Talk:Zimbra

Company vs. Product

So is this article about the product Zimbra or about the company Zimbra, Inc.? The infobox on the page is a Template:Infobox Software type. If their is consensus about that the company is the focus, I'll change the infobox to the Template:Infobox Company and move discussion of the product down to a section (i.e. their "flagship product") Cander0000 21:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, read the intro, is a groupware product, so the template is correct.Mion 21:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The company is becoming part of Yahoo! and the article is about the product ... richi 22:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts then on adding a bit about their v5 development? -mcode 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I had contact with a sales rep from Zimbra. They told us about some limitations/features. Feel free to add stuff from it.

• It is primarily Java.
• We can install on RHEL 4
• We do not run on Red Hat Linux 9, only RHEL 4 & 5. RedHat 9 ships with a different kernel, which is not supported by Zimbra.
• You can use calendar per employee and utilize resources (conference rooms, conference #’s, etc).
• We support tasks in Outlook 2003. Tasks in the Web UI are available in 5.0
• We support and use Open LDAP. We sync natively with PDAs if you purchase Zimbra Mobile.
• We support just mail on Thunderbird, if you wanted shared calendars, contacts, and tasks, you’d have to use Outlook 2003 or the web ui. -You can use Lightning. CalDav support is also available.
• Yes, you can import via CSV

--Blonkm 13:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Blonkm, system requirements change too often to post on wikipedia...

Suggest update of Blonkm material - stuff should be incorporated into article if possible. -mcode (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO people are tugging too much over the different aspects, FUDing and generally missing on the big picture; I'd like to see a full representation of what it is, as I found it valuable helping with my initial research. It doesn't make sense to just frame it as an FOSS product, corp entity or paid product. There's: + organization/history + what the product does + open source vs closed (licensing too) + components + related links

i'd like to have this all Alfmurphy (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fork

Download the source and fork while you can, before Microsoft buys Yahoo and stops Zimbra, remember Hulu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.236.132 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

Licensing information is out of date. 204.147.183.222 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite from neutral POV needed

When we originally created the wikipedia article for Citadel, it was quickly nominated for deletion because someone felt it read like an advertisement. The Zimbra article is far more blatantly marketing-driven than that article ever was. I expect Zimbra to be held to the same standards as everyone else. If the article is not rewritten from a neutral, encyclopedic POV, I see no reason why it should not be nominated for deletion. Art Cancro (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation of zimbra.com links

Hello, all. Just a quick note to explain some of the edits made here. Editors were linking to zimbra.com multiple times in the same page which is not proper Wikipedia style -- just link the first time, or in the External links section at the bottom (which is what I did). Also, don't add a bunch of links to sub-pages on the zimbra.com site; same reason. People will go to the official site to download -- most people are smart enough to figure that out. :) Remember that Wikipedia can't be a PR page for Zimbra, so avoid placing opinionated promo text in the article. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!