Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Acquires Zimbra for $350 Million

ScuttleMonkey posted about 7 years ago | from the constant-maneuverings dept.

Yahoo! 95

TechCrunch is reporting that Yahoo has acquired the open source office suite Zimbra for $350 Million in cash. Zimbra has been in and out of the news over the last couple of years for their office suite, and recently launched offline capabilities. "The company has raised $30.5 million over three rounds of funding from Benchmark Partners, Redpoint Ventures, Accel Capital, Sumitomo and Duff, Ackerman & Goodrich. They announced 6 million paid mailboxes back in March, and more recently inked a deal with Comcast that brings another 12 million potential subscribers."

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tor like oatmeals! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642351)

Tor like oatmeals!

Re:Tor like oatmeals! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642401)

lol...already modded down!

Ogg like pussy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642977)

Ogg like pussy!

Yahoo & Open Source? (2, Insightful)

ZephyrXero (750822) | about 7 years ago | (#20642379)

Perhaps I've missed something but isn't Yahoo usually not too fond of open source stuff? Perhaps they're changing their ways? Or maybe they just want to make Zimbra proprietary to kill any open souce competition? I guess time will only tell on this one...

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642411)

Perhaps I've missed something, but since when is Yahoo in the business of selling webmail software?

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (2, Informative)

bogaboga (793279) | about 7 years ago | (#20642491)

We better fork the entire Zimbra code before it's too late. I liked their idea, used it a few times via their demo website, but was never successful at getting their server installed on Ubuntu. Open source was as good [or bad]as closed source software in this case.

I agree with you though, that Yahoo is not very friendly with Open Source. Look at their Launchcast music service...it's not friendly to Firefox even to-date!

Unfortunately, I cannot make a difference since I am no developer.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (4, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | about 7 years ago | (#20642695)

No need to fork Zimbra, we have a light weight alternative in Bongo (http://www.bongo-project.org/) that we'd love to have more people help out with.

As well as Bongo, there is also Citadel doing similar things, Kolab doing completely different things, and a couple of web-only groupware systems.

Zimbra's by no means the only game in town.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (4, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | about 7 years ago | (#20642777)

I did not know this http://www.bongo-project.org/ [bongo-project.org] existed. I swear to God...I have never heard of Bongo at all. One wonders what else I do not know about.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (2, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | about 7 years ago | (#20642963)

We're saving the noise and partying for 1.0 ;)

Reason: it's the Hula Project (2, Informative)

msimm (580077) | about 7 years ago | (#20645157)

I was curious too. Apparently after Novell chose to stop active (paid, full-time) development [novell.com] on it some people started a fork.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20649757)

I mentioned this to someone I know at Microsoft (admittedly over a beer - don't ask) and his response was: "Well, if we'd bought every small African state for OOXML it might have caused problems. Weren't they having a coup or something there recently anyway?". I'm not entirely sure he was joking.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20643213)

Yeah, some toy app like Bongo is not really in the same league as Zimbra.

Not even close.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20643705)

Have you seen and tested bongo [bongo-project.org] ?
Bongo is a for from novell's hula project.
It has a very nice web front end. Is a complete suit with mail, calendar and addressbook servers. More is yet to come. They don't even have a stable release yet!!!

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20644491)

Yeah, have you ever tried Zimbra?

Didn't think so, or you wouldn't be comparing it to the toy. :)

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 7 years ago | (#20648147)

They don't even have a stable release yet!!!
That is not a positive thing.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 7 years ago | (#20650829)

They don't even have a stable release yet!!!
That is not a positive thing.
Give it some time, these things don't happen overnight. If you need something Right Now, you can check out Citadel [citadel.org] , which Hula (now Bongo) was modelled after, and is very much in stable release right now (the current version is 7.20, this project has been around for years). Try it, you'll be very pleased.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (2, Informative)

carlivar (119811) | about 7 years ago | (#20644471)

From the Zimbra press release [zimbra.com] :

Will the Zimbra server and Web client remain open source?

* Access to the Zimbra source code will remain available and free.

Will new Zimbra projects and additions to the current Zimbra suite be open source?

* Zimbra will continue its practice of offering both an open and certified, network editions of the software.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20649409)

Yes... but how long before Yahoo closes the source?

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? -- Let's fork guys! - (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20653827)

Zimbra's badgeware is *NOT* going to be forked. Unless you'd want to hire an army to completely re-engineer the GUI from scratch. The sole intent of strict, attribution based, false-positive OSS licenses like Zimbra's is to give some of the benefits and marketing shizzle of OSS to the authors, and have to contribute as little as possible to the community that supports it. It is designed from conception to by unforkable by all pragmatic standards. Zimbra was designed to be sold.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (2, Informative)

ximenes (10) | about 7 years ago | (#20642529)

Actually Yahoo is very open-source centric internally, its just that they aren't very good about giving things back. Which isn't to say that they never do (they've supported FreeBSD), but there is a sea of internal tools and modifications that no one ever bothers to release.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 7 years ago | (#20643453)

That's why Google gets Geekshare and Yahoo doesn't. Google wants their people involved 20% of their time in non-work projects. Getting involved in those little tools is a great way for Google's engineers to show community involvement. Yahoo seems more "normal" in their business sense.. in other words keep everybody busy doing "real work" but they miss looking out for the future and that is what's grabbing Google all the happiness lately.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 7 years ago | (#20644099)

So, does this mean Yahoo! devs and other employees are under some sort of NDA? One that says' "It's your DUTY as an employee to help up keep this under wraps!"?

Sound like a now-defunct company I once worked for that insisted it's use of Open Source code rewrapped to proprietary was proprietary. I went a few rounds with the company attorney and TOLD him that the Open Source work created by others, by teachers and developers who put THEIR sweat and souls into making and releasing their own material to various free licenses did NOT go toward making OUR company's work proprietary if it was based on Open Source and reselling it without disclosing it.

For bad karma, I suppose, the company was bought and it's IT staff laid off.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

ximenes (10) | about 7 years ago | (#20644353)

So, does this mean Yahoo! devs and other employees are under some sort of NDA? One that says' "It's your DUTY as an employee to help up keep this under wraps!"?
Yes, in that inevitably some of this software will have secrets that aren't supposed to be shared outside the company. As you develop more and more of an internal software zoo, it becomes increasing less possible (and likely) that you will release any of it into the wild, since pieces will start to depend on wholly internally developed software.

Besides this, it takes work at any company to release changes or new software as open source. Manager approval, legal signoff, your own time, time and effort to get patches accepted by the community, etc. If you're dying from overwork or couldn't really care either way, it basically doesn't get done.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

davidsyes (765062) | about 7 years ago | (#20645251)

Is this case different because Yahoo! is making the software available for USE rather than SELLING it for use? (I use "selling" loosely, since advertising dollars, ads and other stuff on their site attracting users could be used to offset the cost of making the O/S software available....)

Do I understand that as long as Yahoo! does not sell their Open Source based widgets (especially not selling and not attributing) in the software, they are OK? Well, my former employer was actually SELLING the software which was (according the IT manager and some of the coders) BASED on and USING Open Source code. And as far as I know, the were NOT attributing the true source. That is where the legal guy and I got into disagreement, disagreeing over WHOSE software it was.... to whatever degree the company "borrowed" other code.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 7 years ago | (#20645375)

Depending on the license of the software you use there are different requirements. The GPL2 for example only says that you need to, essentially, include source code when you distribute the software. The BSD only says that you need to include credit including the BSD license somewhere but not the source code itself.

Neither says that you need to give any modifications to any third party unless you are already giving them your software. So for internal usage there is no requirements. Likewise users of a software who do not get the software itself (ie: web server for example) likewise do not need to get the source code. You can even sell GPL software for exorbitant amounts but it's simply rather pointless as you need to give the people you sell to the source code and they are free to re-distribute the software to others for free.

It is very common for companies to make internal modifications to open source software they run and they are in no way required to release them to anyone else.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 7 years ago | (#20645643)

Actually Yahoo is very open-source centric internally, its just that they aren't very good about giving things back.
http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com] is the site for stuff that they release to the community. Compare this to http://code.google.com/ [google.com] and then please eat your words.

YUI [yahoo.com] (BSD License) is a full javascript/ajax toolkit that rivals other such open toolkits out there (prototype, dojo, etc.), but is better documented, and will likely become the standard over the coming year or two.

Yahoo! obviously doesn't release everything they do as open source. That would hurt their competitive advantage, and they often can't justify the amount of time to polish and document everything well enough for outside use. But I challenge you to find any company with as high of a profile as yahoo! that has shared as much as they have with the open source community.

Back to the original story, I think it's great news that Yahoo! has acquired this company. If google and yahoo both give away web-based office suites, people will catch on quickly, and hopefully MS will lose its clawlike grip on the office suite market.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20653253)

> YUI [yahoo.com] (BSD License) is a full javascript/ajax toolkit that rivals other such open toolkits out there

I've used YUI, and what's there does indeed work nice and is lavishly documented. The problem is, there just isn't a lot there. Virtually no JSON support. No listbox components (though the other toolkits have disappointed me there too). Not much of a tree component. Infrastructure-wise, it doesn't quite meet Dojo, and widget-wise, it doesn't even approach ZK.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (2, Informative)

Sherloqq (577391) | about 7 years ago | (#20642691)

According to Zimbra's own press release [zimbra.com] , "Yahoo! is also a major proponent of open technologies and this combination is a further testament to how serious they are about their intentions. You will continue to see active participation in developer APIs and forums. We are committed to keeping the current source open and available for use and we will continue to offer the network version that will contain value added proprietary features on top of the open product."

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (5, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 7 years ago | (#20642731)

Perhaps I've missed something but isn't Yahoo usually not too fond of open source stuff? Perhaps they're changing their ways? Or maybe they just want to make Zimbra proprietary to kill any open souce competition? I guess time will only tell on this one...
Yahoo exists thanks to Open Source.

It is still the poster child for FreeBSD. They started on FreeBSD and kept using it to this date.

They are offering free open source SDKs etc on http://developer.yahoo.com/ [yahoo.com]

They certainly have a problem in PR department if a slashdot user thinks Yahoo is not fond of open source.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

ZephyrXero (750822) | about 7 years ago | (#20642871)

well thanks to you and all the other commentors for the correction ;)

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (3, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about 7 years ago | (#20643497)

That would be correct. Note how Google has Google Labs and Google Code... If they're not playing to the slashdot/digg crowd, then they're not playing in the same game as Google!

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (3, Insightful)

bark (582535) | about 7 years ago | (#20644683)

Also to clarify, Yahoo's supported open source by hiring a whole slew of open source developers. One of the heavy weights is Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of php.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

allenw (33234) | about 7 years ago | (#20643155)

Hopefully those of us at Yahoo! [oreilly.com] working on Hadoop [apache.org] (and its related project Pig [yahoo.com] ) can help change this perception.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20643861)

Maybe someone should tip them about the internet standards while they're at embracing the open source philosophy. Talking about Firefox and Yahoo! mail here. You know the score.

Whereas Yahoo! might perhaps be the lesser evil of them and goooogle that's not very much.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

NickFitz (5849) | about 7 years ago | (#20649037)

Maybe someone should tip them about the internet standards while they're at embracing the open source philosophy. Talking about Firefox and Yahoo! mail here. You know the score.

Yahoo! Mail works just fine on Firefox. Given that web developers inside Y! tend to develop first on Firefox, and most use it as their primary browser (the rest being Safari users), it would be surprising if it didn't.

I mean, I know you're just a trolling AC, but at least try.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

hey! (33014) | about 7 years ago | (#20649693)

vCal, more like. If you can't view your calendar offline, it's a major negative. With Yahoo, you're stuck if you don't use Palm Desktop or Outlook.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (1)

kylegordon (159137) | about 7 years ago | (#20643873)

You're missing something. Yahoo are based primarily on BSD servers, and have been since their early days. They are big supporters of Hadoop, YUI, Flickr and other open source projects. Now with Zimbra in their stable, they should be an interesting group to watch.

Re:Yahoo & Open Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20653077)

According to my sales rep at Zimbra, they are being maintained as a wholly owned subisdiary, effectively making this more of a long term funding support than "ARRRRR WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU OVER AND OUT !!!!ONEONEONE". At least at this point, that could (and probably will) change at some point in the future.

what about outlook (2007) support (-1, Troll)

johnjones (14274) | about 7 years ago | (#20642455)


they have a nice webmail interface

but its the extra's that matter...

performace can be improved (easily enough I think)
but what concerns me is the support for outlook

windows mobile support is also I really nice feature

BOTH of these where in the paid version so zimbra thought that people would pay for this...

lets hope they improve because the promised outlook 2007 support is a way behind schedual..

John

Mod parent down as troll (-1, Flamebait)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | about 7 years ago | (#20643319)

please.

Aren't we tired of seeing these Microsoft trolls on /. and Digg?

Re:Mod parent down as troll (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20646389)

No, mod this faggot as "piece of shit who likes getting fucked in the ass."

Not surprising in the least. (4, Informative)

juuri (7678) | about 7 years ago | (#20642459)

Last year I setup a dual box zimbra system to replace some rather high traffic imap servers that served ~1200 users with 550+ concurrent during periods of heavy load, with a *lot* of incoming and outgoing mail peppered full of attachments. I was pretty skeptical at first about how the system would hold up, but not only was it solid, in many ways it was much faster than the previous system, especially with the mailboxes that were huge in size.

Solid backups, good inegration with third party software, easy extension and a solid upgrade in place system makes for a great product. It didn't hurt that their techs were responsive and actually knew about all the software (much of it OSS) that their product was based on. I'm suprised that is Yahoo though, figured it would be Apple to turn into their enterprise mail platform.

Agreed (5, Interesting)

porkThreeWays (895269) | about 7 years ago | (#20642789)

Zimbra is by far the best at what it does. It's better than every web based Groupware (is that the proper name?) software out there. Let's just hope Yahoo doesn't run it into the ground. I don't see why they'd actually want or need this software. Yahoo already has lot's of talented programmers and pretty decent software. The Zimbra code is probably useless to them and all of Zimbra's features and quality could be copied without owning them. It isn't like Google buying Youtube (i.e. buying established users) because Zimbra really only has a cult following. For how good it is, it really isn't that popular. This purchase really confuses me. Like I said, I hope they actually do something with Zimbra instead of buying it and letting it sit on the shelf.

Re:Agreed (1)

DraconPern (521756) | about 7 years ago | (#20647679)

Likely Yahoo bought them for the MAPI integration and the mobile sync.

Re:Agreed (1)

mpcooke3 (306161) | about 7 years ago | (#20648597)

Maybe they plan to use it to compete with google for domains, the groupware functionality on Google for Domains is probably not as advanaced as Zimbra - although it does start up faster.

Re:Not surprising in the least. (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 7 years ago | (#20648469)

Last year I setup a dual box zimbra system to replace some rather high
traffic imap servers that served ~1200 users with 550+ concurrent during
periods of heavy load, with a *lot* of incoming and outgoing mail peppered
full of attachments. I was pretty skeptical at first about how the system
would hold up, but not only was it solid, in many ways it was much faster
than the previous system, especially with the mailboxes that were huge in
size.


The only thing that surprises me is that this continues to surprise people. In generaly, I have found that open source software tends to beat the proprietary incumbents on performance, and often scalability. It may get other things wrong, but generally not those.

The exceptions are, of course, programs that attempt to be imitations of their proprietary counterparts. I find these are sometimes significantly more sluggish than the product they imitate.

Wasted oppotunity (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642535)

They really should have taken a look at zombo.com. There are many more possibilities there, according to the sources I've queried.

Re:Wasted oppotunity (1)

loftwyr (36717) | about 7 years ago | (#20643183)

That's vaporware. Their website hasn't even been updated in 8 years!

Re:Wasted oppotunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20646493)

But being able to do anything includes doing nothing...

Also, shoutout to Datavortex and crew.

the irony (1)

sundru (709023) | about 7 years ago | (#20642557)

interetsing to note that zimbra uses google for mail search ... :P

Re:the irony (1)

marcmac (105570) | about 7 years ago | (#20643427)

That is not correct. Zimbra's search control also offers the ability to search google, but google is not involved in the mail search.

Zimbra? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20642561)

Never heard of them but their website smells of fail, perfect acquisition for Yahoo.

Ugggh...Comcast (1, Insightful)

us7892 (655683) | about 7 years ago | (#20642583)

inked a deal with Comcast

This had me interested until I read that they made a deal with the devil.

Not an "Office Suite" (3, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#20642595)

This is not yet another competitor for Microsoft Office or Open Office. (God knows we don't need any more!) Zimbra is a little more specialized, concentrating on email, scheduling, and other "collaboration" stuff.

I seem to recall trying Zimbra a little while back and not being terribly impressed. Yahoo seems to have a history of buying companies for the sake of products or services they would have been better off developing themselves. Anybody remember broadcast.com?

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | about 7 years ago | (#20642759)

The interface and concept Zimbra and Thinkfree.com offers is the future of Office IMHO.

They just need more advanced web browsers and/or java.

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (1)

Sweetshark (696449) | about 7 years ago | (#20642783)

Well, "Microsoft Office" includes the "Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server". Thats not the same as Zimbra (the closest OSS product is Alfresco), but there are quite some overlaps.

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (2, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#20643733)

Yeah, and MSOffice also includes an email client, which is one of the central apps in Zimbra. But Zimbra as I recall does not include word processing or spreadsheets, which are both basics of "office suites". Like I said, it's more specialized.

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (2, Informative)

ZephyrXero (750822) | about 7 years ago | (#20642791)

Zimbra has been primarily focused on email (ala GMail, or Yahoo's own new beta webmail service), but they've recently begun working on adding office functionality [zimbra.com] (ala Google Docs & Spreadsheets, or ZoHo) to it's feature list. This would be really great for the business I work for as we'd much rather host our own web-based office stuff than lease it from Google or someone, and it's open source...I hope to God Yahoo doesn't screw Zimbra up.

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (1)

Ajehals (947354) | about 7 years ago | (#20643471)

This is not yet another competitor for Microsoft Office or Open Office. (God knows we don't need any more!)
We need as many quality "productivity suites"(ugh) as possible, as long as they support sensible formats. The more choice the better, one would hope that more competition, coupled with open source code and open standards can only mean increased innovation and quality.

I do see the issues with diluting the pool of qualified coders working on any given project, but I would say the risk of that are outweighed by the benefits.

Re:Not an "Office Suite" (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 7 years ago | (#20643897)

We need as many quality "productivity suites"(ugh) as possible, as long as they support sensible formats.
You mean, as long as they all support the same format. Which they have to do so that people using different products can share files. These formats are, by their nature, messy, and without standardization you have no hope of going from WordBunny to WeaselWord to ZorkOffice without getting all your formats messed up. Fortunately, people are finally beginning to get this.

But forget "the more competition the better". The market's already saturated. Anybody who thinks they can add value at this late date is an idiot. And I've already wasted too much time with software designed by idiots.

That's nice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20643241)

as myself and the industry will continue using Outlook

But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (3, Insightful)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | about 7 years ago | (#20643255)

oooo, this could turn out bad. There has been a lot of talk of Microsoft buying Yahoo in an attempt to catch up to Google. And if MSFT does buy Yahoo, thereby acquiring Zimbra, it is another FOSS code base that we might lose time and effort on.

Of course, we don't want to speculate needlessly about a Microsoft acquisition of Yahoo. This is exactly the wedge that we see Microsoft driving into the FOSS community with their deals with Novell, Xandros, and Linspire. Undoubtedly, one of the benefits to Microsoft of the Yahoo acquisition talks is that many members of the FOSS community will shy away from Yahoo, simply because they might become a Microsoft property. And even people who like Microsoft and its products might hesitate to use Yahoo products and services if they see Yahoo stumbling.

So I would like to see Yahoo get its financial house in order. I am really fond of Google and its products and services, and I tend to use Google tools and properties more than the Yahoo counterparts. But I wouldn't want to have competition in this area reduced to only two major players: Microsoft and Google.

So come on, Yahoo, get your act together! And stop talking with Microsoft about acquisitions! Ick!

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (1)

argent (18001) | about 7 years ago | (#20643797)

What happens depends on the license. Can you fork Zimbra, or is the license effectively tied up with them?

If they've got proprietary control that can't be picked up by anyone willing to create a fork, it's not really open source in the BSD sense.

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (1)

christian.einfeldt (874074) | about 7 years ago | (#20644045)

Okay, this is actually a good point. I was a little sloppy in my original post. It is probably NOT the code that we lose, because the license is probably truly an open source / Free Software license. It's the community that we lose. Or at least the community has to migrate from one name to another. So you are right, it could become more of a speed bump than a real obstacle.

But IMHO, there is occasionally some juice that is lost and confusion generated when projects change. For example, Mambo became locked down code, and IIRC, the transition to Joomla was not as seamless as one would hope. Am I right about this Mambo ----> Joomla move? Anyone? And does anyone else know of examples where a move resulted in either a more robust or less robust FOSS project? There is, of course, Firefox. What a great success story that is. So maybe even a Microsoft acquistion would not be all that bad.

Heh, in fact, it might be kinda funny. If Microsoft buys Yahoo, the disdain for Microsoft in the FOSS community will tend to drive developers away. So Microsoft could, in essence, be paying a premium for a community that will tend to shrivel upon Microsoft's acquisition.

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20649335)

Zimbra is under MPL (Mozilla Public License.)
They also sell proprietary versions with added functionality such as MAPI/iSynch, clustering/high availability support and similar stuff.

Feature matrix at: http://www.zimbra.com/products/product_editions.html [zimbra.com]

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (1)

Locutus (9039) | about 7 years ago | (#20644361)

I heard that purchasing Zimbra was a pre-requisite for Microsoft purchasing Yahoo. ;-)

LoB

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (2, Interesting)

carlivar (119811) | about 7 years ago | (#20644581)

Yahoo is, what, 95% FreeBSD and Linux? I just laugh at these Microsoft rumors. I seriously doubt Microsoft's pride would ever allow them to acquire that much open-source software. They probably realize it would be nearly impossible to convert to Windows, too. At the very least they'd probably lose over 50% of Yahoo's engineering staff if they tried such a thing.

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20651061)

Hotmail was built on BSD, when MS bought it. They eventually switched everything over to Windows (although it took forever and there were multiple aborted attempts).

Re:But what happens if MSFT buys Yahoo? (1)

carlivar (119811) | about 7 years ago | (#20655131)

Hotmail was a debacle and that was ONE application. Yahoo is orders of magnitude more complex.

Yahoo destroys Zimbra for $350 Million (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20644011)

Anyone want to bet that in 3 years you'll be seeing something like this [musicmatch.com] on Zimbra's main page?

Anybody want to bet that nobody in the current company will be doing anything related to their current job in 3 years?

Anybody want to bet that Yahoo hasn't learned anything from previous mistakes?

But I'm not bitter [slashdot.org] or anything.

What do you expect when attention span is short? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20647139)

Yahoo's mutilation of MM is the primary reason I hate Yahoo.

Ooooh.... (1)

neko the frog (94213) | about 7 years ago | (#20644127)

Zimbra.
It took me a while to not read that as "Yahoo buys Zambia for $350M."
Sure enough the high price was what tipped me off to my mistake.

"Zimbra"? (1)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | about 7 years ago | (#20644597)


I swear, sometimes it's hard to tell who has dumber names: Web 2.0 startups, or Open Source projects.

It's like the Dot-com Bubble all over again. I can't wait until next week's story, about how WUB.com has bought Flizmo for $X50 Thrillion...

Re:"Zimbra"? (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 7 years ago | (#20649113)

Actually, if you think about it, given most of these animalistic names you'd think furries were the hired naming/marketing force.

Not like I have room to speak since I associate with that particular subculture. But come on, FireFox? IceWeasel? Thunderbird? Gecko (the engine behind FireFox IIRC) and so on. GAIM is now Pidgin. C'mon, this outta say something!

Sales Department (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20644639)

I hope Yahoo takes over sales for Zimbra. I tried to position Zimbra in a college and when I attempted to contact Zimbra's sales department the phone rang and rang and rang. Where I come from you want sales people available if you're in the business of selling "stuff."

The special Yahoo! touch (0, Troll)

Peaker (72084) | about 7 years ago | (#20644729)

Every website Yahoo has created, and every service, you can just feel their touch. The touch of incompetence. Their web mail client sucks. Their image sharing service sucked. Their search engine sucked (at least until Google came along).

Yahoo is an incompetent company and everything that they have done and I have seen sucked.

Re:The special Yahoo! touch (1)

Rakishi (759894) | about 7 years ago | (#20646339)

Their search engine sucked (at least until Google came along).
Well given that Yahoo didn't have it's own search engine until after google came along it was likely no worse than other search engines of the period. It's sort of stupid to claim something sucks because all the options at the time were bad and something better came along later. Then again based on your post I guess stupid probably is a good description of you in general.

Re:The special Yahoo! touch (1)

Peaker (72084) | about 7 years ago | (#20653363)

Yahoo sure had a search engine, which was based on manual human categorizing.

It sucked, and brought rather irrelevant results.

Yahoo is an incompetent company making incompetent services.

Hopefully for the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20644733)

Hmm, from personal experience I'd say Zimbra is a pretty shitty application suite, if you read the source and develop for it (zimlets,etc), it's not that solid of a application suite. It's interface is ill-documented (no documented api), source poorly written and rather bloated in general. I'd have to hope that Yahoo can improve it, since it needs quite a bit of work to make it match what competitors are offering. Although I look at it more from a developers perspective than a users...

wishlist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20646011)

Hi Yahoo, this is my Zimbra wishlist:

* Be a poster child for interoperability. Fully support and encourage open standards like CalDAV.

* Replace MySQL w/ PostgreSQL. Do NOT add some pandering database agnostic layer to appease the ignorant. Focus on speed and features, rather than adding bloat for purely political reasons.

* Don't make this a service only. Continue to release a product that I can download, install, and tailor to my particular institution.

* Continue to release a completely free version, and foster the supportive community that will naturally spring up around it. Those people are your best customers, your best advocates, and will gladly help you if you help them.

Good Luck!

Re:wishlist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20657901)

You left out work on Solaris

Not another MusicMatch perversion! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20646795)

As someone waiting patiently for Zimbra 5 to come out and implement it for my group, I think I have to scream from the top of my lungs "FUCK FUCK FUCK... WHY WHY WHY"

In my opinion Zimbra is/was the only quasi-free game in town, and yes I tried almost everything listed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_groupware [wikipedia.org]

"Open Source"? (1)

mi (197448) | about 7 years ago | (#20647169)

I don't really care for the licensing terms, as long as the source is available for private perusal.

But opening up your source-code repository is not quite cutting it to me. Where be the releases? I want to see zimbra-N.K.tar.bz2, along with an earlier zimbra-N.K-1.tar.bz2, and, maybe, the preview of zimbra-N+1.beta.tar.bz2.

That's Open Source...

Pronto! is better (biased opinion) (1)

azdio (185000) | about 7 years ago | (#20648849)

The flash based Pronto! email, calendar, VoIP, media, rss reader, jabber, pbx and more client we make is light, fast, and scales much better. The install can be downloaded, installed and configured in less than 30 minutes. The entire package is under 15 megs single binary with more than 20 operating systems/hardware combinations supported. There is a live demo system running at [talktoip.com] http://talktoip.com/ [talktoip.com] if you'd like to create an account and see for yourself. If you would rather run the software to test you can get it in the CommuniGate Pro package from [communigate.com] ftp://ftp.communigate.com/Pub/CommuniGatePro/5.1 [communigate.com] . 5.1.12 is the most recent stable version.

As the subject says I am biased for being directly affiliated with the developers of Pronto!

Community edition is limited to 5 users! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20656141)

Quite a not so small oversight, even if you admit to being biased.

Uhh (0, Offtopic)

Peeteriz (821290) | about 7 years ago | (#20649377)


Another case of RIAA selling shoddy, lame products.
My friendly neighbouring pirates are distributing high-quality, premium versions of the same songs that are fully compatible with everything!

No wonder that RIAA can't compete with them, as RIAA is selling cheap knockoffs, while pirates are offering the real goods.

Why Did They Buy It? (1)

gbickford (652870) | about 7 years ago | (#20649761)

Why did they buy it if it's open source? Couldn't they just download it?

CASH ?? How many suitcases was that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20650609)

Was it really in cash or was it a bank draft transfer?
IMHO Cash is actual bills... Not a bank account balance equivalent.
I have a hard time believing any bank has 30 million in Cash available to dole out, much less 3 Million.

Zimbra was never truly free anyway (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 7 years ago | (#20650761)

Anyone who seriously looked at Zimbra already knows that it has a couple of limitations, one of which is that the "open source" version is quite stripped down. If you want the fully functional version you have to pay for it. It is also extremely resource hungry, carrying with it an entire Java application server, an entire copy of MySQL, etc. etc. etc.

That having been said, Zimbra does have a gorgeous UI and it'll be interesting to see what Yahoo does with it.

So what's left for those of us who want to run feature-rich groupware servers on our own hardware? Check out Citadel -- http://www.citadel.org [citadel.org] . It is a mature, stable, and feature-rich platform with email, calendars, address books, bulletin boards, instant messaging, GroupDAV for rich clients, and a very nice AJAX web UI. Full support for Outlook will arrive later this year, too. The best part is that unlike Zimbra (or Scalix, for that matter), the whole system is released under the GPLv3. Just like the Ubuntu folks said a few years ago, "There is no 'enterprise' version. We make our very best work available to everyone under the same terms."

Re:Zimbra was never truly free anyway (1)

khanyisa (595216) | about 7 years ago | (#20651527)

You're complaining about it being "stripped down" and "extremely resource hungry" at the same time. Most of the features missing in the open source version are the multi-server features, and proprietary app integration (Outlook etc). The actual application features are fantastic. It's heavy if you try and run it for a single user on a slow machine, which I did for a while. Now we run it on our middle-of-the-range server for our company email and it works a treat. There have been significant performance improvements too.

Customer Announcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20651543)

Zimbra is pleased to announce we have been acquired by Yahoo! (NASDAQ:YHOO).

Yahoo! is acquiring Zimbra to extend its leadership and reach new customers in the business, education, and service provider markets across the globe.

This major opportunity for Zimbra will accelerate our growth using Yahoo!'s worldwide reach, create a larger combined community, plus enable us to build even more powerful experiences together.

For more information please see the official announcement or view the Zimbra Blog.

What does this mean to our Zimbra Collaboration Suite customers? Here's what you need to know:

Yahoo! and Zimbra remain firmly committed to our partners, customers, and all the markets we are currently serving ZCS product editions and pricing remains unchanged; Yahoo! is committed to choice and openness and will continue to offer an on-premise offering and provide access to source code.

Zimbra sales and support operations remain unchanged; including our personnel, web site, and community- sales and support of ZCS continue as normal and planned availability of version 5.0 remains unchanged. In addition, the two teams will develop enhanced experiences and innovative features that leverage both companies' individual assets Like Zimbra, Yahoo! believes our Community is a critical component to our success and together we will grow and support it

Over the coming months Zimbra will also find ways to leverage Yahoo!'s many strengths to make ZCS and the Zimbra Community even more robust; such as more Zimlets / mash-ups and even more developer tools. We will also use Yahoo!'s unprecedented reach to spread the word far-and-wide about Zimbra.

If you have any questions, we strongly encourage you to review our Q&A or contact your sales representative who can provide more information.

Sincerely,

Satish Dharmaraj
CEO, Zimbra

More interested in... (1)

pjr.cc (760528) | about 7 years ago | (#20653505)

To be honest, i was more interested in seeing where this got: http://sourceforge.net/projects/openchange/ [sourceforge.net]

It looked pretty good and has some decent names behind it (now, that wasnt always the case). Plus its kinda functional in both directions in that they were bringing out a native exchange connector for evolution.

I remember writing a whole concept article about a replacement for mail a while ago based on the whole tagging concept but could never get it started. The motivation though was really about the lack of collab suites that exist in the OSS arena. I dont really consider Zimbra to be all that OSS myself though.

ZCS has a long way to go (1)

dilger (1646) | about 7 years ago | (#20663005)

I've been using the Zimbra Collaboration Suite (ZCS) for about three weeks, and it has a loooong way to go. It's slow and lacks user interface basics like "Undo." The next version just adds more half-implemented bells and whistles.

Hopefully Yahoo will buy Zimbra a few usability engineers. And an accessibility consultant. And a fleet of documentation writers. If their track record holds (del.icio.us, flickr), this will be good for folks like me who could care less what dotcom is at the helm, but just want the product to be less mediocre.

Scalix? (1)

Dunkirk (238653) | about 7 years ago | (#20665551)

When I replaced OpenGroupware at my church about a year ago, I looked at both Zimbra and Scalix. Both seemed to do about the same thing, in about the same way. I installed both and tried them out. Functionally, on the web client, I couldn't tell the difference. From an installation point-of-view, Scalix won hands-down. (The Outlook plugin was a little testy, but once the replication stuff was properly setup, it's all been good.) The point that really "sold" the system to me was that I needed the system to do delegation, and, at the time, I could NOT get that working with Zimbra. On Scalix, I wouldn't say it "just worked," but I was able to stumble my way through the tickboxes to a working setup. (In the version I have, I seem to remember needing to frob some things on the web-interface side. I also seem to remember that this would go away in the next release.) Anyway, Scalix is out there, works very well, and is completely free, including the Outlook plugin.

I was just going to link their URL, and I find that they've been bought by Xandros, which might have been sort of worrying on its own (being as Xandros is such a small player in the field, I guess that implies something about the size of Scalix as well), but they recently did a "patent" deal with Microsoft. Oops. I may have a problem now.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?