Slashdot Mirror


German Government Commissions KDE Groupware System

tankengine writes "The German government has ordered a full-blown open-source groupware solution for KDE, to be delivered by the end of this year. It will consist of a server made of standard OSS components (Apache, Postfix, LDAP, etc) called Kolab, and a KDE client. The contractors are aiming for functional equivalence to MS Exchange and Outlook 2000."

478 comments

  1. That's it... by Hertog · · Score: 1

    I'm moving over there :) (Is only 10 Kilometers anyway)

    --
    -=- I heard rumours about an OS called "Social Life", heard of it? Is it stable? -=-
    1. Re:That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonderful

    2. Re:That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh ja - duitsers zijn echte _leuke_ mensen...

    3. Re:That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ja, veel leuker dan Nederlanders.

    4. Re:That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kilo-whoozie? Talk english!

  2. Good opportunity by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    Looks like a great opportunity for Linux to churn out a desktop usable by you average adminiistrative assistant.

    I dont use KDE but it seems a good place to start..

    --
    1. Re:Good opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just make sure qt- and kde-lib is in place and you can run the client even if using gnome or any other windowmanger or desktop...

    2. Re:Good opportunity by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Shared calander, and ability to reserv resources..

      --
  3. What about the Kompany? by ACK!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have been working on a similiar project called Aethera for awhile.

    What has happened to this project?

    I use Evolution everyday and found it very nice. The screenshots of Aethera look really nice and the interface from this screenshots look pretty damn intuitive.

    Has anyone ever used Aethera?

    How does it stack up to Evolution?

    ________________________________________________ _

    --
    ACK /ak/ interj. 2. [from the comic strip "Bloom County"] An exclamation of surprised disgust, esp. i
    1. Re:What about the Kompany? by Deth_Master · · Score: 1

      I'm really hoping that this new project will stack up as well as or better than Evolution. I run SourceMage Linux and its a lot of crap to install when you use kde and want to use Evolution. That's the best (by best I mean user friendliest[sp?]) mail manager out there, for linux at least. If it is all nicely integrated, I believe that this project will be very nifty. But it all depends on how much they emulate M$. There should be limited emulation on how things work, the process, but when it comes to customization and nifty features, they should follow Evolution's path. At least that's what I think they should do.

      --
      find ~your -name '*base* | xargs chown :us
    2. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you must just install Gnome...

    3. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which means 30 libraries to compile (seriously!)

    4. Re:What about the Kompany? by krogoth · · Score: 1, Troll

      What about them? Should slashdot provide a full update on every competing/remotely similar system?

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    5. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aethera = Vaporware to stall KDE to GNOME deserters (see previous Microsoft marketing campaigns for more examples).

    6. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 30 small libraries, which make themselves modular so they can be widely used (for example, the KDE project uses GNOME's XML libraries - on which an enormous amount of work was done). Also known as good software engineering.

      The KDE project, on the other hand, is one big blob of C++ code linked to Qt... polluting every fucking thing it touches. KDE doesn't want to share with others... just take.

    7. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, no. KDE uses the inbuilt Qt libraries (QDom) to parse XML. They work well. Plus, I don't see how linking to Qt is different to GTK.

      Oh, and did I mention aRts? :)

      aRts has Qt, mpeglib, and GTK plugins. I call that sharing; does ESD have that many plugins?

      Daniel Stone (dstone [AMPHORA] kde [FULLSTOP] org), who has forgotten his password, and has his primary MX down.

    8. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how linking to Qt is different to GTK.

      You don't? How about the fact that it binds you to TrollTech and their obnoxious and labyrithine licensing? Linking to GTK has no such problems. Qt is viral timebomb.

    9. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obnoxious licencing? Um... they use the GPL. (Or at your option, their own QPL).

    10. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use a horrible collection of licenses that takes a lawyer months to work through all the possible interactions between them - not only that, they vary according to the platform. And on top of that, using of the GPL for a library like Qt is most definitely obnoxious.

      It puts TrollTech firmly in control, even of KDE... For example, KDE will never follow a GPL fork of Qt. It would mean absolutely no closed-source software allowed on the KDE desktop. So the KDE project is stuck 100% with whatever TrollTech wants to do. Suck it down, bitch. You are 0wn3d.

    11. Re:What about the Kompany? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name anything but aRts? I doubt it. As for ESD... it's a sound daemon, that's all. Why would it need either GTK or Qt plugins?

  4. Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just to be clear, will the finished product be freely available to all? I read the article, and it seems that way to me, but I'm unsure & don't want to get my hopes up too much.

    It certainly seems a little farfetched to expect that out of the blue we'll get an Outlook/Exchange replacement at no cost.

    1. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by tjansen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the KDE client will be GPL'd. It will re-use a lot of code/components from KMail, KOrganizer etc

    2. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by unixmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I read on kde mailing lists , resulting software will be Free Software ( GPL/LGPL ) and afaik they will give a win32 port too , but native kde port will be first.

      --
      Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    3. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by huinya · · Score: 1
      c'mon, don't be so spoiled - free source is the freedom for you to modify/reuse the code in your GPLed program... stop expecting everything to be free of charge.
      --

      K.

    4. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by henben · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Does anyone who reads Slashdot ever read the GPL, or is there something I'm not getting here? Surely just because it's covered by the GPL, it doesn't mean it'll have to be available to users outside the German government.

      They only need to make the source available if they distribute the binary. If it was kept for internal use, they wouldn't have to make anything available to anyone.

      Right?

      But there's really no downside for them to allow distribution of their custom code, as long as someone else pays for the bandwidth. In fact, the wider testing/scrutiny of the code would be a plus.

      Can you imagine if all governments started doing things like this? The rate of useful development for open source software would skyrocket. Not only would it let more coders work on projects full time, but maybe a tighter focus and clear specs would improve the usability of the resulting software. And even if, say, the Ruritanian government's groupware project failed, the successful Armenian groupware project would step up to fill the gap.

      It amazes me that, in my country, individual local councils hire incompetent companies to screw up important services like benefit distribution when they should be clubbing together to develop a GPL'd local government suite. Sure, you wouldn't get widespread use of such software by a big pool of users, but it still makes sense to have 50 councils funding something they can all use rather than each one getting a bespoke solution. I suppose they each have different legacy tardware, but even so...

      <Sigh.> What was my point again?

    5. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by sultanoslack · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's being developed in KDE CVS and will be available for free to all when it's done.

    6. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by henben · · Score: 1
      Looking at the way he's talking about doing development in an open manner, it seems likely that the final source code will be distributed.

      Good.

    7. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by bbqBrain · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, the PM is quite the regular bedfellow of Bill Gates. I think this perpetuates (however implicitly) top-down pressure to go with proprietary software. As you say, though, it would be great to see the local governments produce a force in the other direction.

      Your best bet is probably to get personally involved with your local government. Politicians know politics, not IT. They would really benefit from knowledgeble, eloquently expressed opinions regarding such things.

      --

      One of the reasons that I became a lawyer was to avoid ever having to hire one. -SPYvSPY
    8. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If it was kept for internal use, they wouldn't have to make anything available to anyone.

      True... but some portion of their work will be done within the KDE CVS tree. So it looks like they're planning on playing nice.

    9. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by markb · · Score: 1

      They only need to make the source available if they distribute the binary. If it was kept for internal use, they wouldn't have to make anything available to anyone.

      Sure, but what's the point of GPLing something that you're not going to release?

    10. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by firewrought · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One of the overlooked benefits of Open Sourcing your internal apps is that it can take significantly reduce future maintaince costs and compatability headaches. Keeping your in-house app proprietary saves you the "cost" of having your competitiors adopt it, but you lose the benefits of releasing it into the community: other people will build on it, upgrade it, add features to it. Wide-spread adoption encourages vendors to interface with it and produce tools that greatly increase your inital investment. Even more valuable (though very intangible), is that everybody is encouraged to do things your way. This promotes investor/consumer image and provides other leverage in future decision-making.

      This is one strong argument for a viral license like the GPL. You certaintly don't want to release a product that someone else can hijack and cut you off from getting future dividends.

      So what will the German government do? Releasing it is probably in their best interest, especially if they want the rest of the EU to break from Microsoft. All that said, though... their development schedule seems to be highly ambitious. Maybe they could start with Aethera or Evolution. (Maybe I should go read the article.)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    11. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I had a dream about Bill Gates last night. We were sitting at a table and he had his arm over my shoulder, really buddy-buddy like. Nicole Kidman was dancing on the table wearing a huge jewel-encrusted necklace and really tight, short pants. Mr. Gates also had a huge necklace, made of gold. I didn't have any neclace at all and I suspected that they pitied me for it. I think this was my subconcious' way of telling me that associating with the rich and famous would be a loosing proposition, and that the arm over my shoulder was supposed to be ironic.

      (Submitted in the spirit of full disclosure)

    12. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the client?

    13. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by debest · · Score: 1

      If it is a derivative work of GPL'ed code (and it certainly looks that way), then the subsequent work MUST be also GPL'ed.

      It still doesn't mean they have to distribute the end product.

      However, I agree with the previous post that it there does not appear to be any reason NOT to re-release the code, as long as someone else hosts/maintains the work.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    14. Re:Is this intended to be free-to-all when done? by yomegaman · · Score: 0

      Yeah, just look at gcc. After all of these years it still gets its doors blown off by virtually every commerical compiler. How about a little reality instead of this endless dogma?

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  5. What about a port of Evolution? by WmFA · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that they're spending money on redevelopment here. Desktop holy war considerations aside, it would be nice to see their efforts go to extending Evolution's *existing* interoperability with their target systems.

  6. Did you hear that? by Windcatcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think that's the sound of hundreds of M$ employees spitting their coffee all over their monitors.

    1. Re:Did you hear that? by garcia · · Score: 2

      except the smell is not of burning hardware.

    2. Re:Did you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, unfortunately the sounds you heard immediately afterwards was them laughing their asses off.

    3. Re:Did you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL - but get real!

      I think it's great and all, but I don't for a moment imagine than any MS employees (or stockholders for that matter) are going to loose sleep over this.

      Keep it in perspective.

    4. Re:Did you hear that? by pubjames · · Score: 2

      Keep it in perspective.

      OK. The vast proportion of Microsoft's revenues come from two sources, Windows OS and Microsoft Office. There are now two serious competitors for both these sources which are maturing extremely rapidly. They are considerably cheaper than Microsoft's offerings.

      If I was an MS stockholder or employee, I would be worried.

    5. Re:Did you hear that? by abigor · · Score: 2

      To be more precise: 1/3 of MS revenues are from MS Office. Other than Office and Windows, MS does not have a single market leader on the desktop, out of all their many products. So anything that affects the revenues of these two products is big news.

    6. Re:Did you hear that? by Walterk · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! You should buy stock in VIM!

    7. Re:Did you hear that? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Other than Office and Windows, MS does not have a single market leader on the desktop, out of all their many products.

      Visual Studio is also the #1 IDE, though, of course, that's not often counted as a desktop product.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    8. Re:Did you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hysterical Laughter while there Stock and market share keeps dropping? Not likely.

    9. Re:Did you hear that? by BusterB · · Score: 2

      There's always mice!

    10. Re:Did you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Other than Office and Windows, MS does not have a single market leader on the desktop...

      [interesting factoid...] the revenue from these two offerings alone, exceeds the *sum* of revenues from every other software product, ever.

    11. Re:Did you hear that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Other than Office and Windows, MS does not have a single market leader on the desktop

      Errm... That's a bit like saying tha Boeing does not have any market leader aviation products except for 7x7 series airplanes.

    12. Re:Did you hear that? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Yes, but Visual Studio isn't going to keep anyone on Windows. MS Office reinforces MS Window's dominance, but Visual Studio is simply the tool that people use when they want to write Windows software. If folks start switching to something other than Windows on the desktop, then developers will switch right along with them. In this case Microsoft's lack of cross-platform support would hurt them very badly.

    13. Re:Did you hear that? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough this isn't actually true, it's just what M$ wants you to believe. FTSE is considering reclassifying M$ next year because they make most of their revenue from *investment* in other companies. Crazy hey? Of the software revenue Office is their greatest earner.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    14. Re:Did you hear that? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2

      Yes, but Visual Studio isn't going to keep anyone on Windows. MS Office reinforces MS Window's dominance, but Visual Studio is simply the tool that people use when they want to write Windows software. If folks start switching to something other than Windows on the desktop, then developers will switch right along with them.

      That's an interesting way of looking at it, though it's completely the opposite of what most successful platforms have done in the past. You get the developers first, which brings the applications, and that brings the users.

      Then again, if you think Microsoft won't start developing applications for whatever platform is at the top, you're deluding yourself. They already develop their most important software for the top 2 desktop platforms, and they have more Unix development experience than most people are willing to admit. The whole purpose of the .Net framework in the firstplace is to give them a safety net that allows them to move their software to other platforms quickly if their Windows platform is taken away from them or drops in market share.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    15. Re:Did you hear that? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      I agree with you about the importance of developers to the success of a platform. I personally believe that one of the reasons that OS/2 failed was that IBM was not nearly as friendly to developers as Microsoft was. However, Linux already has perfectly acceptable development tools. Many people even prefer Linux's tools. And Linuxers are hard at work building development tools that are more Windows-like as well. So when the waves of Windows developers migrate to Linux they will be met with tools that are at least somewhat familiar, but they won't be Microsoft tools. You see, Microsoft can't afford without the massive profits that it derives from Windows and MS Office. Microsoft has a Price/Earnings ratio in the high 30s, and that's with a profit margin that is also in the high 30s. Because of their high profit margins they have a ridiculously high Price/Sales ratio of over 10! Microsoft has to maintain their profit margins or their Price/Earnings ratio will become even more ridiculous, causing their stock price to plummet and triggering the evaporation of billions of dollars of paper worth (much of it in the accounts of Microsoft employees). Microsoft can't really afford to lose their desktop monopoly, and they certainly can't afford to lose the desktop monopoly and the office suite monopoly. If that happens, then the amount of Unix development skills currently at Microsoft won't matter a bit, because Microsofties will be looking for new jobs.

    16. Re:Did you hear that? by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      However, Linux already has perfectly acceptable development tools. Many people even prefer Linux's tools. And Linuxers are hard at work building development tools that are more Windows-like as well. So when the waves of Windows developers migrate to Linux they will be met with tools that are at least somewhat familiar, but they won't be Microsoft tools.

      I learned how to write software on Linux, so I have a decent idea of what's available there, and it's definitely gotten much better in the last 6 years. Still, there's a lot more that needs to be worked on, though there are projects addressing many of those things. Now if only someone could put together a good replacement for X and a desktop environment that appeals to the masses without rehashing the same old crap things would be in good shape.

      You see, Microsoft can't afford without the massive profits that it derives from Windows and MS Office.

      Microsoft's been set up since very near the beginning with the idea that the company should be able to continue for at least a year with no income. Think about that for a bit, it certainly explains it's cash reserves, though they'd really have to streamline their development process to get something out the door in a year's time that would have the chance of changing the company from 0 income to a good profit margin. Then again, it would take something fairly catastrophic to put them at 0 income in the first place these days. Microsoft's been pressuring their MacBU to develop the next version of Office for the Mac as a .Net framework-based product, which essentially means that they'd have something that could be multi-platform which represents a large portion of their current earnings (though the Mac version of Office itself isn't huge for them compared to Windows and Office for Windows, it is at close to 100% market share). They could easily streamline their BSD implementation of the .Net framework as well as port it to Linux if they needed to shift gears as Windows market share decreases. Of course, going from 85-95% market share to 50% market share would most likely not happen over nite, let alone going to a minority market share.

      As far as Microsoft's stock price goes, it currently is still less than half what it was before Judge Jackson's ruling in the anti-trust case. Given the current economic climate it's not likely to return to it's previous value until both the economy recovers and all of the antitrust cases are put behind the company (and if any of them comes out too bad for MS, it may never happen that their stock price recovers).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  7. Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by mccalli · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Please make it possible for Outlook to connect as well. Doing this will make the migration vastly more simple

    A Linux-based Exchange-a-like would be a God-send to me, and I suspect to many others too. You can get some of the way there at the moment with IMAP and LDAP, but as has been gone over ad-infinitum on this site the calendar side is completely lacking at present.

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by tjansen · · Score: 1

      Yes, Outlook will be supported. You need the Bynari connector thing though.

    2. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Gabey · · Score: 2

      Absolutely...this would be a huge step forward for the community...

      The Architecture Paper says that it will support Outlook 2000 with the "Bynari Insight Connector Plugin 1.09 installed"...That would be a start, at least, although, of course, Outlook 2002 would be desirable as well.

      -Gabe

    3. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      This doesn't seem to be the goal of the propject at all. What you are looking for is Ximian connector for volution, which is already available. www.ximian.com

    4. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by mccalli · · Score: 5, Informative
      Ah ha....found it in the article. Look at section five.

      The Windows client application to cooperate with the Kolab server and the KDE client is Outlook 2000 with the Bynari Insight Connector 1.09 plugin installed.

      No modifications are made to this proprietary software.

      Perfect. Would prefer no plug-in at all, but will certainly leap at what's being suggested so far.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    5. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Telastyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As others have mentioned, the Bynari connector will be needed for windows access. This sucks. I mean seriously. Bynari is bad enough that nearly nobody is using even now to do groupware, HENCE THE DAMNED PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      I would much rather just have a seperate application, nearly exactly like the KDE client, ported to windows. It will/would hopefully have an outlook importer (not hard, I can offer services in that regard), but it should not be outlook. If it looks and acts just like the KDE version, then it'll be much easier to move users over to *nix after they've used it elsewhere.

    6. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by _ganja_ · · Score: 2

      Outlook *server* replacement... Using Outlook 2k for windows client. The reverse Ximian connector.

      --

      A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

    7. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by kubla2000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      but as has been gone over ad-infinitum on this site the calendar side is completely lacking at present.

      Not quite. I just had something pop into my inbox this morning announcing this:

      http://sourceforge.net/projects/jical

      From the project summary:

      Enable several users to get together for a meeting by using JICAL to translate their iCalendar files into their available free/busy time and post it automatically to your web server. This project enables Ximian Evolution desktop users to book meetings

      So there you have it, calendering without Exchange. While not a perfect solution, it's a nice hack and can surely be developed.

    8. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      So port it. It'll be written using QT, which works on Windows. The software is GPL, so you'll have the source. The protocols will be open, so you can even write a new Windows client from scratch. Maybe some enterprising developer will just write a COM object to talk to the server, and people can write their own GUIs that use that.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    9. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Blahbbs · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ugh... Messy IMAP sync plugins.... Migrating to this from Exchange is going to suck.

      Steltor (www.steltor.com) had a CorporateTime Plugin that looked a little nicer, but Oracle bought them, so I don't know if you can buy their plugin separately anymore.

    10. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      Once I saw that I kinda started to wonder what the point is at all... Ximian has a client already, and there are numerous Exchange replacements out there that work with the Bynari connector.

      I figured (w/o reading the article of course) that they were planning to replace Exchange entirely, without requiring the Bynari bit.

      So, exactly what makes Bynari suck? And what's missing in the Evolution/IMAP Server bits that make the German government's investment worthwhile?

      I'm a coder, not an admin, so I really have no hands-on experience with Exchange or other Groupware software. The companies I've worked in the past few years have been too small to bother with Exchange too.

    11. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Telastyn · · Score: 2

      In my experience Bynari is extremely painful to install and get working, and when you do manage to get it working, not everything works unless you do exactly what it expects you to.

      Furthermore Microsoft changes Outlook every 2 years to break it.

      Ximian's connector requires (iirc) exchange's web client to be running, and is for all purposes a hack to translate their client into the web form. The web form of course requires IIS and is suitably insecure.

      Both things are for all purposes hacks. The German government is looking for something more integrated, and less hacked together. This still though looks as something that is simply hacked together... :/

    12. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by cwiegand · · Score: 1

      Ugh... insight's connector is... less than spectacular. Indeed, we use it at my work, and we are constantly having to remind people to "sync" their folders they just created (default is only to sync when you go in the folder, so if you put stuff there afterwards, you have to leave, and come back, and there's minimum wait period too...). No way to click a button and sync all folders...

      --
      Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep in a shared include somewhere.
    13. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Sleepy · · Score: 2

      >I would much rather just have a seperate application, nearly exactly like the KDE client, ported to windows.

      You are smoking crack!!
      (Not flamebait, moderators.. look at my post history).

      Just TRY telling all your users they can't use Outlook. They AND YOUR BOSS will find every way possible to slow your project down, and make you look incompetent.

      Don't bite off more than you can chew... leave the Windows users be... for now.

      When everyone else is happy, and the ONLY reason the group is spending $300-$400 each person is JUST for Outlook, you'll have some support for mandating a new email client. Until then, keep your head DOWN and make sure most people are satisfied before moving to the NEXT big project.

      Even in the government (if that's your case) you need "happy customers" or the controversy you generate will catch up to you someday...

    14. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Actually, I just got away with telling my users they cannot use outlook. We were just bought out by a company that uses Notes exclusively. The users by and large accepted the change, and aren't even griping over Notes much.

      The trick is of course selling the change to the PHITB (pointy haired IT boss), and their bosses, and then telling users with the line "sorry, nothing I can do, it comes down from on high"

    15. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by StillaCoward · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article?

      If you did you would know unless they are fibbing, that is part of the goals of this project....

    16. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry but a nice hack aint going to cut it for all but the smallest of installations. Exchange as busted as it is has a wonderfull calandering solution that many people love. Once we complete our exchange rollout and the imap/pop3 servers we have now are decommision I plan on running mozilla mail in imap mode for email and outlook for calandering (currently on win2k later on linux with crossover office)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      Just ask for volunteers that are willing to give up their pay so that the company can afford to use Outlook.

      In all seriousness though, if the client that replaces Outlook were good enough then switching would hardly be a hardship.

    18. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by grendelkhan · · Score: 2

      I just started working for a company that is a mix of NT/2k Server, NT (migrating to XP Pro in November) desktop, with Netware for file and print and Notes for email/groupware/knowledgebase. While the Notes interface is utterly unituitive for me (F9 to refresh?? No Ctrl-Click??), I've adapted, and I'm glad that our highest IT managers have said "We don't run IIS on external webpages and Active Directory for domain services for the simple reason that they're both insecure."

      --
      Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
    19. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      Personally I've found that AD + win2k is more secure than XP Pro, but whatever floats yer boat. Notes itself has some other insecurity issues beyond its horrible client (though the actual server is arguably decent)

    20. Re:Planned for Outlook itself to connect? by Sleepy · · Score: 2

      >Just ask for volunteers that are willing to give up their pay so that the company can afford to use Outlook.

      That suggestion only works if YOU are the owner of the company, or are a CEO secure in your position.

      You can't be one of the above because you read Slashdot. If you even work in IT (which I doubt), try pulling your attitude at any corporate environment.. your coworkers will start drawing straws for your cubicle before your suggestion even hits management.

      I don't mind learning new mail clients, but most people have a herd mentality: they'll all get together and complain how "difficult" your new mail client is, and Accounting will cite "training costs".

      Join the real world, bub.

  8. Sweet!! by FortKnox · · Score: 4, Funny

    The contractors are aiming for functional equivalence to MS Exchange and Outlook 2000."

    At long last. KDE will have all the security issues of Exchange and Outlook. We'll see which OS has the most viruses now!!


    Moderators: please read this.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:Sweet!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's frustrating to have everything running smoothly at work while the company next door offers employees a day off while the admins clean the systems from viruses.

    2. Re:Sweet!! by dubstop · · Score: 1

      At long last. KDE will have all the security issues of Exchange and Outlook. We'll see which OS has the most viruses now!!

      All your virus are belong to us!

    3. Re: Sweet!! by Antity · · Score: 2

      KDE will have all the security issues of Exchange and Outlook. We'll see which OS has the most viruses now!!

      Er.. why exactly? (Apart from it being funny)

      Most Outlook security bugs occured because Outlook showed HTML attachments by-default (and used IE code for displaying/parsing it). And all this Windows attachment silliness...

      And another big problem was Microsoft not even seeing this as a problem but a so-called "Feature" that they didn't want to switch off.

      Should be very easy to omit this "feature" if you re-program the client. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to program a client that uses Exchange's protocol that has less.. um.. "design issues" with a serious company.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    4. Re: Sweet!! by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was just humor. Don't overthink it.
      I'm sure they'll make a good, secure application, especially if they plan on making it open source.

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    5. Re: Sweet!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't get the joke, right?

    6. Re: Sweet!! by afidel · · Score: 2

      Actually it IS a feature for some of MS's very large clients. I have said this many times of Slashdot but there is a reason that all the scriptability is in outlook. These clients have very large very expensive vertical apps built on an exchange/outlook underpinnings. Some of them are things like sales order documents, out in the field the sales rep punches in the order to a form in his outlook client. When he connects to the corp mail system the form is translated into an email and routed through rules on the exchange server that do things like if order $100,000 send to billing else send to manager/vp for aproval. These clients are some of MS's biggest because of size and because of consulting fees.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re: Sweet!! by greenrd · · Score: 2
      Some of them are things like sales order documents, out in the field the sales rep punches in the order to a form in his outlook client. When he connects to the corp mail system the form is translated into an email and routed through rules on the exchange server that do things like if order $100,000 send to billing else send to manager/vp for aproval.

      Uh, you can do form->email in HTML. No DHTML, not one line of Javascript. You do not need a scriptable email client for that kind of task.

      Of course, Javascript helps for validation, but you still don't need a scriptable email client for that.

      <straight-face>
      So since all this was already available - are you saying M$'s customers that bought into this are completely clueless?
      </straight-face>

    8. Re: Sweet!! by afidel · · Score: 2

      Umm imbeded business logic in plain html, yeah sure, not.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. Evolution by riggwelter · · Score: 1

    A stated aim of this (in the email) is that it will work in a heterogeneous environment.

    So, do any GNOME hackers fancy writing a Connector-style plugin for Evolution to talk to Kolab?

    Shouldn't be any reason it can't be done as far as I can see...

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    1. Re:Evolution by JanneM · · Score: 1

      As far as I can determine, there should be no need for a plugin. All server stuff seems to be open protocols that Evo already mostly supports. And if there's anything missing, I surmise that Evo will include needed stuff pretty quickly.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:Evolution by riggwelter · · Score: 1

      True, but I think the point of this Grand Unified Server is that you would get a single login to authenticate yourself against the calendar, IMAP and LDAP servers, at the moment with Evolution, you have to authenticate seperately for each.

      It may not sounds like a big deal ot us, but to normal Joe User, they don't need the hassle, a connector-style plugin would overcome this issue.

      --
      Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
  10. Useful beyond its goals by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the groupware server will be assembled by existing OSS offerings, there is likely no requirement to use the supplied client if one does not want to. Indeed, if it's all open protocols, Evolution should be able to work just fine with it as is. Other (partial) clients should also be perfectly usable. This mix-n-match possibility is really one of the great strengths of OSS.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Useful beyond its goals by RebelTycoon · · Score: 1

      This mix-n-match possibility is really one of the great strengths of OSS.

      And it will also be its downfall... Spending thousands of hours to ensure compatibility will kill projects...

    2. Re:Useful beyond its goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, that's what people say about Windows hardware support.

      Oh....
      Point made.

    3. Re: Useful beyond its goals by Antity · · Score: 2

      People have been doing this for years. One example is (E)SMTP.

      Hint: Be very lax in what you accept as input, and be very conservative in what you output.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    4. Re:Useful beyond its goals by Walterk · · Score: 1

      I agree, adhering to standards is totally unnecessary!

    5. Re:Useful beyond its goals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> This mix-n-match possibility is really one of the great strengths of OSS.
      > And it will also be its downfall... Spending thousands of hours to ensure compatibility will kill projects...

      You mean, the way email fell down, or web clients fell down, or IM clients fell down, or P2P systems fell down, or ... ?

      "Thousands of hours" divided over a large number of projects / people is not an overwhelming investment per person / project, especially if the standards docs are written with enough clarity and completeness to allow reference implementations to be built.

  11. reinventing the wheel? by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first reaction what that they're reinventing the wheel. Then I saw that they're going to be using and extending many current KDE components. *IF* the KDE teams takes these changes/modifications and uses them to build a new base, great. If, however, this becomes essentially a fork of current Kmail, Korganizer, etc., I don't see this as a good thing.

    And yeah, why not take Aethera and build on that - it's already more integrated with itself and other things, and I'm sure the Kompany could have used a nice gov't contract just as much as the team that got it (maybe moreso).

    1. Re:reinventing the wheel? by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to worry.

      If you read the post on kde-core-devel, it's going to be a separate CVS branch (still on KDE CVS), but only temporarily and only because the project needs to be finished on a very short timescale. Basically, they don't want to make big changes to the HEAD branch so close to the release of KDE 3.1. Once kroupware(*) is done, they will port the changes back into HEAD.

      here is the relevant post to kde-core-devel.

      [* is anyone suprised by the name? :) ]

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    2. Re:reinventing the wheel? by nutshell42 · · Score: 2, Funny
      [* is anyone suprised by the name? :) ]

      How kould we? =)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:reinventing the wheel? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      [* is anyone suprised by the name? :) ]

      No. Disappointed though. It's hard for people to take you seriously when you're pushing these cutesy little products. I use these programs, and I like them, but when everything's got a [gkx] in front of it, it feels like I'm back in daycare or something.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    4. Re:reinventing the wheel? by j7953 · · Score: 2
      [* is anyone suprised by the name? :) ]

      It's only the working title.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    5. Re:reinventing the wheel? by akruppa · · Score: 2, Funny

      kroupware(*)

      [* is anyone suprised by the name? :) ]


      I'm only surprised they didn't name it Krautware.

      Oh, btw, I'm German.

      Alex

      --
      Heisenberg may have been here
    6. Re:reinventing the wheel? by klieber · · Score: 2

      And yeah, why not take Aethera and build on that - it's already more integrated with itself and other things, and I'm sure the Kompany could have used a nice gov't contract just as much as the team that got it (maybe moreso).

      From the article:

      "Erfrakon, Intevation and Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB have won a bid
      to write a Free software groupware server and client for the German
      "Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik" (Federal Agency
      for IT Security, BSI)."

      Those names sure sound a lot more German than "the Kompany" does...

      --
      Gentoo Linux http://gentoo.org/
    7. Re:reinventing the wheel? by zerblat · · Score: 1
      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
    8. Re:reinventing the wheel? by mabinogi · · Score: 2

      There won't be any product named 'Kroupware' it's just the name of the project....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  12. The Name by Isle · · Score: 1

    This is very cool stuff, except the name: Kroupware, sounds a bit like "kraut"ware; not the best association for a piece of software contracted by the german government.

    The authors though said it wasnt likely to be the final name, just a temporary one so they dont have to waste time coming up with one before starting the coding.

    btw. The subject of this post is also the title for Dilbert episode, emphesizing the importence of getting started over getting a name.

    1. Re:The Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I first saw "Kroupware", I mentally read it as krapware. Enough with the K junk. Just work on the desktop, 'K?

    2. Re:The Name by Tsali · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was thinking of 'croup', which is a nasty little cough kids get from hanging out with other kids.

      Hopefully this doesn't have a reference to future viral infections with the software.

      This does sound pretty sweet though....

      --
      This space for rent.
    3. Re:The Name by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      And I was thinking of croupier.

    4. Re:The Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Croup" is a type of coughing disorder.
      http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections /bacterial_ viral/croup.html

      I'd suggest a name change.

    5. Re: The Name by Antity · · Score: 2

      "Kroupware"... Wasn't Windows95 internally nicknamed "Chicago"?

      Maybe they should call this baby something like "Cologne".

      (ok.. maybe even "Kologne". *g*)

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    6. Re: The Name by Spyky · · Score: 2

      Actually Cologne is the English spelling of the German city Köln. So it already has a K :-)

      -Spyky

    7. Re:The Name by shadow303 · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not the greatest name, but it at least makes more sense than "Evolution". I have no clue why somebody would decided to use that name. Of course, now that I think about it, meaningless software names are more common than I thought. Still, I think it is good to either give something a completely original name, or a name which has a reasonably meaningful name.
      Maybe I'm just clueless, after all, when I first heard the URL amazon.com, I expected it to be a porn site (think Xena).

      --
      I've got a mind like a steel trap - it's got an animal's foot stuck in it.
    8. Re:The Name by Fourier · · Score: 2

      Actually, I was thinking of 'croup', which is a nasty little cough kids get from hanging out with other kids.

      My thoughts exactly. That name does not leave a terribly pleasant impression with me.

      The concept is good though. The lack of a good Exchange/Outlook alternative has been a strike against *nix in many MS-centric offices.

  13. info by lovebyte · · Score: 4, Informative

    My big chance at karma whoring:
    More info available at kroupware.kde.org

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    1. Re:info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking lame is that name?

    2. Re:info by InodoroPereyra · · Score: 2

      Actually it is the same host:

      grisell: myname> host www.kroupware.org
      www.kroupware.org has address 131.173.30.110

      grisell: myname> host kroupware.kde.org
      kroupware.kde.org is an alias for kolab.kde.org.
      kolab.kde.org has address 131.173.30.110

    3. Re:info by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2
      More info available at kroupware.kde.org

      ...personally, I prefer GNUmonia...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:info by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Pretty lame, I agree. But maybe it's his last name.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
  14. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you can think of better names and anyway, evolution is already a top class groupware suite and a better starting point and it's GPL.

    1. Re:Translation by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      BUt the version which is free does not support the calander functionality. In a corporate environment that is a must have..

      --
    2. Re:Translation by peterpi · · Score: 1

      So that's what it said. Shit, I'd have been completely screwed without you.

    3. Re:Translation by mccalli · · Score: 2
      But the version which is free does not support the calander functionality. In a corporate environment that is a must have.

      You know, I'm always told how having calendar functionality is essential to the corporate environment. And I agree, completely.

      I'm surprised however that people rarely seem to think it's useful purely on a personal level though. I would love to have one calendar, net-accessible, on a machine that I control, which can be utilised by a number of different clients. Web-based, client app for Linux, client app for Windows, client app for OS X...whatever. Same for contacts and address books, and the same for task lists too.

      Tracking time is not just a corporate thing. It really is useful at the personal level too. I know there are free calendars available at places such as Yahoo, but I rather baulk at putting such information onto someone else's servers. No - an Exchange-a-like is the way to go, and these people seem to be doing it.

      Point of this post is - don't just think of scheduling software as a corporate tool. It's useful in your every day life as well.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    4. Re:Translation by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific and said a shared calander. The ability to schedule meetings with others and reserv rooms. This is not something most of us need at home (not saying it would not be nice to have).

      --
    5. Re:Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, the German gov't is free to hire anyone to create that funtionality and submit the patches to ximian. It is GPL'ed. If Ximian chose not to accept them, that would be worthy of a fork or maintaining that part of it separately. There is no need to develop a new project or try to patch software that wasn't designed for this purpose and are very different between themselves to do this. They have chosen a retarded path.

  15. Not Evolution, it's the server side by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big news isn't the client. It's the server. Bringing all the available standards together into one server that a client like Outlook or Evolution can use is what's missing. Companies have no option for a good colaborative groupware server other than Exchange and Lotus Notes. Notes is a viable option, but myself and others do not like using it's client at all.

    Point being, what they're creating (or bringing together) is the only server for Linux/Unix which will directly compete with Exchange.

    1. Re:Not Evolution, it's the server side by TilJ · · Score: 2

      The part that spooks me is that it's supposed to be delivered by the end of the year. That's an awfully short timeline ... I hope the contractors aren't setting themselves for failure, which could give the open source solution a bad rep.

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
    2. Re:Not Evolution, it's the server side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please look up the difference between its and it's.

    3. Re:Not Evolution, it's the server side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please look up the difference between pedantic and interesting.

    4. Re:Not Evolution, it's the server side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I caught that, too. I'm guessing that the German government was looking at a working demo when they ordered it. Possibly all that is really lacking is to roll it out. Even that might take some doing with only about 100 days left.

  16. Very Cool by ViceClown · · Score: 2

    This is a very good development. As a business user, I can tell you without a doubt one of the biggest things holding Linux on the desktop back is the lack of a good groupware client on the order of Exchange - Outlook functionality. They've become very entrenched and people like them.

    Hopefully this will turn out well!

    --
    Have a Happy.
    1. Re:Very Cool by vidarh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you tried Evolution? The only thing remaining I'd consider useful would be new posting and shared calendars/busy-free schedules. Apart from that it interoperates with Exchange very well, though only via IMAP/SMTP. If you want the calendar etc. as well, Ximian have a (proprietary) solution for that.

    2. Re:Very Cool by ViceClown · · Score: 2

      Right, I know all about that but I want a KDE groupware client so that's why I like this idea. Also... if it didn't NEED Exchange that would be a great benefit.

      Cheerios, - JP

      --
      Have a Happy.
  17. Yes by holstein · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look in :* Architecture Paper 1.0
    Search for point "5. Windows Client".

  18. Deutschland!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing Germany adopt KDE/Linux is a great move - I hope other countries will follow. It appears that only the U.S. is caught in M$'s claws - unimaginable to see Billy lobby for anything like this...

    1. Re:Deutschland!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But apparently you did imagine it! You have an interesting imagination if Bill Gates is lobbying for the development of directly competing open source applications.... interesting as in (-1 Interesting), but interesting nonetheless.

  19. What does it mean? by f00zbll · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's good news and all, but what does this really mean? I'm talking about open vs closed source. I'm talking about cultural changes. The open vs close is part of it, but there's a larger issue here. Has computing technology reached the point where it is an utility and is maturing towards that end?

    Look at the history of cars and paved roads for example. Once there was enough cars on the road, the need for well paved roads became a public utility. Same is true for gas, water and electricity. Once it starts going that way, people's tolerance for non-standard ways becomes a huge issue.

    then again, I could be smoking crack and this is just more PR bs.

    1. Re:What does it mean? by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does it mean? It means that for once, a major economic force has decided to bite the bullet, be different, look for an alternative to Microsoft because that's what's approproate for their needs. It's about time something like this happened. This is exactly what's needed in the (relatively) stagnant software market (hint: someone has a monopoly and there's no significant competition).

    2. Re:What does it mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopoly, huh? I guess I imagined Domino and Lotus Notes. Microsofts imaginary "monopoly" is confined to the OS, not every piece of software/hardware they create. I see idiots are now complaining about the Xboxes "monopoly" on home video games. Bash MS all you want, but use your head a bit when you do so.

  20. Evolution by alessio · · Score: 1

    I hope I'll manage to use it with Ximian Evolution, even if it's Gnome-based...

    --
    "It is more complicated than you think" (The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925)
  21. Will this be available for us? by Ectropy · · Score: 1

    I am wondering if this will be available to regular users like us, or if it will be a boxed product. While I dont fully expect KDE to deliver the entire product free to everyone, I think at least they should release the end product with alot of the things the government needs, such as group connectivity and groupware, not included as long as we can get what we all want - A alternative to Outlook. (Although I myself am a little partial to Evolution ;)) And another thing, what is the licensng going to be for it? Is it going to be GPL or are they going to start from scratch with all the code? Its going to be intresting to see how the KDE guys pull this off, and Id be very suprised if they can meet the deadline!

    --
    Kyle "DotCom" Lynch :: http://www.kylelynch.com
    ...I need some cheeze-its...
    1. Re:Will this be available for us? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      Well, GnuPG is being developed by a similar contract, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was all GPLed.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    2. Re:Will this be available for us? by LMCBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      I dont fully expect KDE to deliver the entire product free to everyone

      You should. :)

      It's going to be completely (L)GPL, just like KDE. Development is taking place on KDE CVS (in its own branch), which is publically available for anyone to see and participate in.

      However, note that it isn't a volunteer project; Germany contracted a company to deliver the product by the end of the year (I'm pretty sure there are some KDE guys employed there). This is a great thing; some KDE devs get paid to deliver a really useful project for any and all to use! Bravo, Germany!

      Oh, and they aren't starting from scratch; they're starting from kdelibs, kmail and korganizer.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    3. Re:Will this be available for us? by mikers · · Score: 2

      And I quote from the first link:

      " ... We will therefore create our own branch called kroupware_branch in the modules kdelibs, kdebase, kdenetwork and kdepim. We aim to retrofit the changes on this branch as timely as possible back into the HEAD branch; this will happen in close collaboration with the maintainers of the affected projects, and following the KDE release cycle. ..."


      All the development they do will be integrated into the main KDE branches after the fact, since they have to fast track this project.

      The intend to integrate all the development they do into KDE eventually - not the contracting company, but they obviously will make their code available to the KDE open source developers (probably everyone).

  22. iCal by mbbac · · Score: 3, Informative

    It'd be great if this KDE effort were also compatible with Apple's current efforts (Address Book (LDAP, vCard), iCal (iCalendar), Mail (IMAP).

    --

    mbbac

    1. Re:iCal by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Informative

      Korganizer's native format is vCalendar (was anyway). So it is quite likely that these things would be able to talk together. After all they are all internet standards (more about iCal/iCard).

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    2. Re:iCal by mbbac · · Score: 1

      Right. I don't want Kroupware (what a horrible name) to reinvent the wheel on some of these communication standards without regard for interoperability with other open standard groupware efforts such as Apple's.

      --

      mbbac

    3. Re:iCal by krogoth · · Score: 2

      What makes you think it isn't?

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
  23. The *BIG* problem with Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..it costs.

    1. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by Tangential · · Score: 1

      I've been using Evolution since Aug 2001 and it hasn't cost me anything. Best I can tell, the only cost is if you want the (shudder) exchange connector.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    2. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by D0wnsp0ut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > ..it costs.

      Well...it's that kind of an attitude that helps to put good companies out of business (Easel readily comes to mind.) I *bought* Ximian Desktop Professional in order to SUPPORT Ximian in their efforts at providing Open Source to the community. I didn't have to. In fact, I was already using it before I purchased it.

      Since the company I work for uses Exchange (puke) I also bought the Exchange Connector, two licenses in fact, so I wouldn't be forced to use Outlook. I don't care that the Connector is closed source. What I care about is having the ability to use Linux in a Windows-dominated environment and having seemless integration without pestering IT about it (IMAP/SMTP does not give the full range of Exchange/Outlook functionality.)

      I also care about providing financial support to a company that gives a LOT back to the community (Ximian GNOME, Mono, Evolution as well as their work with OpenOffice and their evangelicism.)

      But that's just my opinion.

      --
      "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
    3. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by SpankTech3000 · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that at first you denegrate Exchange ("I work for uses Exchange (puke)"), but then admit that there is no IMAP/SMTP solution that offers "the full range of Exchange/Outlook functionality".

      You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

    4. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by miTTio · · Score: 1

      mmmm... cake

    5. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      Ah.... no, I don't think you quite got what he meant.

      Without the Exchange Connector he would lose functionality with Ximian because IMAP/SMTP can't replicate what Exchange/Outlook do. With the Exchange Connector he regains that functionality. This isn't a limitation of Ximian's client as it is the data from Exchange - and there's a "fix" but it's proprietary and costs money. Can't exactly blame Ximian for getting payback on the really deeply mystic stuff.

      Matter of fact there are backend servers out there, even free ones, that can replace Exchange. But it requires you to buy additional software for Outlook clients and it still isn't as integrated as Exchange/Outlook is -- but it's 98% there and about half the cost or less. This isn't too surprising, since you'd expect vendor software to work best with software from the same vendor.

      You can, in fact, have your cake and eat it too, but right now there will still be crumbs here and there. Which, of course, is what this German Groupware order is all about.

    6. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by swillden · · Score: 2

      Is it not possible for a product to have both useful features, not found in another product, and horrible flaws, also not found in another product? Whether the flaws outweigh the features is generally context-dependent.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by AndyElf · · Score: 2

      The company I work for still uses (mostly and at least in Europe) HP's OpenMail. They did, however, hack it in some way that only Outlook can connect. I'd guess that servers are configured to allow only MAPI connections (before it was possible to connect using any IMAP client).

      I was, therefore, curious whether the Connector could work in such situation? I'd assume this unlikely, as servers are not real exchange...

      --

      --AP
    8. Re:The *BIG* problem with Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, evolution's connector only works with genuine exchange servers, since it uses exchange's semi-documented DAV backend.

  24. Calendaring, calendaring, calendaring... by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Calendaring is the one add-on application that all Exchange sites use. It must be usable, well-thought -out, and provide full multi-calendar/multi-site functionality.

    If they manange that - say goodbye to Exchange.

    sPh

  25. They should make a good job of this. by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's something about the Germans that makes them good at software engineering, in fact any type of engineering. Of the open source projects I've seen, some of the best ones have been German. They should make a good job of this.

    1. Re:They should make a good job of this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pubjames, you anti-american, communist piece of shit. Hasn't anybody shot you yet?

  26. Sounds great but... by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
    "Government Contractors" does not exactly fill me with the most confidence.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  27. Exchange and Outlook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they want it delivered by the end of the year?

    Lowest Bidder, anyone? Ten to one this thing will take two years to debug. Feh.

    1. Re:Exchange and Outlook... by hughk · · Score: 2

      Closed source, yes it would. However, with open source and a crowd of other people very interested, it would be very quickly up to standard.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Exchange and Outlook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Mozilla?

      Mods: think timewise. Moz 0.9 & later is a GREAT product. But it was years late.

  28. Imagine... by Coldwar · · Score: 1

    A future where the M$ monopoly years and all its closed-standard horrors are simply referred to with a shrug as the "dark ages of software."

    It could happen...

  29. The Mozilla project should do this by ceswiedler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been thinking that the Mozilla project should do something like this. They have the resources to handle an Exchange replacement. Imagine "Mozilla Server" which is a single-install replacement for Exchange/IIS; it uses existing OSS components like Apache but ties them together and simplifies configuration. The Mozilla client would be very well integrated into the server, able to access web pages, email, and newsgroups, as well as LDAP contacts, scheduling, and other groupware features.

    Of course since the source and the standards are both open, many other clients would be able to access the data as well. But I think Mozilla/Netscape is enough of a force in the OSS world to set the standard for a project like this. I'm not sure KDE is.

    1. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look into Mozilla Calender. It's not perfect yet, but it is functional.

    2. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by mrcparker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, this could be developed in comptetition with the KDE suite. I could see it now, yet another duplication of free software projects that use different file formats and have no interopability.

      Seriously, it would be nice if everyone could work together.

    3. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by hacker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The Mozilla client would be very well integrated into the server, able to access web pages, email, and newsgroups, as well as LDAP contacts, scheduling, and other groupware features.

      Isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place? The OS needs, IE, which you can't remove, and Outlook requires IE, and everything is integrated into these two applications and their support subsystem. Look at the trouble it's given the Windows users.

      Let's not go there, unless of course, you can de-couple EVERY piece of fucntionality, and use say, pine for mail, gnomecal for calendaring, and so on. If it's all integrated into Mozilla, it's pretty much useless for a large majority of actual power-users.

      Remember, just because a screwdriver CAN work as a chisel, doesn't mean it's the best chisel for the job.

    4. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by reaper20 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Mozilla project is doing something similar to this. Check out the Mozilla Calendar project, which uses iCal calendars (yes, the same format as the Mac calendar) - you can load the calendar on any server and access either through ftp or webdav.

      Combined with Roaming Profiles (getting worked on) - the Calendar, Mail/News using LDAP/IMAP, and Mozilla, will offer a very powerful, OPEN solution for groupware. Add all this up, and you can have the same bookmarks, cookies, prefs, calendar, and contact list hosted on a server, that you can access from your local copy of Mozilla.

    5. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

      I've been thinking that the Mozilla project should do something like this. They have the resources to handle an Exchange replacement. Imagine "Mozilla Server" which is a single-install replacement for Exchange/IIS

      Much more important to get the basics done first - like folding a spell checker into the email client. Kudo's to the spellchecker team (Pete, David Alen, Rob, Joshua, and all the others who are making this happen) for building the add-on. I look forward to seeing it bundled with the 'core' download, though they really made it easy to install this....

      Again, huge props to the developers and testers for making the email client usable for us who kant spll. (grin)

    6. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by Frank+Grimes · · Score: 1
      ceswiedler:
      I've been thinking that the Mozilla project should do something like this. They have the resources to handle an Exchange replacement. Imagine "Mozilla Server" which is a single-install replacement for Exchange/IIS; it uses existing OSS components like Apache but ties them together and simplifies configuration. The Mozilla client would be very well integrated into the server, able to access web pages, email, and newsgroups, as well as LDAP contacts, scheduling, and other groupware features.

      Of course since the source and the standards are both open, many other clients would be able to access the data as well. But I think Mozilla/Netscape is enough of a force in the OSS world to set the standard for a project like this. I'm not sure KDE is.
      mrcparker:
      Yea, this could be developed in comptetition with the KDE suite. I could see it now, yet another duplication of free software projects that use different file formats and have no interopability.

      Seriously, it would be nice if everyone could work together.
      Since I don't use KDE or GNOME, I would like to see Mozilla work as a client for the Kroupware server. As long as the protocals are standard, there is no reason to use a client and server from the same source.

      But I see no reason for Mozilla to duplicate the server. Mozilla is client-side technology; they should stick to that.

      By the way, thank you Germany. If only my governement spent money to support OSS.

      --
      CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA== RV/hBCLKKcSTP5UFK3kqsg==
    7. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WARNING! - Blockquote exceeds message length

      No mod points for you!

    8. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      The OS doesn't "need IE", it IS IE. Outlook needs IE because it is the core of the OS, and because M$ decided not to duplicate their HTML rendering engine in their e-mail client. Since most open-source projects concentrate on code-reusability, it is not unreasonable for Mozilla to do the same.

      Since the network protocols used would be open and (relatively) standard, it would be feasible (although somewhat masochistic) to use a separate client for each groupware function. There could even be server-side "plug-ins" to support proprietary clients that refuse to utilize standard protocols and to translate Mozilla-specific functions into their proprietary equivalents.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    9. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      get the basics done first - like... a spell checker

      Maybe people should learn the "basics" in life (like spelling) before learning how to use a computer.

    10. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by drinkypoo · · Score: 2
      The mozilla server would provide functionality directly to the mozilla client as far as the unified address book and scheduling, etc. It should also (preferrably without apache, but I guess it could work as a CGI and/or Apache Module) provide web access to the same data.

      Mail should be delivered as per usual. Hopefully someone will write a maildelivery program which puts email into a logical form inside an RDBMS of your choice (though I suspect the choice will most often be MySQL -- Still, Oracle support is a must) and then you'll need some type of IMAP server which provides a gateway between the db server and the mail client of your choice.

      In this way you could use whatever email package you wanted, though you would only get the unified address book with mozilla (At first) and with whoever else ended up supporting it. It would preferrably be some sort of XML interface for simplicity's sake, which makes sense if you're doing it in mozilla anyway. Ditto for scheduling, of course. And if you don't have some app for doing the scheduling you can get it from the web using the browser of your choice.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... the KDE project has just convinced the German government to invest in a client which duplicates what Ximian's Evolution already does beautifully as a GPL application. And quite possibly (in the grand KDE tradition), make a server that will be unnecessarily tied to TrollTech's licence quagmire, Qt. Rejoice, another victory for the underminers of the free Linux desktop.

    12. Re:The Mozilla project should do this by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

      Maybe people should learn the "basics" in life (like spelling) before learning how to use a computer.

      When the dice were rolled, they put the 17 on mathematics, 16 on chemistry, 7 on constitution, and 4 on spelling. Fortunately, I was able to create a character with dual classes since the primary attributes were high enough, and rely on artifacts like spell checkers to avoid a critical scribing fumble.

  30. is that the German spelling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You spelled " G roupware" wrong.

  31. The Microsoft reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will be to compare Kolab to I.G. Farbin

  32. how about decent meeting maker? by oogoody · · Score: 1

    Outlook has the worst interface for making
    meetings that i can imagine for such an
    "advanced" product.

  33. ProFTPd anonymous access by stratjakt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the kroupware koncept:

    "ProFTPD offers good security features such as change root environment and a fine granular access configuration. ...

    It's only functionality on the Kolab server is the legacy mode to enable Windows clients to publish their free-busy lists via anonymous FTP on the server."

    Anonymous ftp access? Kiddies, start your pub-scanners!

    You'd think komputer konsultants kould kode up a more sekure solution.

    They do say its disabled by default, but since we all know there will be "legacy" systems around for years, they'll have plenty of wide-open boxes. Why FTP anyways?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:ProFTPd anonymous access by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      "They do say its disabled by default, but since we all know there will be "legacy" systems around for years, they'll have plenty of wide-open boxes. Why FTP anyways?"

      Heard something like established standard?

    2. Re:ProFTPd anonymous access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Heard something like established standard?"

      Secure standards exist.

      Me, I'm looking forward to nice big pubs on Jerrie's sites.

      WinXP's ftp server is too stable, every time a 2K and NT site upgrades, we lose another pub full of warez.

    3. Re: ProFTPd anonymous access by Antity · · Score: 2

      Heard something like established standard?

      Like... ummh.. Telnet?

      FTP is a broken protocol in many respects.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    4. Re:ProFTPd anonymous access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say Phat Pub Prime Phor Philling

  34. About time... by cgreuter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, if you think about it, this is the obvious step.

    At some point, it becomes cheaper to just write your own version of the software than to pay the per-seat license fees that MS and other commercial software vendors charge. If you're a large organization (or a consortium of really large organizations), writing your office apps in-house is economically viable. It's even moreso if you've already got open-source components to work from.

    And open-sourcing everything--even if you aren't legally obligated to--costs nothing and often means that you get free additions to the project.

    1. Re:About time... by Flavius+Stilicho · · Score: 1

      At some point, it becomes cheaper to just write your own version of the software than to pay the per-seat license fees that MS and other commercial software vendors charge. If you're a large organization (or a consortium of really large organizations), writing your office apps in-house is economically viable.

      I can see the headlines now.... "Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) Asking Government to Investigate the Business Software Consortium's Practices for Possible Antitrust Violations."

      In all seriousnes... I think something like that would be fantastic, if not practical.

  35. The big problem... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 1

    ...however, is the size of the code. I'm not trying to troll here - I do love KDE - but it's just so big.

    Have there been any attempts to optimise the code? I switched my laptop (PIII 750, 128Mb mem) to KDE3 a month or so ago, and the thing just crawls. So then I changed to fvwm, and it was truely amazing - like I'd bought a brand new machine. Now obviously I'm not silly enough to think that there isn't a price to be paid for the extra functionality of KDE, but my laptop isn't _that_ old, surely KDE should be able to run adequately on such hardware?

    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
    1. Re:The big problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Bloatware 101

      Actually Gnome hums along just fine but KDE 3 kills my lappie

      For the perfect blend of looks and speed go with Ice Wm. Only when you start up apps like gaim your lappie starts to die loading up all those GTK libs

    2. Re:The big problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Have there been any attempts to optimise the code?

      Of course.. in fact kde3 is faster than kde2 was. This is thanks to tools made for kde (and now usable for many other apps), like Valgrind, and the better malloc implementation.

      kde3 is, however, pretty memory hungry. I run kde3 pretty fast on my tbird-athlon 800 with 256 mb ram, which is only marginally better than your laptop (although mine is a desktop).

      It also hums fine on my new machine (athlon xp 2200+/1024 mb ram). It's a bit faster than win2k, especially with file previewing and such.

    3. Re:The big problem... by phatvibez · · Score: 1

      I will repeat what one (brilliant man who runs Plan9...) person said at a LUG meeting...

      Developers should NEVER work with bleeding edge computers...because then they develop for that platform so what turns out seems fine to them running a P4 2.8 GHZ computer totally blows on something like a pIII 500 mhz...which you are right really isn't that old!

      Developers (mostly of desktop software) should be developing on really old crap...then it will run well on everything upwards even better!

      --
      --- Brad (http://www.LinuxReview.net)
    4. Re:The big problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might also want to note that if you use the console, then your system REALLY FLIES.

      I've been using KDE 2.2.1 with a 400 MHz box. Works extremely well. Sometimes some windows take time to get up, especially if X has been running for like 40 days or so. But then I just reboot X (not the machine) and everything works fast again. You might want to do swapoff -a && swapon -a to achieve similar effect.

    5. Re:The big problem... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Developers should NEVER work with bleeding edge computers...because then they develop for that platform so what turns out seems fine to them running a P4 2.8 GHZ computer totally blows on something like a pIII 500 mhz...which you are right really isn't that old!


      Actually, they should just do all testing on old hardware. Build, code, etc on the best computer you've got, because especially with the compile it'll save you a lot of time, but never run the executable on the dev machine unless you're debugging. My main system here at work (the one I develop on) is a 1.7GHz system, but I've got a P3-500 on the other side of the desk for testing (actually, it's only there because I need an ISA slot for an I/O card, which the P4 system does not have, but the target system is a P3-750 so the 500 is a good test bed for components). Of course, if anything lags on the 500, it's not going to be acceptable with the amount of software running on our platform.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    6. Re:The big problem... by phatvibez · · Score: 1

      I agree, and more inline with what i meant...i thought of that after i already submitted it

      --
      --- Brad (http://www.LinuxReview.net)
    7. Re:The big problem... by spitzak · · Score: 2
      I agree. This is probably a worse problem with commercial software than with open source as they often buy the newest machines.

      I have seen a serioius deterioration in the speed of my own code when I switched from developeing on a 250mhz Irix to a dual-processor 1.5Ghz Linux box (in both cases the software was being targeted to both those machines and NT as well). Going back to the Irix for testing and some stuff is suddenly painfully slow. Trying the old version of the program proves that it was much better, it is not just that I am used to the Linux machine's speed.

      Conversely though I had to switch to the Linux box, as it matches what most people here are using and I was wasting too much time making the OpenGL efficient for the Irix rather than Linux. Also the Irix c++ compiler has problems with namespaces and stl. And of course compiling is way faster on the Linux box.

  36. Just now ?!?? by dh5fbr · · Score: 0, Troll

    I wonder how far elections are part of this decision.

  37. Public Folders? by sloshr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why when people say, "Oh, let's make a replacement for Outlook/Exchange?" do they so readily forget about Public Folders... It wouldn't be so hard for me to convince people at my job to move away from Outlook/Exchange, but we have massive business rules written into the Public Folders, that we can't just "do away with".

    1. Re:Public Folders? by No-op · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I managed to implement quite a lot of public folder functionality into IMAP4 folders that different kerberos user groups could subscribe to... it's not undoable, maybe not as easy though.

      --
      EOM
    2. Re:Public Folders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerberos was definitely missing from the equation here. I think it would be a mistake not to implement it because this seems to be a given standard for Exchange. Also, they really should be bundling Cyrus SASL2 as well, makes a wonderful addition to Cyrus IMAPd :-).

  38. Re:Well its official... by mccalli · · Score: 3, Informative
    Perhaps the German Government should allocate just a wee bit more time for the development of a FULL Groupware Suite?!?!?!?

    Oh, but they have. This project is being pulled together by utilising existing projects, each of which have been running for considerably more than a few months. This seems to be a 'tying-up loose ends' affair, rather than a push to develop things from scratch.

    True there's plenty of tying up to be done, but then that's why this project exists. The situation doesn't appear to be as bad as you believe it to be however.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  39. A bit trollish, but worth considering by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your post is a bit troll-ish but you raise some points worth considering.

    I suspect that there is a market for a strong Exchange 5.5 replacement. There are a lot of midsized organizations out there (50-1000 people) who are running Exchange 5.5 and often NT 4 domains. They don't want to upgrade Exchange, because full implementation of Exchange 2000 requires Active Directory. And they are either satisfied with Novell eDirectory (NDS), or they just don't want Active Directory and the complexity it brings. And that is not to mention the Licensing 6.0 issues.

    So, many of these sites are looking at Samba and other Open Source solutions when NT 4 goes off support. But the problem is not NT Server - it is Exchange. How do you replace that? Most sites only make light use of the groupware features, but they do make SOME use - particularly the calendar.

    So, if an Open Source product is developed that can replace the core functionality of Exchange 5.5, I think you would see quite a bit of demand.

    sPh

    1. Re:A bit trollish, but worth considering by gamorck · · Score: 1

      Yes but I can assure you that a succesful Exchange competitor will NOT be developed in the measly span of two and a half months. I think you are right and that there IS demand for such a product. However I think that whatever they manage to create in two and a half months time is going to do nothing more than make Exchange look like an even better product compared to the limited amount of competition that exists.

      J

      --
      I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
  40. Where the real value is by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not fully confident that stringing together Postfix, Cyrus, OpenLDAP, etc. is really going to produce a cohesive groupware server. Yes, it'll work, but it'll be difficult to install.

    The real value here, though, is that the KDE project will now be defining a bunch of standard interfaces by which open groupware will access its back end services. Even if they don't get the back end perfect the first time around, by the time they're done they will have a very detailed set of specifications for the rules by which an open groupware client will talk with an open groupware server. Sure, there are standards for the basic protocols -- IMAP, SMTP, etc. -- but there are no standards for things like, which IMAP folder contains your task list? What's the URL to find another user's free/busy times?

    I think this is a big step forward, but it can be done even better. (Full disclosure: I am a developer on the Citadel project, which aims to provide an easy-to-install groupware server; we're doing it as a single integrated server instead of stringing together multiple existing unintegrated packages. So my view on this is admittedly subjective.)

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Where the real value is by Ummagumma · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not fully confident that stringing together Postfix, Cyrus, OpenLDAP, etc. is really going to produce a cohesive groupware server. Yes, it'll work, but it'll be difficult to install.


      You ever try to install Exchange 5.5, configure it, administer it? yikes.
      --
      "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
    2. Re:Where the real value is by cxreg · · Score: 2

      I'm not fully confident that stringing together Perl, Apache, MySQL, etc is really going to produce a cohesive Web server. :-)

      Isn't that really the Open Source Way(tm)? Why build some monolithic beast when most of the parts already exist?

      The difficult-to-install issue is a function of your distribution. Debian unstable (possibly stable and testing too, I'm not sure) carries all of those programs (including the most current Cyrus).

      I agree about having standard interfaces making things run a lot smoother in the long run.

    3. Re:Where the real value is by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not fully confident that stringing together Perl, Apache, MySQL, etc is really going to produce a cohesive Web server. :-)

      Isn't that really the Open Source Way(tm)? Why build some monolithic beast when most of the parts already exist?

      The difficult-to-install issue is a function of your distribution. Debian unstable (possibly stable and testing too, I'm not sure) carries all of those programs (including the most current Cyrus).


      Even Microsoft's stuff (most of it, anyway) is just a bunch of pieces created to do certain functions and configured to communicate with each other to perform specific tasks (the biggest difference being that Microsoft usually designs the smaller parts with the larger purpose in mind, whereas this is sort of like repurposing existing components).

      All they really need to do once they've figured out how to get this to do what they want it to do, and done whatever coding and configuration is needed, is to put together a clean installer to make it happen. Check versions of existing components, prompt to find whether existing components should be replaced or new components should be installed in a different location (with info on any differences between 'standard' components and the ones in the 'kroupware' package), configure, and then drop to an options dialog. Easier said than done, perhaps, but if even Microsoft could get it right people would be a lot happier with their software.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Where the real value is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like some clarification from one of the developers: Will the server side code have some spurious reason to link with TrollTech's Qt, or not?

  41. Typo for "contractors" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Come on Slashdot, its "kontractors" (not "contractors").
    I really wish you'd spell check!

  42. Do you fly? by mekkab · · Score: 2

    Because if you do, all the software running the show was made by gov't contractors (like myself).

    Gov't contractors aren't gov't employees- they are real businesses that get paid by the gov't.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  43. Re:Well its official... by gamorck · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    But thats the biggest problem sir. Why do you think people keep running back to MS and Apple for their desktop computing needs despite all the free shit the open source community puts out?

    One word: integration. Every Open Source app or linux distribution which "utilizes existing projects" to make something new ends up coming off as a hodge podge of different programs strung together with rolls of duct tape. Granted RedHat is attempting to deal with this issue in their upcoming 8.0 release much to the dismay of the KDE developers - but the open source community is still quite a long way from understanding THE TRUE benefits of tight OS/Application integration and truely reusable components.

    I can assure you that if KroupWare (what a moronic name) just strings together a bunch of preexisting components into a larger app - then it will come off as some hackjob POS and won't be accepted by market in general. Not to mention the fact that we have government contractors responsible for this....

    J

    --
    I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
  44. oh glory! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

    this is the last missing pc!

    an exchange killer is ALL we need.

  45. time frame? by ywwg · · Score: 2

    To be delivered by this year? IE, done in three months? This seems a tad ambitious. The article doesn't specify the deadline, so where does that come from?

    1. Re:time frame? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not - if they are just gluing together
      existing products.

    2. Re:time frame? by nutshell42 · · Score: 1
      Everything they need is there, all that remains is to make a consistent interface for installation/administration which -assumed you let work some ppl full-time on that task- should be doable.

      If not we'll have a delay - so what? AMD just delayed the Hammer, M$ delayed its next OS and Dungeon Keeper was more than 4 years late iirc.

      We're talking about software, noone's gonna take you serious if you deliver on time =)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  46. Benevolent Benefactors by boxless · · Score: 1

    This is huge. If you can have a benevolent benefactor fund a large software effort, and then allow the thing to be open sourced for the good of the world, that seems to me to be the ultimate win-win.

    Without this, I just don't see how an exchange-killer could be built. It's just so huge, and does so much.

    Now, whether the German government is a benevolent benefactor is another matter entirely....

  47. Missing Pieces... by NetJunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    I still see a problem. How many companies run plain generic Exchange? Even my small company doesn't. We use things like BlackBerry devices and other plugins. Without those most companies will still run in to issues when migrating.

    1. Re:Missing Pieces... by sloshr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Public Folders, Blackberries, and integrated fax solutions. I.e., the corporate messaging system.

    2. Re:Missing Pieces... by revery · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you can't work on things like BlackBerry until you have the Exchange clone up and running. You have to start somewhere. Not to mention thst because it is open source, there will be guaranteed to be plugins that aren't available for Outlook/Exchange.

      The German government didn't commission the fixing of all Exchange dependancy issues for all companies. But if they do a good job, third party products will begin to support it.

    3. Re:Missing Pieces... by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

      This isn't a problem. Why? Look at it from a financial standpoint. You can pay for an exchange server, CALs, the associated NT server and CALs, Office and a few other misc. costs, or you can pay some code monkey $5000 to whip up a connector for you. It may cost more, it may cost less, but when you put that one time cost up against 5 years of MS licensing, you quickly get a dose of perspective.

      In addition, if you are smart, you can do things like go to the forums of the company that makes the product that you need connected. A simple message like 'we are thinking of developing a connector for the flatulator 5K, anyone want in?'. If you get 10 people, you can sell it to them for $500 each, or have them chip in and open source the whole thing. The more expensive the product, the more people will most likely want to chip in.

      In addition, you can also ask the company itself to write a connector for you. If you are a large, loyal client, they probably will. Offer to help with development and alpha/beta testing.

      Overall, if you sit there and whine about it, you will be a slave to microsoft's licensing forever. Thier stuff obviously works for you, and you can afford it, so don't bother, sit back and be happy. When you decide to change, there will probably be what you want in a prepackaged form. In the mean time, there are options for those who want to be creative, and they don't have to cost much.

      -Charlie

  48. Re:Unfair competition by SubtleNuance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what? it sounds like a national government doing public-good.

    not everyone or every country believes that all needs should be met by private-for-profit entities..
    only americans (like you probably are) would find this at all a problem...

    personally - i think its * terrific * news.

    (oh, btw, did you know that the DoD (your gummint) floats ALOT of subsidy to private USA companies..?)

  49. Re:The big problem... (Yes, it crawls...) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I agree with you. I have a Pentium III 933 Mhz, 128MB, 20GB 7200 RPM disk. KDE has the same exact performace as Windows 2000 on this machine, which I find not slow, but not fast either.

    I have found that with a crappy video card, things really slow down. The refresh rate settings must match the exact performance of the monitor, otherwise, everything will flick. This is due XFree86.

    Perhaps compiling your own KDE in a separate directory using options like -Os or -O3 would help the final binaries performance.

    Indeed, I can't understand why the execution of kdeinit a couple of times is capable to consume more than 130 MB of RAM.

  50. Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then I could reserve the bedroom for 9:00-9:03pm and schedule an appointment with the wife to have sex!



    (yes, I know, if I'm that incorrigibly geeky, I obviously don't have a wife!)

    1. Re:Great idea! by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      you just better hope there was not a previous reservation...

      --
    2. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the 9-9:03 part might be more problematic than the reservation when it comes to getting a wife...unless you meant 9 am to 9:03 pm

    3. Re:Great idea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I inferred I was a geek, and hence, am not concerned about her needs!

  51. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't find it disturbing. The software is paid for by the German people, and given to the German people, under a license that doesn't permit private corps to take it and lock it away. And no, a fucking corporate isn't a goddamn citizen, they pay taxes for the privilege of being allowed to conduct business. That doesn't make them a 'person'. Besides, how is this any different from gov. funding of a new fighter craft? Thats gov funding to create a competitor with a private sector's product. How is that any different?

    1. Re:No by eastshores · · Score: 1

      Its the ratio of tax on business. And goverment in the US has well established practices for the release of technology so that it may be incubated in a commercial environment. Your thoughts of taxation being for the *right* to operate as an entity in a capitalist society are concerning.

  52. iCal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple's iCal is an open source vCard calendaring program. Along with e-mail, it makes for a good, cheap system for meetings (it can do invites) and calendars.

    1. Re:iCal? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2

      iCal isn't open source, and since it runs on OS X it won't help people trying to migrate to Linux. (Personally, I think migrating from Windows to Mac is more realistic in the short term than Windows to Linux, but that's just my opinion.)

    2. Re:iCal? by oscarmv · · Score: 2, Informative

      iCal isn't open source, but it does all its communications using standard protocols, so it's the next best thing. In theory it would be very easy to integrate iCal with a (yet to be built AFAIK) open source server. Just thought it was worth noticing.

    3. Re:iCal? by benh57 · · Score: 2

      Apache is open source. Calendar sharing is simple to set up using apache and mod_dav. Instructions here.

  53. Re: Unfair competition by Antity · · Score: 2

    Why "disturbing"?

    Governments have done this for years. Except that they ordered their software from companies that programmed closed-source solutions. They have to be customized for government use anyway. What's different with just wanting it to be Open Source?

    IMHO, this is a very good thing, because this software developmnent is paid for with German citizens' tax Euros. So if the result can be used by other citizens as well, I wonder: Why have they ever bought something else?

    --
    42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
  54. Re:Unfair competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I am scared to death that this project will lead to other governments commissioning software projects that will compete against private companies. Imagine the horror.

  55. Debian unstable by oliverthered · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aethera is in the Debian unstable packages list

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  56. Re:Unfair competition by Steffen · · Score: 1

    It probably is a little unfair. Much in the same way that the US Army have released a publicly funded, free of charge computer game...

  57. Taxes by intnsred · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With my government, I pay for corporate welfare and software patent clowns.

    How can I redirect some of my tax money to go to Germany?!

    1. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The German gov't gets something like $80,000,000,000.00 from the US taxpayer every year.

      Assuming you are in the US, you are paying for this.

    2. Re:Taxes by Hoeken · · Score: 2, Funny

      move to germany

      --
      Educate > Enlighten > Evolve http://www.neuroatomik.com
    3. Re:Taxes by nick-less · · Score: 1

      move to germany

      ok, you can have my place ...

      what you say? you don't want to fill out 18 taxforms per year and don't want to get rid of 50% of all your income? didn't I mention this?

    4. Re:Taxes by Damek · · Score: 2

      Maybe I'm missing something, but the Nazis were fascist, not socialist. They were closer to communism than socialism...

    5. Re:Taxes by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      How can I redirect some of my tax money to go to Germany?!

      Move.

    6. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You dont know what communism is.

    7. Re:Taxes by quax · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, I am German and I appreciate this very much. Maybe this way we get even for all the money that Germay has to hand over to the states every time they decide to invade Iraq. No to mention the fact that I already have to pay higher gas prices because of the advance of the next superfluous war in the Middle East.

    8. Re:Taxes by quax · · Score: 1

      Don't know were this number comes from. Please explain.

      The only flow of money that I know of is from the US renting military facilities in Germany. If you don't want them anymore feel free to retreat.

    9. Re:Taxes by quax · · Score: 1

      Well, I lived in both places Germany and the US. I find the US tax system much less user friendly. In Germany if you're only income is from employment you don't have to fill out a single form for your taxes. The percentage is simply taken out of your paycheck. You only have to fill out a form if you feel you are entitled to special expenses. Then you file this form and get some money back.

      Now if your self-employed or run a business things are somewhat more complicated, but it's not more or less clandestine than in the states.

    10. Re:Taxes by quax · · Score: 1

      if you pay 50% taxes in Germany than you must make a lot of money.

    11. Re:Taxes by nick-less · · Score: 1


      In Germany if you're only income is from employment you don't have to fill out a single form for your taxes


      most of the time you're getting some money back if you file a form..

      ...Now if your self-employed ...


      and not working in one of the privileged areas (publishing, art or architecture) you're threated like a company, they require you to file a VAT form every month, pay income tax, business tax, be a member of IHK and other nasty things...

    12. Re:Taxes by nick-less · · Score: 1

      if you pay 50% taxes in Germany than you must make a lot of money.

      less than most guys doing the same work as "employees" ...

    13. Re:Taxes by jesco · · Score: 1

      Jeez, grow up and think before you open your mouth (or hack on your keyboard, in this case).

    14. Re:Taxes by jesco · · Score: 1

      I know that I shouldn't post a second comment. Still, I do it...

      I suggest you grab a small book on internation economics and modern history and read a bit.

      You'll be puzzled by what you read there. For example, that germany is the third largest economy in the world, after the U.S. and Japan.

      Germany doesn't need U.S. tax money ever since the 1950s. The Marshall-Plan was great and did it's job well.

      Or, how was it possible that germany sponsored the first gulf war with 17 billion?

      Bah, I better stop here. Go, educate yourself a bit

    15. Re:Taxes by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      I am! 3 weeks to go...

      now only to find a job there... :)

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    16. Re:Taxes by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      Sorry that this is very offtopic but I think I remember seeing your nick in the the long hours/code quality thread and just wanted to ask you a question(BTW quax is the nickname of someone I work with and I thought it was him at first, I'm not stalking you :).

      Anyway I'm moving to Germany in october for a holiday and to see some friends/relatives. I'd considered working there for a while but they say the IT job situation is pretty bad over there but none of the people that say that are in IT. Just wondering if this really is the situation?

      I'm a programmer BTW (at HP at the moment so I have some experience) and am moving to the Köln/Düsseldorf area.

      cheers!

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    17. Re:Taxes by quax · · Score: 1

      The job market in general is not doing very well these days. A year ago the job section in the most polpular IT magazine CT was almost as large as the rest of the magazine. In the issue from about three month ago there has not been a single job add! I've read this magazine for about ten years now and couldn't remember that ever to happen before. In the last couple of issues the job adds are slowly coming back. But it's still not more than a trickle.

      On the other hand you may have more luck trying to work as freelancer. You can find companies that are looking for freelancers at sites like this.

      One thing to be aware of is that it is about as hard for a US national to get a work visa in Germany as the other way around. You may want to contact the German embassy beforhand and learn about the options.

      Hope this helps and good luck!

      P.S.: My nick stems from an old German movie called "Quax, the Crash Pilot"

    18. Re:Taxes by nzhavok · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the reply.

      Hmmm, sounds like things really could be as bad as my friends have told me. Thats a shame, I lived in germany for a while back in '97 and IMO it's a good place to live, I'd looked forward to spending another of years there. I'd hate to have to try England :-/

      You can find companies that are looking for freelancers at sites like this [freiberufler.de].

      I'll be sure to check it out, I'd prefer working as an employee for a corp I suppose, but smaller companies (or IT sections of larger ones) can be enjoyable as well.

      One thing to be aware of is that it is about as hard for a US national to get a work visa in Germany as the other way around.

      Luckily I'm from Australasia and my parents are English so I have a European passport.

      Cheers

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    19. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ohh dude. The German government needs taxes very badly. It costs a fortune to integrate and build up former East Germany.

  58. Re:Unfair competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? This is probably the cheapest solution for them... they have several alternatives: buying existing product licenses or developping a free one.

    If they do the latter, they probably spend less money, they also get the technology for further development, modification or whatever they want to do to it.

    A main focus of a state should be their people, not private companies. Private Companies freedom must exist because it somewhat represents freedom for
    the people that make (own) them; but when freedom of private companies collisions with freedom of people I'd always choose the last one, although very often it's not done.

  59. Re:Unfair competition by sphealey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but does anyone else find it disturbing that a nation state is "ordering" development of software that it knows will directly compete with that provided by the private sector (aka, MS Office, Corel, etc.)?
    Generally speaking, national governments do not want to be dependent on sources outside their control for critical infrastructure.

    When I worked in an industry that supplied steel makers with key components, most countries had a limit of the percentage of those components that could be imported. Once your reached that limit (say 40%) you were required to build a factory in that country to continue as a supplier.

    Now, classical economists and super-free-traders will argue that such behaviour is inefficient and non-rational. And indeed, those policies are one of the reasons there is such a glut of capacity in the steel industry. But no country wants to be caught in a conflict and have its source of key {stuff} choked off. The same thing is playing out in military aircraft.

    So perhaps the German government doesn't want to be held in thrall to a US supplier.

    sPh

  60. Unfair competition to Microsoft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, chortle, snort, guffaw.

    Thank you for the funniest post that I've read all year! I spit my coffee across the room and the people in the offices around me were wondering why I couldn't stop laughing. It's literally and conceptually funny in such a variety of ways - you are a comic genius! And it's just subtle enough that someone might think that you're serious.

  61. August 2002 - the 1.0 release (Linux, Win) by oliverthered · · Score: 3, Informative

    Looking at the road map Aethera is due for release any moment

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:August 2002 - the 1.0 release (Linux, Win) by jaclu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunatelly, that is standard procedure for theKompany

      They are extreamly optimistic on their shipment dates

      I've been waiting for an update for BlackAdder, its been "in a few weeks" / "end of the month" / "after the weekend" and similar, changed at random for well over a year....

      Last I hered on the mailinglist was "End of August" (said around august 15)

    2. Re:August 2002 - the 1.0 release (Linux, Win) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a new version of KDE comming out soon, I susspect they've everyone onto making that release date.

  62. Mozilla Groupware Suite? by Yonder+Way · · Score: 0, Troll

    You've got to be kidding me. It can't even handle being a web browser without periodically locking up.

  63. Possible by egghat · · Score: 2

    I know this post is somewhat redundant, but I think it's worth noting, that the short term solution will be the Bynari Plugin for Outlook but the longer term solution will be a separate stand-alone open source client for windows. Which will replace Outlook completly.

    WONDERFUL news.

    Bye egghat.

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
  64. One Feature To Rule The All by kenp2002 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have but one thing to say that even M$ hasn't really dealt with:

    ALLOW THE FUNCTION OF CREATING CONFERENCE ROOMS AND LOCATIONS THAT CAN BE SCHEDULED AGAINST.

    The only was I have seen Exchange pull this off is by having a user created for each account and keeping an outlooks session open for each conference room, then setting the conference room account to Auto-Accept invitations.

    For the love of dear god please tell those german contractors to put this function in!! I am in a building right now with 67 conference rooms and I can't count how many times a room gets double, triple, and even Quad booked!

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Rupert · · Score: 2

      Our exchange server only does that if one of the meetings is recurring. It's still a major pain, though.

      Are you inviting the rooms as resources or attendees?

      --

      --
      E_NOSIG
    2. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Dr.+Smooth · · Score: 1

      I second this!

      --

      ...if you ask no questions, beware of lies...

    3. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by No-op · · Score: 3, Informative

      we do that by creating a resource, named something like... "7th Floor small conference room".

      Then it's just as simple as inviting that item as a resource, and voila, it's booked. this seems to work well with little to no intervention required by any receptionist, who used to have to juggle scheduling.

      --
      EOM
    4. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by michajoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, see, thats what you get for using Exchange/Outlook instead of Domino/Notes.

      Notes has had that feature (and many others which Exchange still doesnt have) for AGES.

    5. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by jvlmik · · Score: 1

      It's never that easy. Whenever I want to schedule a conference room in Outlook I have to go through too many steps:

      1. Open up the intranet page listing all the conference rooms. Otherwise I can't remember how many people each room seats, or what's in the room.
      2. In Outlook's meeting request window, click Invite Others
      3. Choose a conference room
      4. Click OK
      5. Find out that conference room is full
      6. Go back to step 2. Repeat until a room is free.

      I should be able to tell Outlook "Find me a conference room on the same floor I'm on that has a speakerphone and will seat everyone attending this meeting" and let it assign me a room. The way the admins used to assign conference rooms before we "improved" things with Outlook.

    6. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, a tiny bit of scripting by your admin should fix that right up. Geez. Has everyone gone criminally lazy or what?

    7. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure your admin or a web developer could write that into your intranet site. It shouldn't be too hard.

    8. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by gosand · · Score: 2
      we do that by creating a resource, named something like... "7th Floor small conference room".

      I have tried that where I work, but it doesn't work right. It says I don't have permission for that resource. So we always have to include the room as an attendee. Then we get a confirmation, and the time is blocked off. I don't know if there is logic in there to prevent multiple bookings, I have never tried. But I can go in and see the room's schedule to see if it is booked.

      But there has to be a better way of doing it than it is currently done.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    9. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

      Aha! You missed the innovative features that outlook has. When you create a user, you need to buy a CAL, which of course sends more money to MS. See, it is quite an innovative revenue generator! Who would have thought they could make that much money from a confrence room! (I never said it would be to your benefit, did I?). Now, if they remove that feature, or fix the problem, they make less money. Tell me why they should fix it? I wouldn't in thier situation :).

      -Charlie

    10. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by brightloudnoise · · Score: 1

      I've had a good experience using
      Auto-accept utilities it even keeps an audit trail and it's free

      --
      brightloudnoise.com
    11. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Invite as resource. There is one of my outlook pet peves. It is a CONFRENCE ROOM, not a person. The computer should know that. There should be no need for me to figgure that out, and once in a while make a mistake. I've been to several meetings only to discover someone else managed to get the same room, and we had to move. Honest mistake that happened far too often.

      The sad part is the company had a windows and Unix solution that worked okay (Synchronize), and switched it out for outlook, even though many people only have unix machines. (When I left several people loged in once to tell outlook to accept all meetings, and then forwarded all mail to the unix mail and kept track of schedual on paper).

    12. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by DavittJPotter · · Score: 1

      Hell yes! Domino makes resource/room scheduling VERY simple. The server runs on Linux, and with iNotes, most Linux clients can use Notes as well.

      Why don't more orgs use it?

      --
      "If there's hope, it lies in the proles..."
    13. Re:One Feature To Rule The All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think that IBM would jump all over this. Go to the Germans and work to build a Linux-based tool using the portal technologies and "domino dna" components that they're trying to get so much press for. j2ee, imap, security, depth ... who could ask for anything more?

  65. Why not an Evolution Server? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2

    If Evolution is a replacement for Outlook clients for Linux, why not create a server componenet that runs group calendars. This seems to be the only piece missing from a total Linux server replacement for Exchange. If Evolution can sync this info with exchange, why not create their own server to do the calendaring also? then we would have a complete server client groupware solution. HTML calendaring is not a solution, many companies and users like applications that can launch events and real time syncing.

    --

    What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    1. Re:Why not an Evolution Server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cos this is the KDE project - and NIH (Not Invented Here) is the order of the millennium.

  66. Disturbing because... by laetus · · Score: 2

    It is directly aimed at replacing Windows and Outlook/Exchange by giving the German government an effective countersource for this software. Standing alone, that is not bad - iff, they kept the software to themselves.

    Your sophistry aside, by NOT going for a closed-source solution and introducing the software into the public domain as Open Source, the German government is entering into a competitive arena currently being served (for the most part in businesses and governments) by software created by private companies.

    Economically, it is an unnecessary intrusion into the private market.

    And by simply pointing out that governments have done this for years does not excuse this fact.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re: Disturbing because... by Antity · · Score: 2

      Economically, it is an unnecessary intrusion into the private market.

      Wait a second. "Intrusion into the private market"?! They will pay for development of this software, no matter if it's Open Source or not. This is "private market". There are companies that are going to be paid by the government to develop their software.

      Who should be blamed if they publish the source code after? Everyone who orders a company to write such tools have the right to do so, if it is in the contracts/licenses. Same with any company.

      It's the duty of any government to spend its citizens' money thoughtfully.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
    2. Re:Disturbing because... by deepchasm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is directly aimed at replacing Windows and Outlook/Exchange by giving the German government an effective countersource for this software. Standing alone, that is not bad - iff (sic), they kept the software to themselves.

      Hold on a minute...

      • The government is for the people.
      • The government needs the software.
      • The people pay for the software (tax).

      ...so why shouldn't the software be Open Source?

      To the person who compared this with making free cars, software is very different! Once software is created you can duplicate it effortlessly, unlike cars!

      This is more like science. I don't hear anyone saying that the Human Genome Project is anti-competetive because they aren't going to charge everyone for what they discover.

    3. Re: Disturbing because... by laetus · · Score: 2

      You're confusing them "paying" for this development with private market investments in technology.

      Yes, the German government is "paying" (actually, their taxpayers are) and in a case like this it is called a "subsidy." They are subsidizing the production of software that will compete against software being produced privately.

      As for the duty of any government to spend money thoughtfully, spending money in a market already well-developed is NOT very thoughtful.

      And, by making it open source, they may in fact scare off private companies that may have written a "better" groupware package for KDE and charge consumers for it. By building this package, the German government may be stifling that development.

      --

      "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    4. Re: Disturbing because... by protoshoggoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for the duty of any government to spend money thoughtfully, spending money in a market already well-developed is NOT very thoughtful.

      So, rather than pay someone to develop software that they can use in perpetuity, it would be more responsible for them to throw money down a licensing black hole forever?

      Not to mention, I think it is of considerable value to the government to know what the source code is that's behind the software they're running. I suppose they could pay people to develop it and then keep it a big secret so Bill doesn't lose any sales. And, um, this would benefit Germany and German citizens how?

    5. Re: Disturbing because... by boskone · · Score: 1

      I can see your point about maybe "scaring off" companies that are "about to release" some awesome, enterprise class KDE tools. But I don't know of any, and as long as *NIX has been around, we haven't seen anything compete on the "everybody's desktop" level with Windows/office. So I would say that the market has had ample time to come up with alternatives. Your point about the german government releasing it free has some merit as well (that it might be a crimp on private industry), BUT, the german govt isn't going ot get into the support and package biz, so there will be room for someone to package this software up, and provide world class installation, design, and customization for large govt's/organizations that might want to use this alternative. So I think there will be a lot of private firms that may benefit from this as well. Obviously, MS will have to compete against a new product, but because of their alliances and their economies of scale and momentum, I don't see this being a huge detriment to them, and it definately will aid the consumers.

    6. Re:Disturbing because... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Then these private companies can then take the software, customize it, and then resell it as a turnkey solution to those who don't want to put the effort into assembling it themselves. The real usefulness in groupware is not just what it is like when it comes out of the box. Businesses spend a lot of money & effort to create customized forms or databases that are tied into groupware apps such as bLotus Notes. If it's OSS, they will continue to spend a lot of money to do the same sort of thing whether it's an in-house developer or an outside firm. This essentially provides a base from which everyone can work from. Lots of other computer 'plumbing' that we've taken for granted is open source. This would extend it into another area, but not by much since it would be using other OSS building blocks to get there.

      Or companies could keep on doing what they have been doing for years: build a proprietary system and try to convince those holding the purse strings that their solution is the best one available. The German Govt has just decided that these sort of functions are essential enough that they don't want to be tied to any vendor. Private companies can still step in and produce a proprietary backend or client that conforms to the standards that are being laid out. If they do a better job than the OSS implementations, then they will certainly find buyers for their products.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    7. Re:Disturbing because... by rseuhs · · Score: 2
      In some areas, government funded makes sense.

      For example police, military or the road-net.

      ... and software.

      If the community can produce something more efficiently than private companies, it's better to make it public. In most branches of the economy, private companies do it more effectively, but not in all.

    8. Re: Disturbing because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the German government is "paying" (actually, their taxpayers are) and in a case like this it is called a "subsidy." They are subsidizing the production of software that will compete against software being produced privately.

      But in a case where Germany paid Microsoft for a product like Outlook/Exchange, it would not be a subsidy?

      Do the sales of a product not pay for its production?

      Or are you saying that a government should only ever pay for products which already exist?

      What about existing products with negligible marketshare?

      Or are you saying that a government should only ever pay for products which already exist and are market leaders - so as to not disrupt the current market conditions?

      But doesnt this just artificially perpetuate the current market conditions in the same way that investing in competing software might artificially cause them to change?

    9. Re:Disturbing because... by afidel · · Score: 2

      Governments should ALWAYS request open source solutions, as it is our government and hence our money that is being used to purchase the software we should get something in return. NCSA Mosaic, a government funded project that was open source was the catalyst for the modern internet, what other potential breakthroughs are not happening because the government is not using opensource everywhere? I am not an opensource fanatic, but I do believe that we should get something in return for our hard earned tax dollars.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re: Disturbing because... by StillaCoward · · Score: 1

      Here is an example: aethera
      From what I gather this product seems to include both a groupware server system and a client, just like the software being developed for the German government.

      Of course, you would be correct in saying the German government has no reason to care about the ecomonics of an American company.

    11. Re:Disturbing because... by psamuels · · Score: 1
      Standing alone, that is not bad - iff (sic), they kept the software to themselves.

      Ummm, iff isn't a typo (or, if it is, it's a fortuitous one) - it means "if and only if".

      (The rest of your post I agree with.)

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  67. Mozilla as client by Gerv · · Score: 2

    Mozilla seems to have all of the functions of their client except the small bits (Tasks, Notes, Palm Sync) already, and it's stable, well-integrated and tested. It also runs on Windows, Linux and other platforms, allowing you to have the same client everywhere (less support load.)

    It seems odd to cobble all these disparate KDE projects together instead of using Mozilla. But maybe this is because the KDE developers are more familiar with them. Still, I'm sure someone will make Mozilla work with Kollaborator server, or whatever it's called, soon enough.

    Gerv

  68. Rock on, Germany. by EvilNight · · Score: 2

    Hopefully this will start a trend. This is a very altruistic move on behalf of the German government... to commision and pay for the design of software to suit their needs, yet design and develop the project as open source, so that once it is done everyone around the world will be able to benefit from it.

    We should try to get the US government to declare all contributions to open source development as a tax writeoff. Heck, maybe they already do, but somehow I think I would have heard of it by now if they did.

    If this project delivers, the Exchange server at our organization will be in the dumpster before the hard drives have a chance to fully spin down, and I'll be running a shiny new copy of SuSE Kroupware in its place.

    --
    Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    1. Re:Rock on, Germany. by happyclam · · Score: 2
      We should try to get the US government to declare all contributions to open source development as a tax writeoff.

      While I agree wholeheartedly in theory, the practical reality is that a huge amount of "open source software" is made up of "here's a guestbook script I wrote." I don't really think people should get a tax write-off for building some crappy script for their own personal web site and then submitting it to one of the many free script listings. If such a write-off could be created with the proper incentives, I'd be for it (except that I prefer a flat-tax system).

      Besides, the government is already giving you a tax break on contributions to open source software: Since you're not realizing any revenue, you don't have to pay income tax for the hours you worked on it!

      --
      He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
    2. Re:Rock on, Germany. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you donate to the FSF or Software in the Public Interest (ppl behind Debian), then it is tax deductible. I don't know if there are similar 503c orgs for Gnome or KDE.

    3. Re:Rock on, Germany. by psamuels · · Score: 1
      This is a very altruistic move on behalf of the German government... to commision and pay for the design of software to suit their needs, yet design and develop the project as open source, so that once it is done everyone around the world will be able to benefit from it.

      Not altruistic - practical. Open-source software yields benefits to him who commissions it, not just to everyone else. You get stuff like like free bug fixes and feature enhancements from the world at large. The only major downside is that you are helping your competitors, which should not be a concern for a national government, particularly one who a few years ago decideed to "help their competitors" by contributing the strength of its Deutschmark to the Euro.

      And I'm guessing that, in this case, since most of the pieces already exist and only need to be polished and integrated, the winning bid was orders of magnitude lower than the cost of a new closed-source solution.

      --
      "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  69. To bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KDE sucks

  70. Embrace and extend by ites · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This project is excellent news.
    It marks a new direction in the way OSS applications are built.
    One advice to the project team:
    Do not be shy of compatability.
    Make sure it is easy to migrate from MS products.
    Make this an explicit and highly visible feature.
    Provide MS-like skins as standard.
    Ensure interoperability.
    Make the migration path easy and people will take it.
    Remember that businesses, like governments, have no loyalties.
    Only interests.
    And saving money is always a good message.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  71. Do not mention "closed" and "standard" together by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    About a year ago, I decided not to use "closed" and the word "standard" together anymore.

    "Closed specification" versus "Open Standard". That's what I use now. Sounds clearer, better, doesn't it?

  72. Unfair competition? by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    Smells like an unfair subsidy to the German software industry


    Only in the same sense that a US government purchase order for n thousands of Microsoft licenses is an unfair subsidy to the US software industry.

  73. Re: Microsoft was declared a monopoly... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

    ...and therefore it is impossible to "unfairly" compete against them. They put themselves in a position where all legal competition is perfectly fair and allowable.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  74. Oh, we stupid Americans by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    only americans (like you probably are) would find this at all a problem

    I don't think it's out of line, or uniquely American, to fear the government entering into direct competition with known economic paradigms--and that's what we're talking about. When the US subsidizes a company, its intention is not to displace an entire sector with whatever it's ordered, ie. we take a bid for a jet, which is a standard product that can be produced by a number of US companies. The production of the jet hurts no other sector of industry.

    On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it. This might not (probably not?) happen, but it's worth thinking about--even if you're Canadian.

    I'm sure the original poster, despite being _such_ a _typical_ ignorant American, is aware that the US subsidizes private industry. I just think the original poster was just exploring an idea--you don't have to get all offensive and anti-American about it.

    1. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 5, Insightful
      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it.

      Dunno if this would be as bad as you make out. Sure, for the short term the companies (and their employees) in direct competition with the "free" products would suffer. But every other company (and citizen) would realize HUGE savings by not having to pay for that particular product, would which allow them to reallocate the resources they normally use for that product to other more useful things. Once the people from the obsolete industry got transitioned, it's just as likely that the overall economy will do better than it was before, as there is that the whole economy will crash.

      That would be a legitimate function of a "proactive" government (as much as that concept pisses off the libertarians) - if the government can make the case that in the long-term the society will be better off, but to get there will cause some short-term pain, then it'll be up to the government to do what's best for the society as a whole (versus private enterprises, which will keep doing what's best for themselves).

      There's a good argument to be made, however, that you can't throw major transitions like that into the economy too frequently, otherwise no one will be able to adjust quickly enough - and everything WILL truly fall apart.

    2. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by bfields · · Score: 5, Insightful
      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it.

      Oh, give me a break. Have you completely forgotten what the car industry is for? It's not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy. If the modern automobile is rendered obsolete tommorow, then we all get to stop throwing our money into that particular pit, we're free to invest in other technology, and the economy benefits. If it takes some government investment to get to that point, as long as the government's expenditure is less than what we would have spent on cars otherwise, then what's the problem?

      ---Bruce F.

    3. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it. This might not (probably not?) happen, but it's worth thinking about--even if you're Canadian.
      If such a technology were practical, then the Big 3 would collapse anyways (and presumably everyone else making consumer products in the traditional way). The Government wouldn't need to pay for technology like that anyways; it would be in the best interests of a private company to research it themselves.

      More importantly, such technologies would contribute more to the economy than the Big 3 ever could, just going by your description. The new, bigger economy would find a new use for all those laid off folks. So I would argue that killing off the car manufacturers should be written off as "acceptable losses."

      I'm okay with Germany doing this. The current products on the market are wholly owned by American companies, and it's in Germany's best interests to keep its dollars/marks/euros/whatever the heck they use inside the country. Also, it's a sensible move when the products on the market don't fulfill your needs in some specific way.
      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    4. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are a stupid american. A small percentage of developers work for commercial software development. These companies also employ other ancilery works but by and large they are small companies with high profit margins. I.e. compare MS with Walmart or GE.

      Software companies also have the distinction of being parasitic on the economy while increasing productivity. To spell this out, the software increases productivity but the licensing schemes employed mean that they continue to draw revenue above and beyound the actual production costs.

      What they are doing in Germany actually makes sense. Contract a company (who will make a profit) to write something that is complicated and expensive to make but costs nothing to reproduce. This is then given away so that any company who uses it saves their licensing costs.

      The current system in America is for you the tax payer to fund public research which is then given/cheaply sold to a private company to then sell back to you. Why are you complaining about what Germany is doing again?

    5. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by abulafia · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's out of line, or uniquely American, to fear the government entering into direct competition with known economic paradigms--and that's what we're talking about. When the US subsidizes a company, its intention is not to displace an entire sector with whatever it's ordered, ie. we take a bid for a jet, which is a standard product that can be produced by a number of US companies. The production of the jet hurts no other sector of industry.

      I think you underestimate the US's will to tamper with "known economic paradigms". It you do a little looking around at what it has done in the past ten years to the aviation industry, it becomes very, very clear that there was an agenda mostly dictated by the USG that led to the huge mergers in that sector.There are differences of opinion as to why it was desirable to some in government, but nobody disputes that it happened. And yes, there were winners and losers (although who falls into which box is still being argued by some).

      What I see to be the significant part of this is that the COTS (Commercial, off-the shelf) push many governments have had lately has, apparently, been sidelined as not the cheapest, best option, at least for DE.
      Leveraging free code, and abiding by the legal restrictions on that code, seems to hit the sweet spot for them.

      Looked at another way, Nobody present, I think, would be concerned if DE decided to contract out sewer control software and then open-source the result. On the contrary, there would be cheers. Never mind it would put a few people out of business.

      Aside from magnititude, wherein lies the difference between the sewer system and groupware?

      -j

      --
      I forget what 8 was for.
    6. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by _ganja_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "to fear the government entering into direct competition with known economic paradigms--and that's what we're talking about."

      It seems that we have a one world government already, must have missed that one. Like any money spending entity the German government have simply had enough of being dictated to by an American monopoly. A government has a responsibility to the tax payer to find cost effective solutions, just as Microsoft has a responsibility to its share holders to screw customers as much as possible. We are all mostly tax payers yet only a few of are Microsoft share holders, I wholly support this and nor does it come as a surprise.

      This little elegant quote fits well:

      "The amount of oppression the oppressed will bear is determined by the oppressed NOT the oppressor." -- Frederick Douglass

      --

      A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

    7. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2
      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product.

      A government that does *anything* cannot divorce itself from being an economic actor. Be it picking winners and losers WRT contracts or supporting research in a given area or deciding which third-world company to invade to get oil :-). If a government can provide a capability less expensively than the private sector can, it probably should. Contrawise, if a government can contract a service more inexpensively than by doing it itself, it probably should. Doing otherwise is wasting taxpayers' money.

      That being said, one also has to look at the full cost of taking an action - looking at things like reliability of service, probability and cost of externalities, and issues of unfair competition (e.g., government can generally take control of a property more cheaply via eminent domain than a private firm via negotiation). However, I don't see many of those issues arising in this case. So go for it, Germany!

      --
      That is all.
    8. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Buck2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a legitimate libertarian complaint would be:

      If I have to spend one tax, ie non-voluntary, dollar to develop free cars then it's too much.

      This position would be even stronger if this person lives in a city wherein he doesn't need to drive and probably never will.

      It becomes very dangerous when someone else is allowed to decide that "short term disasters" are really for the public good in the long run. I'm sure that there are many Japanese-Americans who were interred during WWII who might agree, for example.

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    9. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Zathrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the US subsidizes a company, its intention is not to displace an entire sector with whatever it's ordered, ie. we take a bid for a jet, which is a standard product that can be produced by a number of US companies

      Ding ding ding!

      That's the key - US companies. When we take military bids we most certainly don't allow foreign companies to bid on them. Similarly virtually all emergency vehicles (police, fire; ambulance is different) are domestic vehicles despite the fact that both Japanese and European cars are cheaper to maintain in the long run.

      And when it comes to private industry you can bet that those government contracts come to bear. How would Boeing do against Airbus if they didn't have military contracts? Would Lockheed even exist still? Heck, Jeep was created due to a government contract!

      It's very reasonable for a government to want key pieces of infrastructure to not be restricted by a foreign company or country. More and more countries outside of the US are realizing that virtually their entire IT infrastructure is controlled by a single company based in the US that has $38 billion in the bank. It would be silly to not look into and even fund alternative sources -- and that's what Germany is doing.

      Oh, to be clear - the US certainly isn't the only country that funds private industry through government contracts. Virtually all countries do. And it's silly not to - private industry is far more efficient and effective than government is (and that should really, really scare you when you consider just how bureaucratic and wasteful a lot of private companies are!).

    10. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 2

      Yes, I've forgotten what the car industry is for. I'm so stupid I can't help but slobber on this keyboard.

      This is an extremely naive view of how our economy works. Do you think that the market is completely practicle minded? Even if equivalently strong businesses replaced the big 3, do you think that market perception of American car manufacturers' demise would be positive? I think, regardless of how _practically_ positive a shift like this is, the market would not forgive it. Do you really think that if Microsoft, IBM, or some other giant like that went bankrupt, the market wouldn't decline significantly? Go take a look at market trends when any business like this is perceived as being in trouble.

      Again, I never claimed this was a real problem that will come to fruition, I was just defending the original poster's right to explore this (unpopular w/ avg slashdot reader) idea without getting flamed into nothingness.

    11. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      The creation of software is a service. The present paradigm (to use your word) of creating binary software and selling it as a manufactured good is not only artificial, but it is also very inefficient. It is not even the dominant way of developing software. Most computer programmers either contract out their services, or work for some company or organization on salary. The only reason that companies like Microsoft has so much power is that once you put your information into their products it is very difficult to get it out again. This, combined with the huge amounts of money that the software companies have amassed, helps guarantee that commercial software remains important.

      The German government is simply using its money wisely. They added up the costs and realized that it would cost them less in the long run to pay for a build their own Groupware system than to buy one of the presently available alternatives and the host of upgrades that it would require over the years. Germany will get exactly what they want, and because they are reusing publicly available pieces they get a system that should be fairly inexpensive to support. To sweeten the pot the money the German government will be spending will end up in the pockets of German developers (who pay German taxes) and not to a foreign company.

      The only thing that surprises me about this announcement is that the German government isn't starting with the already excellent Evolution client. Coding an equivalent in KDE seems like a bit of a waste. Other than that, this announcement makes perfect sense. The only thing that Free Software is missing so that it could be considered a Groupware solution is calendar sharing.

    12. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by grammar+fascist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a good argument to be made, however, that you can't throw major transitions like that into the economy too frequently, otherwise no one will be able to adjust quickly enough - and everything WILL truly fall apart.

      There's also a good argument to be made that, if you throw too many major transitions like that into the economy, you end up with socialism in the long run.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    13. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by sterno · · Score: 2


      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product.

      That's only a risk if the product is better. In which case, who really cares if they get displaced? Furthermore, to say it's free is ignoring the fact that no company on earth likes using free and unsupported software. They want support contracts, etc. So, if it is good, there will be money there for people who want to suppor and provider custom add ons for that product. A good way for those displaced people to keep making money, non?

      Furthermore, who is the Geman government displacing? Microsoft? IBM? Last time I checked those were US companies, and I don't think the Germans will be too upset if they manage to display US jobs with German jobs.

      Interesting legal issue though is how this works in the realm of the WTO. Would the german government paying a company to develop groupware software be an illegal subsidy? If it is, then how could any government ever get any custom software written for their needs?

      --
      This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    14. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by electroniceric · · Score: 2

      Seems to me the point here is that nobody really knows. The idea that a few months of subsidized work could undermine a huge sector of the economy is a pretty new one.
      It'd be good to see some more formal economic thinking on this subject, like a couple PhD theses on the macroeconomic effect of technology-induced obsolescence. Frankly, I think it's almost imperative to study it, because it will very likely happen over and over again in the next 20 years - in biotech, in information management, in content production.
      The specific question I'm thinking about is: What role should a government take when a rapid technological change dramatically undermines an industry? This would be a good start at learning from the missteps we've taken in the recording industry.

    15. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by A.Gideon · · Score: 1

      What I've not seen (yet) in this discussion are the issues of "monopoly" and "public good".

      Part of a government's role is to protect the functioning of the marketplace (however that is defined in that given region of governance). To much of the western world, this includes preventing abuses by monopolies.

      In the US, we've the DOJ which takes on potential abuses in court. But that's just one possible approach. Another approach is a more market-driven one. That second approach makes a lot of sense to me, as it doesn't get a second system (the legal system) involved in the first (the economic system).

      This second approach involves helping to cause the investment necessary to break (or neuter) the monopoly. Recall that a monopoly is rarely based upon absolute prevention of competition. It is more typically merely a matter of economic barriers which require too much investment to compete.

      No company may be able to afford that investment. But a government, less tied to short term cycles and immediate returns on investment, may.

      More, governments also serve as a conduit through which long term projects for the public good may be funded. It may not make sense for a company to invest in the building of a dam, but it may make sense for a government to do so.

      I see the breaking of monopolies as a public good akin to building dams, Internets, and airports, protecting habitates, and the like.

      Given the nature of the investment, and given the public good intended by the result, I see this as a very natural role for a government to play.

    16. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by PrimeEnd · · Score: 2
      On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product. On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it.

      OK, now suppose that the company being displaced is foreign and huge amounts of your country's wealth is being shipped overseas to pay for its products. To pursue your analogy, suppose all cars were made overseas and the U.S. balance of payments was horribly negative. (It is.) Does this change anything?

      The point is that displacing Microsoft won't hurt Germany, (or China, or ... ). In fact it will help the economies of those countries.

    17. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by lightcycler · · Score: 1

      "the car industry ... is not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy"

      You're not familiar with the UK car industry, I take it?

      "Please keep your factory in Britain, we'll pay you millions of pounds from the public purse if you keep your factory open." our government pleads. A few months later the Nissan factory disappeared, taking the money which Blair donated to keep the factory open. Nah, that doesn't sound like charity at all...

      (p.s. let's not forget the various "wars on X" (x{drugs, commies, arabs, unamericans}) -- if taking taxed war-monies and giving it to wealthy defence contractors to buy new houses is somehow more honourable than supporting public software, then please explain why?

    18. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Dan+Crash · · Score: 2

      I think you're right on the money here. When it comes to software, for example, we don't have a clue what to do with government money. Would our economy would be better off if the government subsidized development of free software? Or is it more important for our economy that the government sticks to licensing proprietary software from the software industry? No one really knows at this point.

      I suspect we'd be better off with the first option, but at this point, it's just a hunch. These issues really need to be investigated so we can justify the choices we make either way, and not simply continue on the same old paths out of tradition.

      --
      He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
    19. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by be-fan · · Score: 2

      The idea that a few months of subsidized work could undermine a huge sector of the economy is a pretty new one.
      >>>>>>>>>
      Methinks that if a few months of subsidized work can undermine a huge sector of the economy, that sector of the economy should not have become as large as it is, and eventually would have crashed anyway. Don't forget, at some point in economics, there is reality involved. If software just isn't worth the price people are charging for it (and my guess is that the $40 billion in cash in Microsoft's bank indicates the cost of labor is far outstripped by the final selling costs) then eventually something will happen to stabilize the situation again.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    20. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Vader82 · · Score: 1

      Isn't SuSE a german distro? Doesn't suse use primarily KDE? It looks to me like the german govt is planning on rolling out a complete linux solution for any government worker, complete with native groupware support. If you can install the dektops with KDE only you save a lot of space and headaches in the long run, so it seems natural that they pick the same environment as their native desktop. then again I may be completely wrong.

    21. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by electroniceric · · Score: 2

      OK, you're right in theory - people shouldn't really be going in for overvalued things. The problem from a civic standpoint is that people do and will make a quick killing building an industry around a product that seems valuable now, but will be rendered much less valuable by some tech innovation. And as usual, those with less money suffer more when the economy makes wild swings. I.e., for all the drama of a billionaire to pauper story, it's much harder to endure getting fired when you live paycheck to paycheck.

      Everyone (particularly the investment money part of everyone) wants their piece of the pie on the way up, so it's easy to see people doing this over and over. I'm am admittedly cynical about the ability of business insitutions to observe technological change in a long view and restrain from the quick industry-building. Doubly so if the technology that pulls the rug out from under the sector can just as easily come from some programmer's dusty attic or a no-name research lab (recall that investment bankers, for all their claims of loving the little guy, are essentially still only impressed by big money).

    22. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by expro · · Score: 1

      No, the legitimate libertarian complaint would be about the various forms of IPR protections that have grown out of control including copyright that give monopolists their stranglehold on these markets today.

    23. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Buck2 · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a different legitimate complaint, neh?

      --

      As my father lik@(munch munch)... ....
    24. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the *German* government does not find it problematic when it is displacing an *American* monopolist.

    25. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by bfields · · Score: 1
      "the car industry ... is not an a charity project; it's there to produce cars that people can buy"
      You're not familiar with the UK car industry, I take it?

      Replace "is not" by "should not be" in the above, apologies....

    26. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2

      Big big difference between property and IP. Can't compare matter with ideas.

    27. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by kesuki · · Score: 2

      First of all, Microsoft is an american company, and the german government has little if any interest in proping up an american company. Second of all, "Open Source" software does not 'hurt' the economy.
      The economy is a measure of how much people can produce with their time and effort. Closed-source has been a huge drain on the economy, and this drain has only been masked by the productivity gains that Computer technology can provide.
      Secondly right now we have a giant corperation that has to an extent an extortion racket going, they provide you essentially the same product given a fresh paint job, and a few bug fixes, and you're expected to 'keep upgraded' and as such continue paying the extortion fees. Word processors, for example haven't changed signifigantly in a decade. only a few cosmetic changes, and bugfixes for newer hardware have come out. Now how is it 'productive' for the economy to lock this kind of technology up with prorietary license agreements requiring payment by installments?
      And yes if you found a way to make cars for 'free' the auto makers would go under, but if you think auto makers make up a signifigant part of the economy anymore you're saddly mistaken, and you missed the 1980s. Robots build automobiles now. Yes, they have human operators, but the number of people involved in building a car already crashed and burned in the 80s. the economy survived, because people still wanted to work, and they found ways to continue working. it may take time to adapt, but the economy has never collapsed as a result of any enabling technology. Generally, it takes pig-headed politicians, and a collapse of trade and the banks to cause total economic failure.

    28. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by AxelBoldt · · Score: 2
      ...you end up with socialism in the long run.

      Obviously, you will end up with socialism in the long run anyway. Once all work is being done by robots and nobody wants to employ you anymore, how do you think are you going to get your food?

    29. Re:Oh, we stupid Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Singaporean Government runs most of the largest companies in Singapore, competing with private copmpanies. Their economy is one of the strongest in the world, so your claim that the government competing with private companies would crash the economy is certainly wrong.

  75. Not trolling, serious about market distortions by laetus · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry to see that so many /.ers can't see the economic reasons for keeping government out of private markets whenever possible. I'm not saying the German government is any worse than say, the American or Canadian government. I'm pointing out that in this one case, you've got a nation-state building something it plans to distribute freely that will compete with products that private market workers and investors are making a living from.

    Read one of Friedman's speeches on market distortions for a good view of this.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:Not trolling, serious about market distortions by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      The end result is a that more people benefit from the Public effort.

      what is so scary about this?

    2. Re:Not trolling, serious about market distortions by mickwd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sorry to see that many /.ers can see the economic reasons for one government to stop paying money hand over fist on a continuing basis to a foreign company - a company which, as a result, exerts some degree of power over that government's electronic and information policies. That money isn't on loan - it's gone from that country forever, into the coffers of another country.

      In this case, you've got a nation-state building and using something for and by itself - something that will compete with products that private market workers and investors in another country far away are, in some cases, making large fortunes from.

      If this is a problem, maybe the American government shouldn't have produced the Internet in the first place. Imagine how much better-off we'd all have been if that had never happened. Or maybe not.

    3. Re:Not trolling, serious about market distortions by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
      I'm pointing out that in this one case, you've got a nation-state building something it plans to distribute freely that will compete with products that private market workers and investors are making a living from.

      It will "compete" with "products" that aren't products at all. Software is an idea. MS came up with (bought/stole/strongarmed all competitors away from) an idea that forces just about every computer user in the world to rent their computers from MS.

      The German government (and the Mexican, Peruvian, Californian (and some other states that only sue), et al) is tired of itself and its constituents being held hostage by a foreign company. If the "product" were reliable and secure it would still rankle. Nothing MS has produced has been either. Other than calendar sharing and games (written for, not by MS), the only thing MS can offer is "compatibility" with other comanies' networks and documents. Note that by ignoring standards, MS makes this compatibility artificially scarce.

      No industry has an inherent right to profit or, indeed, to survival. Or are you exactly the kind of socialist you seem to hate? Any government's use of MS products is a pure subsidy, something stupid if you're not in Washington (DC or state). They are paying big bucks for shoddy craftsmanship when better, cheaper alternatives exist. I'm sorry to see that you can't see the economic reasons for keeping government out of private markets whenever possible.

      People are finally starting to vote with their feet.

      --
      I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
  76. Re:Unfair competition by pubjames · · Score: 5, Informative

    If it wasn't for governments subsidizing software development, we wouldn't have the internet, the web, HTML, MP3, JPG, MPEG...

    All of these things came from government funded projects. I know that many people find it hard to believe, or don't want to believe it, but it is actually government funded projects which drives most of the innovation in the software industry, not Microsoft, Oracle, etc. This is why I believe all the recent government interest in Linux and Open Source is really the death knell for most "off-the-shelf" software.

  77. Not really by hey! · · Score: 2


    Perhaps the German Government should allocate just a wee bit more time for the development of a FULL Groupware Suite?!?!?!?


    "How long does it take to make a FULL Groupware suite" is a question like "How long is a piece of string?" It depends on what you mean by a "FULL Groupware Suite".

    If they were going to try to reproduce the functional equivalent Lotus Notes in four months, I'd say they were smoking crack. But Exchange? Exchange has always struck me as a triumph of MS obfuscation. It isn't really much of a groupware platform, for most people it's just an MTA, MDA and calendar server.

    As far as I can see, the problem isn't that there aren't open source implementations of all these functions. If any thing, there are too many (if there can be such a thing). Each of the pieces needed for 99% of what people do with Exchange has been done in open source -- multiple times. It even seems to me like there have been plenty of groups trying to use these to get an exchange replacement off the ground, with various levels of completion. The problem is nobody has got to critical mass.

    It seems to me that a large user paying somebody to integrate the pieces is a good way to move the ball forward. Given the software that is already freely licensed that solves most of the problem, could an adequately funded team of experienced software developers pull together mail transfer, mail delivery, calendar and user agent in three months? I don't see why not.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  78. Practical Internet Groupware by non · · Score: 2, Informative

    This book was reviewed here.

    *

    --
    ...vividly encapsulates that post-Watergate/pre-punk/coked-up moment when you could trust no one, least of all yourself.
  79. My pet troll. by pubjames · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    pubjames, you anti-american, communist piece of shit. Hasn't anybody shot you yet?

    I've got a pet troll! He follows me around and does little poo-poos. Cute! "My Pet Troll" - sounds catchy. Perhaps I should patent it.

    1. Re:My pet troll. by perler · · Score: 1
      where did you pick it up? i want one too! :))

      PAT

  80. Re:Unfair competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. Except that one of the contractors is Swedish, and not german.

  81. I can see it now... by dotgod · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now the trolls are not only going to call linux users commies, now we're gonna be called nazi's as well.

    1. Re:I can see it now... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Now the trolls are not only going to call linux users commies, now we're gonna be called nazi's as well

      Of course, both terms have worse connotations than were originally intended. The words (or the group in terms of nazi) were simply polluted by certain individuals. There's really nothing wrong with communism unless you're dead-set against the economic system it describes (though it may not actually work in any place other than Star Trek, that's another story). Even the Nazi party was just a political party until Hitler came along and screwed everything up, though, of course, some people may have issues with Socialism, which I could certainly understand in most cases.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  82. Scheduling at home? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever try to share 2 cars among four people?

    Right now that resource is scheduled by post-it notes on the Fridgidaire. Maybe next year my teener children will be able to reserve the car from their Palm Pilots? Of course, I reserve super-scheduler rights on the Camaro.

  83. In three and a half months... by iabervon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they can pull this off, it will be an impressive success for the open source model. For a set of contractors to go from getting the problem description to a complete implementation in 3 1/2 months, due to the existence of a good set of tools, would really show the strength of the model.

    Getting a custom installation generally takes far longer than that. If this project works, it will start to look reasonable for companies who are planning to get a proprietary solution to get an open source one at the same time to use until the proprietary one is ready.

    1. Re:In three and a half months... by _ganja_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      These are no ordanary contractors though. We're are talking about at least 2 uber KDE developers here, namely Matthias Kalle Dalheimer & Bernhard Reiter.

      Plus, they are not starting from scratch, they already know the KDE infrastructure inside out and have a truck load of Jolt & Mt.Dew delivered weekly.

      --

      A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

    2. Re:In three and a half months... by bherzog · · Score: 1

      Actually, the deadline is only one month away! See e.g. Kalle's Post to the kroupware mailing list.

    3. Re:In three and a half months... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any groupware product coded by two people in 30 days is going to be the granddaddy of all death marches.

  84. Finally an alternative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to the closed source Ximian connector. I'm so glad the good folks at KDE have the community in mind rather then their bank accounts. For them, it has never been about the money, but rather about the love of doing it. It really shows in the exquisit attention to detail they put in to each application. Sure, it's buggy at times, but considier how much functionality it provides.

    Some argue they are reinventing the wheel. I say why not? When creating something of this complexity, I would find it easier to start from scratch rather then try and hack someone elses work. Besides, the KDE folks really don't care what other people think of their methodology, they'll do it the way they see fit. This is their style. 'Nuff Said.

    As for integrating Evolution into KDE, that is just plain crazy! How many times must it be pointed out that KDE and GNOME cannot be so easily integrated. For one, they use totally different widget libraries based on different versions of C [as in C vs C++]. Secondly KDE is programmed using OOP concepts and structures, whereas GNOME is uses modern C structures. The KDE developers try very hard to prevent non-OOP code frome polluting the KDE sources. Moving Evolution to C++/OOP would take just as much effort as writing the application from scratch. Finally, it still leaves them in the same situation, as Ximian isn't providing source code for the Connector. Needless to say, this attitude is not in sync with the Free Software communtity as a whole.

    I know that people have their opinions on desktops, but I think having the choice is more important. I don't think I'd be happy with only GNOME as a choice. Similarly, others wouldn't be happy with just KDE as a choice. Since I prefer KDE, I'd rather have a Outlook-style tool that is written expressly for my desktop. This saves space because then I don't have to install the GNOME libraries required to run Evolution.

    So KDE fans rejoice, for we are that much closer to joining GNOME in the conquest of the corporate desktop :-).

  85. Basing the server on IMAP by swb · · Score: 2

    I've had long contact with Groupware systems (have installed and run Exchange & Groupwise systems for several years), and I'm always amazed at why someone hasn't managed to take the IMAP standard and extend it so that it's simpler to interface with more vanilla clients or lower-end clients.

    Basically even the "full" client would talk IMAP to the server and then render the data to whatever GUI calendaring/scheduling stuff it would want. The advantage is that vanilla text IMAP clients could still enumerate a folder and read non-mail data as messages, and perhaps even send mail messages that could be interpreted by the server as non-mail items (appointment, tasks, etc).

    Exchange's IMAP functionality kind of does this, but calendar items don't show up as anything more than URLs to the Exchange web client.

  86. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by Sleepy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    >>The Mozilla client would be very well integrated into the server, able to access web pages, email, and newsgroups, as well as LDAP contacts, scheduling, and other groupware features.

    >Isn't this how we got into this mess in the first place? The OS needs, IE, which you can't remove, and Outlook requires IE, and everything is integrated into these two applications and their support subsystem. Look at the trouble it's given the Windows users.

    True enough, but is that arguement supposed to support the KDE alternative approach? That comment applies equally to KDE, does it not?

    Just TRY decoupling Konqueror from KDE... you can't even (EASILY) build KDE without all the theme stuff.

    Personally, I think 70% of this is backend, desktop/OS-agnostic stuff... and should be worked out in a desktop-neutral manner. I'm not saying everything would be built with KDE dependencies, but it would not surprise me either.

    We really need some cooperation and coordination between KDE & GNOME... I'm not putting forth the "one desktop" concept, but surely we can get cooperation on things like calendaring. If GNOME has a calendaring concept (Ximian's commercial Exchange plugin doesn't count), then all the open source folks should leverage what they have in common.

  87. Answers to our prayers by sarcast · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It looks like someone was watching Ask Slashdot for this kind of thing. After an exhaustive search after reading this article and finding nothing that fit all of my needs, I hope this project takes the place of exchange.

    It is honestly the only thing left stopping my organization from being completely open source. I have a feeling it is the same for many other small businesses.

  88. Two words... by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 1

    "Kick" and "ass".

    Now all we need are non-KDE clients that'll run on Windows and OSX and we'll be able to get rid of Outlook completely. I wonder if any other clients will start to support its standards, it would make sense to do so?

    Still, a wonderful step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Two words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS X is not a big deal qt/mac makes this port relatively easy. Qt windows also makes it not a huge issue

  89. Re:Unfair competition by kawika · · Score: 2

    ...and unfair moderation. How does this rate a Troll?

    To address the poster's legit question, the German govt is doing this exactly because they have no dog in this race and the players are US-based companies.

    Think about how Airbus got its start, how it continues to be propped up by European govts, and how we're responding by propping up our own airline industry. I wonder if the US govt will respond to this threat to US software dominance in some protectionist way.

  90. Re:Unfair competition by laetus · · Score: 2

    No sense in arguing the moderation of my original post. This crowd can't see past their Open Source fanaticism to hold a fair minded discusion on economics. And I'm a big supporter of Linux and the like. I was just pointing out that government subsidy of open source software can have distortions in private markets.

    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
  91. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by HeUnique · · Score: 2

    Wrong..

    You CAN build Konqueror out of KDE - there's a special version of Konqueror which doesn't even requires X! it's called KDENOX (KDE NO X)..

    As for themes - you can do it also. You just need to remove the directories of the themes before you start compiling KDE.

    --
    Hetz (Heunique)
  92. Contracted UI Development? by Josuah · · Score: 1

    This is a great thing, but the problem I'm really seeing here is that there was nothing in the contract that suggested UI research be done. The truth is, the UIs of these programs they're going to be using (including the back-ends) are really pretty horrific.

    KMail, etc. really need some interface overhauls, and Kolab could really benefit from a central "component-type" (see Horde) administration interface. What would make more sense? Having to use a bunch of different open terminals, web admin tools, and configuration scripts? Or a single management interface that would let administrators install Kolab and manage Kolab as Kolab. Not as Cyrus+Sendmail+ProFTPd+OpenLDAP+etc.

  93. Too bad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know the difference between "too" and "to".

    Time for English 101!

  94. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by Elbows · · Score: 1
    Just TRY decoupling Konqueror from KDE... you can't even (EASILY) build KDE without all the theme stuff.

    Umm... apt-get remove konqueror? Then you can easily change the file associations for files, directories, html, etc to use other programs. Admittedly, this required some work on the part of the debian folks to break up the monolithic kde packages, but clearly it can be done.

  95. Sweeeet. by Second_Derivative · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just today I was talking about how Linux really needs this sort of thing (well, that and a decent network filesystem; NFS is vile and AFS is ... idiosyncratic. Coda is apparently not particularly suited to real world needs and Intermezzo is something completely different)

    The LDAP integration is actually something they could really lever here, KDE could seriously do with a graphical LDAP admin system (ie one specifically designed for managing users in particular). That and they would do well to stick Kerberos up every concieveable orifice too - Single Sign On is a good thing, and I dont mean one controlled by a company with the letters M and S in its name.

  96. Re:Well its official... by abigor · · Score: 2

    I don't think you understand the level of integration and object reuse in KDE. If you are technically inclined, you should look at the code sometime. The programs are different, it's true, but they are to become one client with the functionality of the (currently) separate programs.

    Before you spout bile, you should see what the current software has to offer, and then use your imagination a bit.

  97. Three words for those worried companies: by Corbin+Dallas · · Score: 1

    Adapt or Die!

    BTW, I'm american.

    --
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
    1. Re:Three words for those worried companies: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BTW, I'm american.

      Oh, really? From which america? North, South, or Central? Oh the "United States.." ..of Mexico?

      I see.. please be a little more vague next time. Thanks.

  98. Imagine 1993 ! by InodoroPereyra · · Score: 2
    LMCBoy says:

    However, note that it isn't a volunteer project; Germany contracted a company to deliver the product by the end of the year

    I bet they will, the tools are there as you said. Can you imagine 1993 for GNU/Linux ?

    • OpenOffice 1.* / StarOffice 6.*
    • Mozilla 1.* / Netscape 7.*
    • Stable GCC/C++ ABI for a long time (we hope :-)
    • Stable KDE API for a long time (3.*)
    • Stable GNOME API for a long time (2.*)
    • Groupware solution (kroupware)
    • Apache and the usual server stuff
    • Lots of commercial software already ported (Kylix, Oracle, Games, etc)
    I think the time for maturity of GNU/Linux as a whole (embedded, desktop, workstation, low-end server, high-end server) has come. There is only one main thing remaining: an office (XML) file-format standard for all free software office suites, please !. This is the next big step IMHO. Filters are holding Office suite projects behind. A common standard would make infinetly easier to everybody. There is a kickstart here but there is no much activity yet it seems. Please go and help if you can !
    1. Re:Imagine 1993 ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1993

      Eh? Why not 2003 instead?..

    2. Re:Imagine 1993 ! by Shelrem · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the pedant here, but if Linux had had all this in 1993, we'd be ruling the world right about now.

      That is, if we had the hardware to run all that stuff back then.

      Still, it is a good time to be a Linux user.

      ben.c

  99. Re:Unfair competition by William+Tanksley · · Score: 2

    This is not a mere subsidy, though. This is a contract to build software which meets needs that have not previously been met.

    They aren't subsidising open source; they're paying for a service which (for some reason) they believe that they need.

    Now, you can argue that they shouldn't have the money available to pay for it (you'd be arguing for smaller government), or you can argue that they don't really need the features that Outlook doesn't provide, but you can't call this mere economic distortion. It's no more distortion than any consumer distorts the market by installing Linux.

    -Billy

  100. n/s by U+R+TEH+SUX · · Score: 0

    n/m

  101. hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The working name of the project is Kroupware.

    Germans... so is that a play on 'Groupware' or 'Krautware'?

  102. A secret message... ? by Consul · · Score: 3, Funny
    If you look at the related links section, where they basically relist the links from the story, you get this list:

    tankengine
    has ordered
    contractors
    functional equivalence

    Now, sequencing them and adding a single apostrophe, you get:

    tankengine has ordered contractor's functional equivalence

    I think this entire story is a front for hiding secret messages in the link texts themselves. So we may want to start poking through other Slashdot stories and look for other secret messages. :o)

    (Note: Yes, this is a joke.) ;o)

    --

    -----

    "You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."

  103. section 9. Notes == Multi-part MIME emails??? by cps42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    9. Notes Notes are stored on the Kolab server inside the user's IMAP sub folder "Notes" (German: "Notizen"). Physically, they are represented as multi-part MIME emails with the actual note being a MIME part. See the appendix for the exact file format.
    Isn't this exactly what we saw reported by Noam Rathaus, at Security Focus, and at CERT as a security vulnerability in Outlook Express? Mutli-part Mime types in email can send virii past firewall email checking systems, unless the AV solution reconstructs the email message before the client sees it.
  104. Open Source = No NSA Spying on Europeans by dogfart · · Score: 3, Informative
    Could this also stem from a lack of trust in US-produced software, as noted by the notorious case where the Swedish government discovered Lotus Notes and an NSA-mandated back door?

    Many posters have argued that government intervention into private software markets is bad, and that Europeans are foolish not to see how bad this really is

    We already have government intervention into US-produced software. Europeans know full well about this, and are wise to push open source solutions.

    Having another country's government spy on your citizens IS a proper concern of one's own government.

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

    1. Re:Open Source = No NSA Spying on Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also a good strategy to have in place just in case the US stumbles down the Palladium path. Which will most likely will not sit very well with the rest of the World because of the US control involved. Under the assumption that it will, if not prevent, hinder Software and therefore business process innovation, it is good to have the basic applications in place to replace the WINTEL monopoly. Creating a CPU which runs Linux by one Company and is designed outside the US and provides jobs and tax income for the Country shouldn't be that hard either, since it doesn't have to be a 10GHZ CPU for a standard business application. And ones economy can thrive while the US tries to figure out why the economy can not be driven by the movies and music cartel.

    2. Re:Open Source = No NSA Spying on Europeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Palladium is not "US controlled" it is "User controlled" It is "Publisher controlled" (US or European or wherever)

      Hey, I know thinking for yourself is hard, but come on. At least take a stab at it once in a while!

  105. Re:Taxes (drink up) by dogfart · · Score: 1
    Toss the Coors and Budweiser, and drink some fine German wines

    I'm sure a good chunk of the price consists of taxes supporting our European friends.

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  106. Re:Unfair competition by Hornsby · · Score: 2

    Terrific? For Microsoft maybe...

    Terrific \Ter*rif"ic\, a. [L. terrificus; fr. terrere to frighten + facere to make. See {Terror}, and {Fact}.]
    Causing terror; adapted to excite great fear or dread;
    terrible; as, a terrific form; a terrific sight.

    --
    A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
  107. This is the free market at its finest by marm · · Score: 2

    It's the duty of any government to spend its citizens' money thoughtfully.

    Agreed. In fact, this is a perfect example of the free market working as it should. What has happened is that one of the major customers of groupware products has realised that it is now cheaper to contract out for their own solution than to buy in from external suppliers, and so this is what they are doing. This is in large part due to the wealth of excellent free software available to base such a home-grown solution on, but also due to the high prices and excessive restrictions on existing groupware products.

    Put simply, the incumbent suppliers have not reacted to changes in the market and have priced themselves out. If Exchange, for instance, was $100 for an unlimited user licence, then I suspect this Kroupware project would never have got off the drawing board - it simply wouldn't be economically sensible. Unfortunately, the current vendors' greed has blinded them to the needs of their customers, and they will suffer in the longer-term for it.

    The fact that the Kroupware project will itself all be free software matters not one jot, at least not from the perspective of the free market, all it is is a new competitor, and from the point of view of the consumer, one that has a number of very attractive attributes that existing solutons cannot match. But that's just how it works: if, as a vendor, you price your products too high, or your products are sub-optimal or place too many restrictions on the user, then you are going to get competition and often you will have a hard time matching your new competition. That's just tough luck. If you cannot compete on price due to your competitor having lower costs that you cannot reduce, then you will have to make your product attractive in other ways.

    This is precisely how the free market economy is supposed to work. It doesn't matter that the project was instigated by a government, all they are is one of, if not the largest customer of such products, so they have the most to gain from reducing their costs, and are probably one of the least risk-averse - it doesn't matter to them if the project succeeds or fails, they will survive either way without really batting an eyelid.

    Free market advocates who try to write governments out of the economic script have it precisely backwards - in any country government is one of the most important players in the economy, certainly one of the biggest consumers, and you cannot just ignore that. Consider them as the largest non-profit organization, in effect a charity dedicated to the advancement of the country as a whole, and you have a better idea of who they are and how they are important economically.

    It would, in reality, be no different if a large ordinary non-profit had commisioned the Kroupware project for economic reasons, but I bet people wouldn't complain about that.

    1. Re:This is the free market at its finest by ImpintheBox · · Score: 0

      Hopefully,this will be a trend in software development. Not necessarilly government sponsorship, but commissioning software to fill a common need. Note that the developers are getting PAID to write GPL software. Judging by the timeline, probably not an insubstantial amount. Now picture an organization, call it the Business Software USERS Alliance. Members pool resources to commission needed software. Developers bid for contracts. Bids are selected by price and ability to perform. Add a bounty system for bugs and security flaws, where hackers get paid instead of sued or jailed. Add a tax writeoff for contributing to GPL software (funds and/or code). Think of software as infrastructure, the highway system, not the cars. Now think of IP, especially software patents, as real property, lying in the route of a proposed highway. Are we making progress yet?

      Lost sig...no reward

  108. Great, but what about interoperability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congrats to the KDE groups for getting this!

    The one thing that's keeping me on the Openoffice suite is that it interoperates with the rest of the MS-(doc,ppt,xls) world. Is there a way to get some follow-on money to add that functionality? It would be a huge step towards world domination to lower the migration costs.

  109. Exchange replacement is key by PizzaFace · · Score: 3, Informative

    An open source replacement for Exchange's calendar store could eliminate a lot of Windows Server installations. Thousands of businesses are tied to Windows Server because Exchange works exclusively with Windows Server and Outlook works (almost) exclusively with Exchange.

    Exchange calendaring replacements have been developed by HP and Steltor, and acquired by Samsung and Oracle, respectively. Those products generally don't integrate with Outlook's calendar as well as Exchange does, but they prove the viability of the Exchange-replacement market, and an open source product would have a big pricing advantage over those commercial alternatives.

    The tough part is persuading the end-users to switch from Outlook to a new calendar client. If IT can do this, the odds are good that IT could convince the users to switch from Microsoft Office to Star Office.

    Maybe it's premature to short-sell MSFT, but this initiative could be a crack in the wall.

  110. I am not an "open source fanatic" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a developer who started long before MS products were the only viable option but am now forced to work in the MS world because there is virtually no other choice when one has mouths to feed. I am impressed by the efforts of the open-source community and wish I had time to contribute to them as well, but I could hardly be labeled an open-source zealot.

    I find MS, its sense of omnipotence and its behavior more contemptible every day and am more than happy to cheer on anyone who can chip away at their hegemony - in my opinion they have not earned it through product superiority; rather they have gotten where they are largely through cut-throat marketing and breaches of anti-trust laws. It is mildly encouraging to see a government have the stones to stand up and say "we're not going be force-fed MS products" and I, for one, wish German government every success.

    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you think that a government asserting its right to the freedom not to subsidize MS (I think that you tossed Corel in there in a weak attempt to mask your pro-MS bias), and its right to control its own direction somehow unfair, unless you have a greater stake in the doings of MS than you care to reveal.

    Your argument that this will have "distortions in private markets" is specious. MS anti-trust breaches corrupted those markets long ago.

  111. What "FREE" Software Really Means... by Omega · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Most people confuse "Free as in Speech" with "Free as in Beer." The GNU Project makes software that is "Free as in Speech." But this doesn't necessarily mean that the software is free of charge. In fact, GNU has an order form on their website for corporations and individuals to purchase their software (and printed manuals). It really depends on the honor system, and on people with honor.

    Likewise, some people don't fully understand the GPL. They think that if someone is selling GPL'd software, then they must give the source code away to everyone for free. Really, all GPL requires the seller to do is provide a copy of source code to their customers. Sure, the customer can then turn around and give that source code away to anyone for free, but the seller is under no obligation to do so, because they're only providing software to the buyer. The GPL is not about giving away all your rights as a software manufacturer or retailer, it's about preserving the rights of the buyer.

    If the German government is the sole customer of the Kroupware program, then the developers of that program are under no obligation to put up an anonymous access FTP site and say, "Free Downloads for Everyone!" They are only obligated to provide the source code to their buyer. The German government could then distribute it for free to all German citizens, but the citizens could then likewise distribute it for free to the rest of the world. The GPL is not about restricting rights; it's about preserving them.

    1. Re:What "FREE" Software Really Means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up! Good post, dude. You make the GPL easy to understand for GPL newbies like me.

      Right on, guy, keep posting good stuff like this.

    2. Re:What "FREE" Software Really Means... by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Informative
      Really, all GPL requires the seller to do is provide a copy of source code to their customers.

      If you distribute source code (or source with binaries) to your customers, thats true. If you don't provide source code with the binaries, then you must provide source to anyone who asks for it.
      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

      * a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

      * c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
    3. Re:What "FREE" Software Really Means... by inc_x · · Score: 1

      "provided that you also do one of the following:"

    4. Re:What "FREE" Software Really Means... by inc_x · · Score: 3, Informative

      > They are only obligated to provide the
      > source code to their buyer.

      Correct. But although they are not obligated
      to do so, development of the KDE parts will take
      place in KDE CVS and the intention is to feed
      everything back into the KDE mainline. I guess
      for KDE 3.2 or so.

  112. looking at macroeconomics by ghum · · Score: 1

    I'm a strong suporter of free market. I believe that there should be no restrictions on international trade, goverments should not try to compete with free enterprise. Subsidies are bad.

    It is perfectly normal for government agencies to buy cars, software, toilett-paper.

    Now the economic calculation:

    closed source:

    1. government has the benefit of using the software.
    2. software-seller has the benefit of the revenue

    open source / free software:

    1. government has the benefit of using the software
    2. software-seller has the benefit of the revenue.
    3. public has the benefit of using the software (=public good, meritorial good).

    We should assume that the benefit for government and software-seller is identical when doing the transaction with closed source and when doing the transaction with open source.

    So the whole economy is on the plus, as long as the benefit of the public of using the software is > 0

  113. Caudium? by NewbieSpaz · · Score: 1

    Upon checking out Netcraft to see what the site is running, it said 'Linux' on 'Caudium'. Here's the link.
    Anyone ever hear of this, or have I just been in my cave (read: cubicle) too long?

    --
    ------
    Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
    1. Re:Caudium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://caudium.net/

      Caudium is the name of a GPL webserver written in an interpreted language Pike as well as in C. It is originally based on the Roxen Challenger 1.3 code base. It is an attractive alternative to servers like Apache, Netscape and Zeus due to its strength in dynamic page and data generation, modularity and more.

  114. No. No. NO! by laetus · · Score: 2
    Of course government is one of the largest players in the economy. But that is not necessarily an inherit assumption in a truly free market economy. You are correct. We ARE trying to write governments out of the economic script for many the causes you listed:
    • What has happened is that one of the major customers of groupware products has realised that it is now cheaper to contract out for their own solution than to buy in from external suppliers, and so this is what they are doing. You can't assume that this project is going to be cheaper than buying outright Outlook licenses. How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.

    • all it is is a new competitor The German goverment is not simply a new competitor. It is a nation state with taxable authority and virtually unlimited resources compared to a private company, even one the size of Microsoft.

    • (the German goverment is) probably one of the least risk-averse (customers) -- it doesn't matter to them if the project succeeds or fails And herein lies one of the largest problems. The German government may not care whether the project succeeds or fails, BECAUSE it is not spending its own money. A private company makes decision BASED UPON RISK for the proper allocation of fiscal resources. An entity that doesn't take risk into account, like the government in your example, is extremely vunerable to boondoggles.

    • Consider them as the largest non-profit organization, in effect a charity dedicated to the advancement of the country as a whole The Germany government is neither a non-profit, nor a charitable entity. Its funding does not come from the voluntary contributions of its citizens, but from forced taxation. And if you don't consider it forced, try NOT paying your taxes for a few years and see what force is applied to "induce" your charitable contribution to the government.
    --

    "We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
    1. Re:No. No. NO! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

      You can't assume that this project is going to be cheaper than buying outright Outlook licenses. How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.

      Come on now. The potential for savings for the German government is huge, and that's only if you consider how much migrating from MS Office and Exchange would save the German Government. When you add in the potential benefits to the German economy as other businesses switch from proprietary foreign software to inexpensive Free (German) Software, then it is basically a no-brainer. It almost doesn't matter what the system costs to build if you consider how much it might save the German economy, especially in the long run. Even worse, chances are good that the investment will pay for itself in the first year. Free Software is very close to having a competitive groupware solution right now. All that is missing is calendar sharing.

      The German goverment is not simply a new competitor. It is a nation state with taxable authority and virtually unlimited resources compared to a private company, even one the size of Microsoft.

      Precisely. The German government has a responsibility to do what is best for their people and their economy. Paying billions in software license fees to a foreign company hardly qualifies as being in Germany's best interests. There is a huge opportunity to save money by using Free Software, and if it takes a small investment to get to the point where this would be feasible, then that's a small price to pay. The fact of the matter is that Free Software is no longer nearly as risky a proposition as many people think. Free Software is proving itself a good investment in many areas. In fact, the biggest problem that most people have using Linux on the desktop is that OpenOffice doesn't open 100% of MS Office files seamlessly. That doesn't hardly matter to the German government. They can set whatever standard they want, and German companies will simply have to comply. The fact that complying with the German government will actually save these businesses money probably won't hurt either.

      BECAUSE it is not spending its own money. A private company makes decision BASED UPON RISK for the proper allocation of fiscal resources. An entity that doesn't take risk into account, like the government in your example, is extremely vunerable to boondoggles.

      Generally speaking I agree with you. If Microsoft were a German company then I think that you would be right. It would conceivably be in Germany's best interests to protect Microsoft if that were the case. However, Microsoft isn't a German company, and so it's a different story. Even if this KDE Groupware thing turns into a huge boondoggle, it will still probably work out better for Germans than spending that same money with Microsoft. Money spent on a foreign company is just gone. A large percentage of the money spent on German programmers ends back up in German coffers through taxes.

      Germany can't lose.

    2. Re:No. No. NO! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2

      How can you predict in advance, and with a straight face, that a government-sponsored development contract is going to end up costing less PER GOVERNMENT SEAT than buying Outlook? You can't.

      I work for a massive company (Top 5 in size worldwide), in IT. There is *NOTHING* inherently efficient about private enterprise that drives out costs. Conversely, there is *NOTHING* inherent in Government work that makes them inefficient. Any notion otherwise is assumed based on pre-disposition.

      The German government may not care whether the project succeeds or fails, BECAUSE it is not spending its own money

      yes it is. Its spending tax money. The money it collects from willing participants in the community to serve the public good. Dont like the direction/actions of teh Gov. w/r/t furthering public good? Participate.(note, some countries have a more participatory method of governance than the US.. be mindfull of your myopia)

      The Germany government is neither a non-profit, nor a charitable entity. Its funding does not come from the voluntary contributions of its citizens, but from forced taxation

      wrong. Germans could elect a government that promised to end taxation. they wouldnt do this because Communities (the Nation of Germany) requires public administration, services for the public good, infrastructure etc etc etc. USA-NeoLibertarianism fantasy aside, you cannot live in a modern society without taxation (or some other method of pooling intention).

      You *really* need to get the Gummint McCarthy-Inspired paranoia out of your head. It is not some other-world entity existing in a void, it is a body, run by people with good intentions. Why the fear?

  115. Government's soul purpose by Idou · · Score: 1

    "On a bigger scale, it would be like the US paying a lump sum for a technology that creates free cars for everyone--sure, this would be pretty cool, until the big 3 go out of business and the economy crashes down behind it."

    First I need to point out that the above example does not make sense. The same project would make all materials and energy used in production costless. In which case, anybody would be a complete idiot to deny such a project in fear of the consequences to existing companies (people would not need to work after such an event . . .)

    Moving along, there was a post on slashdot a couple months ago that I really wish I new the link to. It basically explained that the job of government was to DECREASE jobs in the public sector when it resulted in more efficiency in the society. This is because such jobs themselves represented a significant portion of the inefficiencies. I think the poster used public roads as an example. Public roads really destroyed an entire industry of land owners charging people for passage. However, the total destruction of one industry doesn't necessary result adversely to the economy as a whole. In this case, it allowed the economy to grow at a much faster rate.

    It seems to me that, at least, very general purpose software should hold similar results if made free to the public. This is because there is no additional cost to make it free to the entire population, as opposed to only paying customers (which is consistent with the public roads example). Furthermore, the net positive impact on the economy as a whole appears to be much greater than the negative impact on the specific industry at hand (and, in this case, specific company). The above justifies such actions by governments without even considering the substantial efficiency losses resulting from monopolized markets.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  116. Not interesting at all by ACNeal · · Score: 1

    The two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

    He also didn't say that there wasn't any OSS alternatives to the full range of Exchange/Outlook. What he was saying was you can use Exchange with an IMAP/SMTP mailer, but you don't have access to all of Exchanges functionality. He didn't say that Exchange was desirable, just being able to do the tasks that his office already require of him. Namely being able to schedule hsi day in a manner that his managers can easily keep up with, etc.

    His attitude isn't paradoxical at all. There is no two faced way about it. I use Novell Groupwise at work, and really don't like it, but I really wish I could find a Palm conduit for it that I didn't have to sell a kidney for.

    This doesn't mean that I like Groupwise at all, just that since I have to use it, I wish I could use it more effectively. He is not happy that he is using Exchange. He is happy that he can use tools that he determines to work in a fashion he chooses while still using a back office product that he has no control over.

    Learn how to read, and stop seeing hypocrisy under every stone.

  117. Good point, but I doubt if it's relevant here by BerntB · · Score: 1
    On the other hand, with this paradigm, there is the *risk* that the government starts displacing companies by releasing a free product.

    A good point, but consider the present case.

    The main company getting hurt by free groupware is convicted for criminal behaviour. For being a monopolist!

    Since Microsoft seems to have bought off the Bush administration to get a mild slap on the wrist for it's crimes, I find it quite fitting when free software are developed by a state to compete with their products...

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  118. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by Sleepy · · Score: 2

    >Wrong..

    >You CAN build Konqueror out of KDE - there's a special version of Konqueror which doesn't even requires X! it's called KDENOX (KDE NO X)..

    "special version" supports my point... one cannot take the basic package, and easily decouple the fluffy bits.

    One can come up with (and there are) "special versions" of Mozilla also. It doesn't change the meaning of the arguement.

  119. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would a loyal KDE moderator please mod this down to 1? I don't agree so this is flamebait.

  120. LOOSE vs LOSE (AGAIN!!!!) by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

    I don't for a moment imagine than any MS employees (or stockholders for that matter) are going to loose sleep over this.

    I'm sure they won't loose (release, make loose, undo, detach, relax) any sleep, but they might lose (fail to retain possesion of, be deprived of, fail to use) sleep. Are these two words really that hard to keep straight?

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  121. Options Options Options by hesperant · · Score: 1

    Will KDE be offering this groupware version as a sellable product? For a common desktiop environment, I find KDE is nice and neat. I do have issues with wanting to get funky and not having the tools to do so without being a wiz at programming qt. One of the bigest issues I find is the issue with Client need, want, and perception. Since Windows is such a common name they are willing to trust it more often than not. I've been keeping my eye on Lycoris linux. It is a common users Linux. Realy nice. Resources: http://www.lycoris.com and http://www.kde.org http://www.kde.com http://www.SuSE.com , http://www.SuSE.de/en/

  122. Competition by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

    The government investing in order to move technology along and/or to protect consumer rights is a fine thing. But it is not without the risk that competition will be harmed, which I take to be the significance (intended or not) of DP's post. I think it is correct to point out that a government entering the marketplace can hurt competition, just as it is valid to point out that a government leaving a marketplace to its own forces can leave corruption and self-interest unchecked.

    .

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  123. Project �gypten by larard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody seems to have to have noticed that one of the companies doing this was already completed the integration of gpg into KMail. This was another project paid for by the German government. It was a just rolled into kmail for KDE 3.1, and by all accounts works excellently.

    They also provided support for mutt.

    If the german government continues to provide backing like this, then we can expect great things from the KDE project in the future.

  124. Just making clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, (I'm am adressing other posts, not yours)
    it's not true that KDE apps require KDE. So you can run this apps in the desktop of your choice (GNOME or other).

    Second, there are millions of users of outlook out there, so it's important for a server to adress this market.

    Third, since the project is based in open standards, it is possible to make mozilla work with this standards, and be another option in a bigger market. So why make the whole thing depend on Mozilla? If you think it is important, just follow the standards, and we will see many new servers and clients working with each other.

    Fourth, it was a concorrence, so why did not Mozilla, Ximian or others participate? The winners choosed KDE apps because thats the software they know more. They are KDE developers!

    Conclusion: with a real open standard, everybody has a fair chance.

  125. Poor choice of IMAP and SMTP servers? by Ogerman · · Score: 2

    Would anyone besides me argue that they should be using Qmail and Courier-IMAP instead? They seem to be the superior solutions.

    1. Re:Poor choice of IMAP and SMTP servers? by ChrisWong · · Score: 2

      Since you did not explain why your preferred choices are superior, it's hard to agree with you.

      Qmail's license is restricted. You cannot redistribute modified versions of Qmail -- even security fixes -- without Bernstein's permission. I doubt if a government wants their project to be potentially held hostage to the whims of a single man, no matter how competent. It would hardly do to free oneself from corporate domination (Microsoft) only to come under another sort of bondage (Bernstein).

      Cyrus-IMAP is a solid, powerful and proven IMAP server. Its documentation could use some help, but as an IMAP server I don't know of any significant disadvantage it has relative to Courier-IMAP.

  126. Why now? by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 1

    One question that pops immediatly to mind is why this, and why now? Is a large part of the German government going to have to re-up thier MS contract soon? Is there some impending financial outlay that caused someone to do the math, and realize that funding this is really the cheap way out? What is the impetus here? Anyone know?

    -Charlie

    1. Re:Why now? by XavierXeon · · Score: 1

      they did indeed have to "re-up" their MS contract. the main os in the german gouverment had been NT4 and MS does not support that os any more.

      Microsoft wanted the gouverment to switch to XP on the workstations and 2k on the servers.

      For cost efficency and a planned slow switch to linux a compromise was being made. linux for the servers and xp for the workstations ( i hope they use antispy software)

  127. Re:The Mozilla project should (applies to KDE then by MrResistor · · Score: 2

    There is nothing about KDE that prevents KDE apps from running under GNOME, or vice versa, as long as all the dependencies are satisfied.

    The whole thing is being done in KDE, hosted on KDE CVS, using KDE apps as the base, so I would say that, yes, everything would be built with KDE dependencies. So what? As I said above, that doesn't mean you have to use KDE, just that you have to have the necessary components and libs installed. I run several KDE apps under WindowMaker every day, no problem, so even if the project is heavily KDE dependent I would say it's still desktop-agnostic since you don't need to be using KDE to use any of the KDE apps.

    As for OS-agnostic, I can't say. I know QT is available for Windows, but I have no idea what that means as far as running KDE apps on Windows. That's one area where a Mozilla-based solution could have a definate advantage. Mozilla runs everywhere. This particular project plans on using Outlook with an existing plug-in, though.

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  128. Sometimes you fight fire with fire by GroundBounce · · Score: 2

    Although it could be debated that in some cases the government compteting with industry can be a unfair thing, in this case you have to consider the behavior of the competition (MS). Microsoft has consistenly used unfair tactics to compete, and as a result, largely nobody has been able to compete, even giving things away for free.

    In this case, the government may not be trying to destroy an industry, they may just be sick and tired of paying monopoly rates, and seeing that there does not seem to be any other way to generate the competition necessary to bring those monopoly rate down by having a competitive market.

    The government probably wouldn't do this with cars because there is no need to, the car market is already competitive.

  129. Difficult, schmifficult by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not fully confident that stringing together Postfix, Cyrus, OpenLDAP, etc. is really going to produce a cohesive groupware server. Yes, it'll work, but it'll be difficult to install.

    That would seem to be a problem for vendors, not users. If Debian can make installing the maze of dependencies that is gnucash as easy as "apt-get install gnucash", then they can probably handle some groupware suite as well.

    Now, it's true that DIYers may have some extra headaches. But, quite frankly, people who say, "I want to do it the hard way, 'cause it's more fun," and then turn around and whine, "this way's too hard!" don't get much sympathy from me.

    (And before you start moaning about those poor Debian/RH/Suse folks who have no choice but to wrestle with these dependencies, note that it's a Debian developer saying these things. We revel in the challenge.)

    think this is a big step forward, but it can be done even better. (Full disclosure: I am a developer on the Citadel [citadel.org] project [...]

    Well, good, competition is always good, even with free software. I'd like to wish both projects the best of luck, and hope that neither one falters in their goal to bring us high-quality groupware software.

  130. OpenCap connection by germania · · Score: 1


    IMO the most needed part in the server area is the calendar server.

    maybe they can use OpenCap, a calendar server

  131. Government sponsored OS seems to be a big concern by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

    ...of a lot of people. Sure it may hurt one really big monopolistic company but I say tough. The benefits far out weigh the drawbacks.

    Right now we have a situation where a single company has their thumb on the on/off switch to innovation. They have the source code to the operating system that is run on nearly every computer in the world.

    No application development company can compete against such odds. By controlling the foundation upon which all other applications run, Microsoft has a plethora of unethical weapons to kill competition at its disposal. Further, Microsoft has shown no restraint in using these unethical and outright illegal tactics.

    It is time to remove the gun that is pointed at the head of developers everywhere. The platform of choice to develop applications for all people should have its source open. All developer's should be able to develop for a platform where the can be sure that there are no undocumented APIs and where no single company can "tweak" the platform to cause artificial incompatibilities designed to kill competition!

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  132. Re:Unfair competition by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I was just pointing out that government subsidy of open source software can have distortions in private markets.

    The government defines the software markets by introducing the concept of copyright. Without that, the dollar value of any particular copy of a piece of software would be almost zero.

    How can a government possibly "distort" something that is its own creation? There is no "natural" state of a software market independent from government control.

  133. Samba? by Linux_ho · · Score: 2

    I hope in their OpenLDAP setup and their configuration tools they provide for integration with Samba, nss_ldap, and pam_ldap. That would reduce a lot of headaches for me. I'm one of those masochistic admins who accepted a project to do what the German Govt. proposes (minus the calendaring). We are currently using OpenLDAP for mail routing, Samba authentication, e-mail group/mailing list address expansion, and Cyrus IMAP/POP authentication. As someone suggested, installation and upgrades can be a pain in the ass. It sure will be nice to have all the server components tested and distributed together as a set.

    --
    include $sig;
    1;
  134. Re:Unfair competition by be-fan · · Score: 2

    Even if it is, who cares? Is Microsoft (the chief competitor to this groupware product) in any position to complain about unfair competition?

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  135. Re:Unfair competition by afidel · · Score: 2

    internet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  136. Re:Unfair competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (oh, btw, did you know that alot is not a word..?)

  137. KDE by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

    Yes, I suppose that I sort of makes sense. Still, all things considered Gnome really has got the jump when it comes to applications. Especially when you consider that Sun and the folks working on OpenOffice.org are closely allied with Gnome. KDE has the better desktop environment, but Gnome isn't too shabby, and it has better applications (including Evolution).

    I don't think that it matters much though, whatever backend software that gets written will be available to Evolution as well. That's the beauty of open protocols.

    1. Re:KDE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KDE has the better desktop environment

      This is a hoary old cliche. You could have made a case comparing KDE 3 to GNOME 1.4 - a bullshit one (as comparing new to old always is), but a case nonetheless. GNOME 2, however, is a different story. It is better integrated than KDE, easier to use, has better accessiblity for disabled users, better internationalisation and a better thought out interface altogether (compare the KDE control centre to the new GNOME one) . It is also faster, has *much* lower memory requirements than KDE and has a more technologically advanced infrastructure.

      *And* on top of all that, as you say, it also has better apps. The days when lusers could casually toss around cliches "KDE is a better desktop because it is more integrated/advanced" are gone for good.

  138. the article is overstating the events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if not through words, but concerning the scope it suggests. The BSI [www.bsi.de] is not the german government but a more or less separate institution (created and paid by the german gov., granted). they need some techies keeping themselves up to date to

    • translate tech stuff to words politician can understand and use in speeches
    • create docs, publications and security warnings for end users and guess ... companies concerned about IT security. yes, we DO remember echolon, and some people (think money) were not amused.
    • have somone responsible for this stuff
      (clearly any modern government does ;-)

    there seem to be many other sources (use google), this one looks intersting:http://www.it-news.de

    it answers the question of source: Allerdings setzen die drei Unternehmen auf eine offene Entwicklung und laden ausdrücklich auch weitere Programmierer ein, an dem Projekt mitzuwirken.
    i read this as open development and contributers welcome. there is a link to a mailinglist, but look for yourself. if i am any judge, is also states why they hope for fast development: they build on a lot of existing source (or patch stuff together and tweak it a bit). now all left to do is hope these guys are competent (or is this just gov money flowing to the staggering modern business?)...
  139. Great news by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is wonderful news for the world of Free Software.

    I find it rather surprising to see comments with regard to "state subsidies" and "distortion of the marketplace". After all, the German government simply is *buying* software from a commercial vendor and it does so under terms that encourages competition to such an extent that any other commercial vendor can enter the same marketplace and try to place its own products.

    As a German taxpayer I am very much in favor of the advantages this recent development has and will have:

    - Microsofts monopoly on PC-based groupware
    solutions will finally meet tough competition

    - Users can now freely decide on the OS of their
    choice

    - the buyer has the opportunity to ensure safe
    communication within its organization due to
    the nature of an Open Source solution.

    - bugfixes and enhancements will be available at
    no extra charge and a lot quicker than before

    - Complete control over features and security
    layout of the software

    Apart from the fact that Microsoft's Outlook, Outlook Express and Exchange are about the suckiest software products available (As a usenet regular I am *really* fed up with seeing all these malformated postings produced by OE-users).

    What's the downside? Less money to be be thrown at Microsoft. And I can't see anything wrong with that. How many times have you heard people whine about Outlook and Exchange being the only available products? I have heard that one over and over again and I hope that this complaint is a thing of the past and makes people switch over to an Open Source solution.

    Considering the fact that Germany's budget is in a desastrous state I find it favorable to see my money spent in developping new, free software instead of spending millions of bucks for products under a restrictive license and a company that couldn't care less about customer satisfaction.

    1. Re:Great news by I+hate+Perl · · Score: 0

      AS an American I can add another benefit - free software paid for German taxpayers.
      This will be a payback for years of US consumer subsidizing EU healthcare system ( basically drug companies make 80% of their profits in US where drug prices are not regulated as they are in Europe meaning that EU can maintain their low drug prices only because US folks are paying all the costs associated with the development of new drugs. )

    2. Re:Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AS an American I can add another benefit - free software paid for German taxpayers.
      This will be a payback for years of US consumer subsidizing EU healthcare system ( basically drug companies make 80% of their profits in US where drug prices are not regulated as they are in Europe meaning that EU can maintain their low drug prices only because US folks are paying all the costs associated with the development of new drugs. )

    3. Re:Great news by daniel23 · · Score: 1

      Full ACK.

      And - still in disbelieve - I rub my eyes watching government agencies doing reasonable things. I'm not used to this.

      I've read most of the comments here and I was astonished to find a focus of the discussion on questions like 'may a national governmant influence the software market by actually asking some companies to develop software and _not demanding exclusive rights on that product'.

      I won't comment that discussion in detail though I have to admit some arguments seem really strange to a German reader, as if our government was somehow indebted to dutifully pay any license fee to MS since this is an American Corp.

      But only few voices mentioned the political implications, security aspects, how a government has to make sure that the data, which don't belong the state but it's citizens are stored and processed in a , ehemm, trustworthy way.

      Not so long ago there were quite a few discussions over that Peruvian senators eloquent letter stating that indeed a government is obliged to use OSS since it has to make sure that access to those data is under its own control so that it can guarantee for it.

      The same holds true for a European government, doesn't it? Echelon? NSA-key?
      'Who get's the tax money' isn't the only question. 'Who reads the mail' is an important question as well.

      ~dp

      --
      605413? Yes, it's a prime.
    4. Re:Great news by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      "AS an American I can add another benefit - free software paid for German taxpayers." Be happy. It won't cost you a dime to usethat software. "This will be a payback for years of US consumer subsidizing EU healthcare system ( basically drug companies make 80% of their profits in US where drug prices are not regulated as they are in Europe meaning that EU can maintain their low drug prices only because US folks are paying all the costs associated with the development of new drugs. )" That's funny. Last time I checked Europe hat pharma companies as well. And prices are a lot steeper fpr any kind of drug than they are in the US. Have you fallen victim to some rather uninformed PR bullshit? It may come as a surprise to you, but Europe is not some backwater third world country without research and development. Remember your daily dose of Aspirin? ;-)

  140. Your list resembles two freedoms of Free Software by jbn-o · · Score: 1
    open source / free software...

    Unfortunately the benefits you name are not championed by the Open Source movement or their particular set of approved licenses. Consider the Apple Public Source License: it grants far greater power over derivative works to Apple than is reasonable (I suspect this is a major reason why programs under that license have so far failed to capture a large audience of support). Yet the Open Source Initiative backs this license, listing it as one of their approved licenses.

    By contrast, the Free Software movement says the APSL is not a Free Software license and urges people to avoid the license and all works licensed under it. What your list includes is quite close to freedoms the Free Software movement pointed out over a decade before the Open Source movement began: The first and third items on your list are freedom 0 ("the freedom to run the program for any purpose"--the Free Software movement doesn't distinguish between government use and civilian use, they speak to all computer users). Freedom 0 is not guaranteed by the APSL. Selling copies of the software (your second item) is required for a software license to be a Free Software license.

  141. Re: Unfair competition by expro · · Score: 1
    Your sophistry aside, by NOT going for a closed-source solution and introducing the software into the public domain as Open Source, the German government is entering into a competitive arena currently being served (for the most part in businesses and governments) by software created by private companies.

    Where have you been? While this used to be a market served by companies, the free market has been killed off for a variety of reasons discussed at length, and now it is a market served by a monopolist. If it is going to be served in this way, I would prefer one that is responsive via politics and votes versus one that is not, AKA Microsoft, who doesn't care in the slightest because they will get the money anyway. If the free market were working well for software, many things would be different.

  142. Re:Taxes (OT) by Dannon · · Score: 1

    I know we're wandering way offtopic here, but here's a few definitions.

    Communism: An economic system in which the government directly controls both production-related goods and goods that are consumed.

    Fascism: An economic system in which private industries control production-related goods, but government controls all goods consumed.

    Socialism: Any political philosopy which states that governments should control distribution of goods.

    In other words, all three are on the strong-government-control end of the political spectrum.

    That said, the Nazi Party was Germany's National Socialism party.

    --
    Good judgment comes from experience.
    Experience comes from bad judgment.
  143. Why KDE? by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2

    I'm not sure, if the tender documents stated "we want a groupware sollution for linux running kde" or just "we want an open source groupware sollution", but I'm guessing it's the latter.

    It just seems to me, like you're tying yourself into a different OS platform (at least at first), and then also into a specific WM.

    It's too late (and it would be stupid) to change the platform specifications for the project, but since they plan not only to publish all their design documents as well as source code, "you" could implement in on another software platform.

    Personally I'm a java developer (who happens to program as well), so obviously that's what I'm thinking, as it will not be nesscesary to port any applications to another OS, if you don't want to use Linux for whatever reasons - all you'd need is a runtime environment (NOT MS'!!!) and you'd be set to go. With "a bit" of fiddeling you could also make a midlet application for your mobile appliances like cell phones and pdas.

    The biggest problem in making it in java, as I see it, is that while the kroupware developers have (wisely) chosen to tie a bunch of existing applications together and add some functionality, there's not really a way to do that in java, as there aren't any applications for that.

    BUT - wouldn't this be a "perfect" application to prove javas usefullness - both on the server side (Exchange replacement) but also on the client side (Outlook replacement)?

    Personally I've chosen to stay away from OSS projects for one very important reason - almost no one is interested in actually developing and designing the programs - they just want to get down to the programming, and to me that's just plain stupid. You can do that with small programs, just like you can build a shed without any kind of blueprint, but when was the last time you built a sky scraper without a blueprint?

    I guess what I'm saying is, that if some of you people out there, are interested in actually _developing_ this kind of program for java, I'd be willing to help with the project. Hell - I'd even be willing to be in charge of it - as long as the team is made up of DESIGNERS.

    Anyway - any takers?

    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
  144. Re:Well its official... by quax · · Score: 1

    My, aren't we testy ...

  145. No, they ordered Free Software. by jbn-o · · Score: 1
    The German government has ordered a full-blown open-source groupware solution for KDE...

    Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.

    Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".

  146. The Calendaring looks half-assed by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 2

    The design document makes no mention of CAP. The method for doing calendaring that is described is by using IMAP Calendar folders and posting client generated Free/Busy schedules to an FTP server, a la JiCal

    The problem with this is that there is no way to schedule resources and the calendaring is still asynchronous. Scheduling resources and real-time free-busy information are two main reasons people choose Exchange or Notes over other solutions.

    These guys should team up with the libical developers that are doing a calendar server. Evolution and Mozilla should both be able to plug in to that.

    It seems the main reason that they are doing things this way is that Bynari's plugin will work with this schema. Quite frankly, I don't see what server development they are doing beyond a possible administration tool and documenting the configuration of existing products.

    It looks like most of the development will be going into the client.

    Here's to waiting for a real open source calendaring solution.
    Sorry to be playing the 'Stark Fist of Reality' today, I got real excited till I read the design doc.

    --
    Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
  147. US govt gave tons of free technologies away by 1gor · · Score: 1

    Didn't you ever consider harmful giving results of government-funded research to private companies?

    --
    --
  148. No, they ordered Free Software. by jbn-o · · Score: 1
    The German government has ordered a full-blown open-source groupware solution for KDE...

    Actually they explicitly ordered Free Software groupware. Very rarely in the links you pointed us to does the phrase "open source" appear; far more frequent are references to the older Free Software movement. Please stop attributing people's freedom-minded work to the wrong movement.

    Take the time to read the links you pointed us to: The concept is prominently listed as a "Free Software Groupware Project" (and descriptions hinging on "Free Software" run throughout); the KDE mailing list entry talks exclusively about Free Software saying this project will "significantly enhance the available groupware functionality for KDE and Free software in general".

  149. Re:Unfair competition by stephanruby · · Score: 1
    internet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above

    And even for the web. Do you really think that private citizens/companies would not have networked their computers without the help of the government?

  150. Just like the plow by stuce · · Score: 2
    When the plow was introduced to Europe and suddenly one person and a horse could do the work of 20 people, there was fears of rampant unemployment and a suffering economy. Instead we got the Renaissance.

    Every so often a new idea or technology destroys an industry and the luddites. The printing press, the cotton gin, steam engine, and open source. It frees up hands and mind to work on the next level of civilization.

    1. Re:Just like the plow by alext · · Score: 2

      Hmmm... the plough dates from approx 0001, the renaissance started in 1450. Delayed reaction? :-)

    2. Re:Just like the plow by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      No, no,

      The real plough, the one that flips over the topsoil indeed was invented at the end of the middle age. The previous ploughing implements, some of which were even mentionned in Homer, only grated the topsoil. The former is more efficient at getting nitrogen and other plant nutrients at depths that the next generation of plants can best grow from.

    3. Re:Just like the plow by alext · · Score: 2

      Ah, OK, I defer to your compendious knowledge of agricultural implements... I'm glad to say I've never even seen a plough :-)

  151. Get more memory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From my experience with KDE3 on a 800MHZ P III machine 128MB is not enough. 384MB is A MUST!

  152. Free as in Freedom by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

    The paper you cited even goes so far as to refer to GNU/Linux. Chances are good that folks using the term GNU/Linux are going to use the FSF's definition of "Free Software."

  153. Re:Unfair competition by Fat+Casper · · Score: 2
    what? it sounds like a national government doing public-good.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    It almost makes you cry, doesn't it? We started 175 years before them and they're ahead of us.

    --
    I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
  154. Moving around the problem, lets see a solution by Plug · · Score: 1
    I've read the Konzept whitepaper for the Kolab server, and -- it doesn't get any closer to the solution that most of the OSS world are hanging out for.

    What's the big problem? The server side. Getting Outlook to work with anything but Exchange. Linux and OSS have made much more headway on the corporate server than on the corporate desktop, so what someone needs to do is write an OSS backend. With Cyrus/LDAP/Samba/etc, it's almost there -- everything but calendaring can be done. Work on that!

    Things I'd like to see done:
    • Port Evolution to Windows
    • Open-source a connector plugin like Bynari
    • Settle on a calendaring standard (might I recommend iCal) and write a server for it

    Doing any of these three things would be a better start for OSS groupware than the Koalition project, at this point in time.

    A friend has suggested to me that Mozilla, with the calendaring system finished (and a server written), provides 9/10 of the functionality of Outlook and IE combined (plus of course tabbed browsing and popup blocking...) Perhaps that's the road we need to take. Mozilla certainly have the name behind them now, and with some hacking on their mail client, could be the groupware answer we want.
  155. Re:Unfair competition by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    Not really... the "off-the-shelf" software just need to progress...

    Mind that there isn't a warrantie that the market is to stay stable and equal all time long...

    You can't stop the wheel of time (but you beg jordan to stop it... before another thick dead tree)

  156. Re:Taxes (drink up) [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  157. negative, be-fan by bcaulf · · Score: 1

    You wrote: If software just isn't worth the price people are charging for it (and my guess is that the $40 billion in cash in Microsoft's bank indicates the cost of labor is far outstripped by the final selling costs) then eventually something will happen to stabilize the situation again.

    If I hear you correctly, you think there is some sort of natural price for all products related to the cost of production, and that the market functions to push the price in that direction. Well it ain't so. Business strategy is, according to one way of looking at it, all about making sure that the price you are selling things for is way higher than the production cost, and keeping it that way. The tools to accomplish this are many: innovation, monopoly by force of law, cartel cooperation, advertising, lock-in, etc. If Germany can overcome Microsoft's marketplace power, good for them, but it's not inevitable.

    1. Re:negative, be-fan by be-fan · · Score: 2

      To answer your points:

      1) Innovation only increases the cost of product for a limited period of time after the innovation. Once that period is over, market forces will bring selling prices back in line with production costs.

      2) Monopolies are illegal, exactly because monopolies lead to prices that don't reflect production costs. Competition leads to lowering of production costs, which leads to lower prices.

      3) Cartel's are also illegal.

      4) Advertising can be looked as an increasing in production costs. It allows for some level of increase in price, but doesn't allow it to stay at levels vastly in excess of production costs.

      Now, if you take a look at the actual market place, you'll see that this is generally true. Most products do not sell that far in excess of production costs. Cars, industrial machines, and even computers, at the large scale, have very low profit margins. Computer manufacturers, for example, make only a few percent profit per machine. Now, software on the other hand, has huge profit margins. Why? Because people don't understand it, and because its new. Once the novelty of software wears off, and it becomes commodity (and people figure out that software monopolies like Microsoft are just as bad as any steel or oil monopoly ever was) the cost of software will decrease to the point where it is somewhat in line with production costs.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:negative, be-fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are ranting. you have no idea what you are talking about. cease making inane comments. put all of your babbling to some good use.

  158. I would also add by Goonie · · Score: 1
    Medical care.

    However hard you try, though, you're not going to convince the parent poster. You are trying to debate with a fundamentalist libertarian whose thought processes go "government==bad". It's not worth your breath trying to convince them, any more than it's worth trying to argue with commies whose corresponding thought process is "business==bad".

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  159. but MS isn't GM by bcaulf · · Score: 1

    My business strategic tool examples are all very real and are in use to make large sums.

    1) You can keep innovating faster than the other fellow. That's what any smart company does, including Microsoft. The bulk of their spending is product development & research, that is, designing new stuff. People who don't like what they design might not want to call it innovation, but every year they have a lot of new stuff to show. It's hard to keep up.

    2) Monopolies as such are certainly not illegal in the US, although a monopoly holder can't do everything another company can do, and the government may prevent a monopoly from being created through an acquisition. I was referring in particular to legally enforced monopolies such as patents, which were created to permit monopoly pricing.

    3) It's true, cartels are illegal here. Too bad that doesn't prevent DeBeers from sucking up American dollars from over in London. An interesting example of the most powerful government on the planet powerless to stop a business strategy.

    4) See Nike, Coke, Marlboro, Proctor & Gamble, DeBeers (again): the empires that advertising built. Yes indeed, they do have prices vastly in excess of production costs, due to artificially created demand for products that only those companies have.

    Now, if you take a look at the actual market place, you'll see that this is generally true. Most products do not sell that far in excess of production costs. Cars, industrial machines, and even computers, at the large scale, have very low profit margins. Computer manufacturers, for example, make only a few percent profit per machine.

    Well, sure, there are lousy businesses out there. Cars, industrial machines and commodity computer assembly probably qualify. (Although opportunities do come along to make crazy margins even on such mature products as these; consider IBM's continuing reign of terror in mainframes, and the US light truck 25% tariff with its resulting 25+% margins on domestic SUVs.) A lousy business is any business that's easy to enter. A good business is one that's impossible or at least very risky and expensive to enter.

    Software has always been a good business: it's expensive and risky to do shrink wrapped software development, whether we're talking about office apps, games, operating systems, whatever. Some of this relates to aspects of the product: Switching costs are high so it's relatively easy to get that upgrade revenue. Network effects help protect a monopoly position for some type of software.

    But I think the number one reason software is a good business is that it is damn hard to build an effective software development organization. Companies and governments with tremendous resources have tried and failed. Those companies which have the software development chops, like Microsoft, Nintendo, IBM, are able to continue extracting the billions from the rest of us, because they know how to do it and we don't.

    If the Germans can fund a successful Exchange/Outlook killer it will be pretty impressive. Lotus/IBM couldn't. Sun couldn't get groupware going despite eons of network cheerleading. We'll see. All I'm saying is, it's far from inevitable.

  160. Re:Unfair competition by pubjames · · Score: 2

    internet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above

    This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.

    HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.

    Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.

    JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.

    Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.

  161. Re:Unfair competition by pubjames · · Score: 2

    nternet (web), yes HTML no, subset of SGML a non government research product MP3, nope fraunhoffer AG non-government contract JPG, nope Joint Motion Picture Expert Group an industry trade group MPEG, see above.

    This is all wrong. SGML was a standard formulated by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and it's main adopters were the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the US Department of Defense.

    HTML and the Web came out of CERN, a project in Switzerland funded by the governments of many nations.

    Development of MP3 was principally in Germany at the Fraunhofer Institut Integrierte Schaltungen funded by the European Union.

    JPEG is a standards group, made up of representatives of national standards bodies in a variety of countries and academic and industry groups. Ditto MPEG.

    Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.

  162. Exactly by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

    This is such a simple, basic feature and the only way to work around it is to treat conference rooms like people? What a load of crap.
    I've had to deal with this personally and it's just ridiculous.
    Bravo, Germany!

    --
    Life is too short to proofread.
  163. Brazil has a free software like that by Jungle+guy · · Score: 1
    In Brazil there is a free software project similar to that. They haven't got the resources of the german government, but as they are around for 4 years, there's already a software. The name of the software is DiretoGnu, and is a groupware solutuion somewhat similar to Notes and Exchange. The project is funded by the government of the state of Rio Grande do Sul - people that pay atention to RMS interviews must have heard of this state before.

    The website of DiretoGNU (for those who understand portuguese or spanhish) is www.direto.org.br.

  164. Re:Unfair competition by stephanruby · · Score: 1
    Yes of course companies would have networked their computers without government help. But it would have taken many more years to have the kind of open standards that have made the web so successful because it is not in the interests of private companies to create standards from which they do not financially profit.

    Perhaps, but I am not so sure. Private companies are not as stupid as everyone make them seem to be. If Microsoft had not supported open standards right from the beginning, it would have died right away. And even now, if Microsoft made any drastic move away from open standards such as xml, html, text, csv, and etc I really doubt it could survive.

  165. Re:Taxes (OT) by Damek · · Score: 1

    Well, the dictionary definition is a bit off from the Marxist concept of the workers owning the means of production. In my opinion, this is what the communists (and many socialists) got wrong. It was supposed to be an economic movement, not political. Cooperatives are more socialist than communism ever was.

    Although political/governmental socialism is necessary on some levels as well.