Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

German Government Commissions KDE Groupware System

Posted by timothy on from the paid-to-scratch-itches dept.

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."

37 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. 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

  3. 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.
  4. 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.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  5. 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

  6. 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).

    --
    Stick Men
  7. 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.

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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..?)

  11. 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?!

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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 _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

    5. 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)... ....
    6. 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!).

    7. 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.
  17. 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!"
  18. 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
  19. 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.

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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.
  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.