Re: [SyncEvolution] future direction for SyncEvolution (was: Re: OpenSync: fragmentation is harmful)

Hi Patrick, On Tuesday 04 January 2011 14.51:29 Patrick Ohly wrote: Yes, to some extent. But then most PCs these days are networked, and thus clients as well as servers at the same time. The same is increasingly true for phones. A phone connecting over your LAN to your desktop PC and a phone connected to a server are not all that different, especially as email always requires some server somewhere to talk to, and that server might very well be your local desktop, as Opera has demonstrated. So the use case of "no server whatsoever" is increasingly limited to "no email, just some private non-shared calendaring on a non-networked desktop" - and that is a use case I see shrinking in importance, especially as the alternatives become more widely available and cheaper. Actually both approaches allow you to keep your data on your own devices these days if you want. That is interesting. How will you avoid the issues that OpenSync faced when becoming more modular? Both points are true. I would also say that SyncML has the conceptual flaw of assuming dumber devices than todays devices actually are. True. But then that is intraoperability. Interoperability comes into play when you only control one side. And most real-life issues typically arise out of the fact that controlling both sides is usually not a given. I'd be very interested in that, please keep me up to speed. Best regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve Chief Executive Officer Kolab Systems AG Zürich, Switzerland e: greve(a)kolabsys.com t: +41 78 904 43 33 w: http://kolabsys.com pgp: 86574ACA Georg C. F. Greve