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."

18 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. 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

  5. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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..?)

  9. 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?!

  10. 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

  11. 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? ]=-
  12. 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 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!).

  13. 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!"
  14. 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?

  15. 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.