On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, David Nalley wrote:
2009/3/1 Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com>:
> What are your concerns about ogo stagnation? Does sogo have more
> momentum or is it just a new fork?
I see the following potential things which lead me to believe that OGo
is stagnated or close to it:
September of 2007 appears to be the last time the website was updated for OGo.
The -users list had 36 messages in February, 16 in January, none in
December and 8 in November.
Moreover of the two projects OGo is far more complex. Latest packages
for the Fedora/RHEL world include FC[1-3], RH9 and RHEL3.
Contrast that with Scalable OGo
The users mailing list had 123 messages in February and 85 in January.
(and I didn't look further)
Website last updated 2009-01-30
Packages exist for RHEL5
Scalable OGo was really a project that Skyrix (the company behind OGo)
took on as project work for a customer and eventually released as open
source. So yes it's technically a fork, but not in the bad sense of
the word. Moreover the fact that SOGo doesn't have the public file
storage and document management system aspect which means it's less
complex for us. Regardless it does seem to have more momentum. That
said I merely toss that out there for consideration. Others are doing
the work, and I don't want to bikeshed this, so feel free to ignore
WORKSFORME, lets set it up. No harm in taking a look at it.