Chuck,
glad to hear you are back online. If you do not have a simple NAT+DHCP device, you really should have one, and I can send you one.
Regarding Chandler: I am not sure why Rosenberg chose Chandler -- perhaps it's because it was a project he could track end to end, or because having come of age in the 90s he equates FOSS with web and certain newer Internet technologies. That's the charitable interpretation.
Chandler is a very quirky project (IIRC it is the successor to Kapor's previous failed open source effort with Hulu -- not the video streaming company) -- I actually used both the server and the client for a decent bit of time, and even encouraged its adoption within my organisation. The chances of its success were low: on the one hand, the business types who use that sort of scheduling and messaging capability have Outlook/Exchange administered to them through an IV and would go into severe shock if they had to consider something else. On the other, geeks and other non-business types were already wedded to alternate technologies (e.g: Thunderbird) for some of that functionality.
On top of that Google with its half-baked Apps and other services provided a quasi-alternative. Gnome and KDE, the two major user environments in the *nix world have integrated applications that attempt to solve similar problems.
Chandler's solution was somewhat innovative, their adoption of CalDAV was pioneering (FWIW), but there wasn't space, I think, for yet another messaging/collaboration client that didn't quite solve all the problems. And Chandler, with funding and support from Kapor via OSAF, was not like a typical FOSS project, and I suspect if not for Kapor/ OSAF they might have tried to build the tool as a more integrated part of Gnome, KDE or taken some similar approach.
Heavy GUI tools are not quite the best examples of Free Software. In Jordan's comment on what Free Software (the F part of FOSS) was intended to address, I think he may be in his youthful urgency, like Rosenberg, forgetting the longer history. Mozilla was the abandoned child of Netscape which lost steam midway through its farfetched Java based Version 5 and then semi-duplicitously released the code into the public domain. But before Mozilla, and other such projects that came about in the 90s, were the GNU tools, such as 'gcc'. Jordan is talking about Open Source, so he is technically correct, but we are not. We have been using the term FOSS, mostly because it has gained currency. As Andy or Matt pointed out, Stallman (and those of us who have expressed agreement with him) is unhappy with the term FOSS and would rather differentiate Free Software from Open Source for some of these very reasons.
--ravi