for the next 50 years .. !

By the way .. I belive that the ideas of Perl configuration tools of the SME server might be a bether idea than the PHP configuration tools of the ClarcConnect server.

[Stefano]

Like the firewall configuration question that is one of my personal favorites. There is no problem at all to make the SME server to run any combinition of network cards and security zones, wireless zones, dmz zones etc, and I have used it this way for years.

The SME server can do these things without a problem, if you just know how to turn off the existing automated firewall configuration tools. 

Arne, could you please give us the reference to the nfr you open in bugzilla with your code to achieve such a thing?

IIRC you've been told many times to share your code; you've been told many times also that any modification that does not respect SME's internals could not be considered a good choice.

so, again, please share your code or stop. thank you

[CharlieBrady]

May be it could be an idea to look into as a idea to make that big system of perl configuration tools so fully integrated into each other ? May be there could be ways to build in more modularity so that new developments and revisions is not that complicated ...

SME server is already very modular. That's why there can be so many contribs which simply install without modifying anything which is already there.

SME server development is only 'that complicated' if you do not understand it.

This is, however, off-topic for this thread, which concerns ClearOS.

[arne]

Stefano ->

I have used this firewall setup for years and I also sent it in as a proposal years ago. I guess that if you use the search function it can be found. Just now I rather use a setup based on virtualization and a virtual instanse of Smoothwall, because it is quick and easy to use and it is stable and without problems.

(And the sme server is set up as a virtual server only installation behind the virtual Smothwall gateway. This leavs open the option of allmost any combinition of network card combinitions, just as resticted by the Smoothwall. If the Smoothwall is not flexible enough it can be replased by any other virtual Linux gateway like also a standard Linux distro with netfilter/iptables.)

I'm not in the need to make any discussion because I can solve any of the firewall problems I can imagine (at least at the moment).

I just try to be a bit constructive, and yes the fully tested firewall scripts were sendt years ago, if I don't remeber everything wrong.

CharlieBrady ->

I think that this tread, in the SME forum, in some way is about the SME server versus the new ClearOS.

For me it is a quite clear argument pro the SME server that when you combine the SME server with the Smoothwall gateway in an virtual environment, this "combined server gateway" with all the benefits and the configuration tools of the Smoothwall and the SME server works very good together.   

I thinkt that the SME server could also have had a configuration option as running as a optimized virtual wan server or a optimized lan server, so you as an excample could run each in diffetent virtual security zones. I actually tested out and sendt a proposal about a year a go or so, I believe.

(And again: If things can work with all the flexibility and all options I'm looking for, its not a problem for me at all that people does not agree in what I am doing. This is the basic nature of open source .. I think.)

By the way Im looking forward and hoping to see the SME 8.0 final, because for me the SME server is the perfect server with all flexible options, even though I dont use it "the complete standard way".

[Stefano]

Stefano ->

I have used this firewall setup for years

it doesn't matter.. is your fw setup SME's compliant? I mean, does it use templates/fragments/db variables? if the answer is no, you should stop proposing it as a possible solution..

and I also sent it in as a proposal years ago. I guess that if you use the search..

yes, I remember, but I remember also that you never posted 'good' code (in the SME's way)

I'm not in the need to make any discussion because I can solve any of the firewall problems I can imagine (at least at the moment).

I just try to be a bit constructive, and yes the fully tested firewall scripts were sendt years ago, if I don't remeber everything wrong.

if you really want to be costructive, spend some time to convert your iptables script to SME's standards...

thank you

[arne]

Stefano ->

The suggestion were buildt on original e-smith documentation and suggested methods from this documentation from the earlier versions of e-smith. .. and strange enough .. it still worked as it did at that time. I also found it described as "recomended method" if I do not remember it wrong.

Actually my idea and my suggestion were to go back a bit in time and do new choices from that time, that will fit best as possible, with the tecnical options of today. I believe that Linux firewalling were quite a lot more difficult at that time compared with now.

When this basic design were done IPTABLES neither NETFILTER did exist, and those options that followed from this "new" technology did not yet exist. But the basic design still leave it as an open option to implement all the technical options of todays Linux kernels for those who like to do so. 

Personally I don't like to do it any more, as I prefere to rather use a virtual Smoothwall gateway, in front of a virtual SME server only.

[cactus]

I'm anyhow very happy that someone is giving me a free operating system, and I don't feel I'm in the position to give any complaint,

Yet you seem to hop on this horse again and again and fail to comply with the requests of the development team to share your changes in the bugtracker,

but I believe that the SME developers might have had a even bether product to maintain, if they were willing to pick up a few new ideas about some basic design.

Which they are happy to do, if you would provide them with the changes you made, once again please open a NFR for it.

By the way .. I belive that the ideas of Perl configuration tools of the SME server might be a bether idea than the PHP configuration tools of the ClarcConnect server.

I see no reason for that, as most of the features needed can be done using PHP as well.

[shawnbishop]

Hi Arnie

Could you give your configuration of the Virtual Smoothwall / Smeserver setup..??

Been trying to do something like this but cant get my head around it

[arne]

Yes and no, and yes again ..

It is not mentioned in only one single post and it will require some time, workhours etc to go trough it all.

It would require a new tread and an accept from forum admin that it is ok to discuss such a item in the forum. (THat it is considered not to be off-topic.)

Actually the whole installation tecnically is more a Vmware project than a SME server project, even though from a user point of view it is more the combined functionality of Smoothwall and SME server or to say it like that .. a sme server with a free and flexible, independent, easy to configure firewall system.

By the way ..

It might not be that diffcult to explain .. the main prinsipple is that the nat function of the Vmware server should not be used.

For a two port setup the wan adapter is bridged over to the Smoothwall red adapter. The host system wan adapter should not have a ip-adress at all, so it will be "invisible". When you are pinging the external address from the outside then you are pinging the virtual smootwall firewall "directely".

The lan adapter of the host system is bridged over to the green adapter of the Smoothwall and to the lan adapter of the virtual sme server only installation.

I thinkt that the lan adapter of the host system dont need to have a ip, but it can have an internal adress for administrative purposes. (But no adress at all might be the best option from a security point of view.)

Things can be set up in a lot of different ways, but this 2 port setup will work as if you had a Smoothwall box in front of a SME box and the sme server running on the lan segment. Via the functionality virtual Smoothwall installation, it is easy to build out with a wireless zone and a DMZ zone, and just bridge over the new adapters to the virtual Smoothwall.

[cactus]

It would require a new tread and an accept from forum admin that it is ok to discuss such a item in the forum. (THat it is considered not to be off-topic.)

Why not just create a new topic yourself then? Everyone can do that, no administrator needs to be involved....

[janet]

arne

If you create a topic in the General Discussion forum, then that should be OK.
People are free to utilise or ignore your methods.

Solutions that do not conform to "current sme standards", will not get support from devs and other users who prefer/demand code that integrates into the existing templating system and is configurable via server manager and db commands.