Slashdot Mirror
Mitch Kapor's Outlook-Killer
Kent Brewster writes "In the San Jose Mercury this morning: 'For more than a year, [Mitch] Kapor and his small team have been working on what they're calling an open-source "Interpersonal Information Manager." The software is being designed to securely handle personal e-mail, calendars, contacts and other such data in new ways, and to make it simple to collaborate and share information with others without having to run powerful, expensive server computers.'" Kapor explains his intent in his own words.
for a good replacement for some time now for the windows platform. Outlook works fine but from a security standpoint, its horrible. I'm glad this is open source because i don't want to shell out lots of money either. Updates will be prompt as well :D
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Linux ( FreeBSD, etc...) already has many small single purpose cool apps, but not many large ( mozilla scale) cool apps. Agenda spawned a whole wave of business users to the DOS world and could do the same for Linux.
From the feature list, this takes care of 80% of the needs that keep business people using windows just to have Outlook calender functions. Agenda was replaced by Symphony and Symphony wasn't the simple freeform database/calendar app that Agenda had been.
Agenda was allowing complex datamining from freeform databases before the term 'datamining' existed. If this is going to be an extension of Agenda, then much coolness is ahead and many people will be interested in trying Linux just to run the new Agenda.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Being an evolution user (and former Outlooker) myself, I was curious to see what he plans on doing. But from what I see on his features page I only noticed a couple features that interested me. (Naturally YMMV)
Mail:
- auto-archiving of old mail
Information Sharing & Exchange- integrated Instant Messaging and presence management (Jabber)
- remote peer-to-peer browsing of others' data
- flexible security model to control access
- file and document sharing
- remote queries, e.g., look up address in another person's contact list
- automatic updating of information from remote sources: receive new contacts, changes to existing contacts automatically (publish-subscribe)
AccessEvolution seems to have all the other features already in place (although some may only be accessible via the Exchange connector). I'm sure they would be able to add the others without too much difficulty.
Apologies for the total cut & paste job.
Sure...only, they tell you so during installation and aren't sleazing it in. Besides, I paid for Eudora, which eliminates the Spyware. It really is that easy.
So far the only info on the site are a rundown of the technologies they've "evaluated". However, they talk about using Jabber as a P2P transport - but Jabber is server based. I've not seen any demos of a p2p version of jabber either. Have they actually thought this through?
I've seen a number of responses asking why doesn't Mitch and his group put their efforts into (Evolution||Mozilla||etc).
... if I wanted to use Outlook, I'd install Outlook. I don't like the interface of Outlook and Evolution seems to be a rehash of the same.
... that is to be -better- than what Microsoft has currently locked most work desktops onto rather than just replicating those interfaces and functionality on a different OS.
I may be in the minority, but I hate the Mozilla mail client. It just doesn't work for me.
I refuse to use Evolution
In fact, right now I use Palm Desktop for my PIM (even though my PDA has been without batteries for 9+ months due to inactivity) and Eudora for my email. I would love the -functionality- of Outlook including reliable synchronization with integration with a good email client.
If I had that, I would switch to Linux as my primary work machine (currently I experiment with several distributions and my off-hours machine is Linux, but my work desktop still runs Windows).
My point is, why should they contribute to projects they don't like? It's their time and it sounds like they have adopted project directions that many of us have been wanting for a long time
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Well, Outlook does exist for Mac (OS X AFAIK, maybe others as well). It's just called something else. Entourage is actually quite good, and doesn't contain as much security holes as Outlook on Windows does. But still, it's too complicated and [feature|bug]-filled to get as useful as it could.
Even though, I'm all for a free (as in speech) alternative. I especially like the server-free solution they're laying out, although I'm curios about how that will be implemented. I really hope someone will take the initiative to hack some syncing with palm-devices into this thing as well. I Outlook-syncronisation is one of the main features that still attracts users to Outlook..
No one has mentioned it yet - I'm amazed it wasn't in the headline. The project is going to be written mostly in Python.
Pretty neat. I've been meaning to swap some books in Safari and check out the Learning Python... I guess I finally have some reason.
This whole project sounds great - but why is there no code available? Supposedly a small group of core developers have been holed up for a year designing this thing... so where's the code already? Man, I can announce an Outlook Killer and throw some html up on the web too. But then again, I'm not Mitch Kapor...
-Russ
Me
"You're crazy if you think OL2K works well..."
I'm the guy who owns the mailserver and I have to support 20 or so people with Outlook related problems. I may be crazy, but it's well documented that I have an abundance of time to spend on Slashdot.
So there are a few possibilities here:
-I'm more competant than the guy you have maintaining the mail system.
-You're spreading FUD.
- You're uninformed about what the problem really is.
- You're using OL2k in an unsual or custom way.
- You're supporting a great deal more people than I am.
Now, listen carefully: I am not claiming that OL2k doesn't have defects. If it doesn't support SSL well, then I cannot defend that. We aren't using that here. We're not using an Exchange erver. (I've heard that's a fair source of a number of problems.)
I can tell you that the rules do work fine, but they have a few drawbacks:
1.) They ignore HTML. So if somebody sends you a mail that says 'Hamdingers' but it's bracketed with HTML tags, it won't get picked up of a rule says "delete all messages that say 'Hamdingers'.
2.) The rules wizard only sort of works in IMAP. Since the body of the message isn't downloaded through IMAP until you open it, the Rules Wizard cannot respond to any message that has a rule that applies to that section of the message.
3.) Attachments disappearing sounds more like a server problem than an Outlook problem. Lots of attachements flie around here all the time and we haven't had a case of disappearing attachments.
So take your pick. At the very least, I hope my notes on the Rules Wizard is useful to somebody. MS does a terrible job of telling you what the Wizard's limitations are.
To be fair, though: I've tried a number of rules on various clients and OL2k by far has the most sophisticated and useful. One of these days I'm going to learn VBA so I can write even fancier rules.
Note to mail developers: Anything you can do to enable scripting or programming on an email client will be a big win, expecially when fighting SPAM.
Outlook is actually a decent program with far fewer vulnerabilities than Outlook Express. Also, since a corporate deployment of Outlook is in a controlled environment, server-side antivirus solutions are possible and make a whole lot of sense. Properly set up, Outlook can be a good solution to an office communication problem.
(Of course, I still hate Exchange, but the users don't seem to mind...)
Is there a standard PIM messaging format to interchange appointments, contacts, etc., between various apps?
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I hope they look at the defunct program ECCO from NetManage. That was the best PIM/organizer I've used to date. ECCO used an outline metaphor with the ability to crosslink items from one outline into any other. For example, you could create a project outline with a number of nested tasks to complete, and then link items from the project outline into your todo list, complete with due dates, priorities, and whatever else you wanted to add. This was a very powerful way to organize things, once the concept was mastered.
Make a difference: move to a swing state.
Consider Yahoo mail and calendar. I can use them from anywhere and get a consistent view of my data. To me the era of the communications client is over - I need to see my data anywhere. Locking me down to one desktop isn't a step forward.
If you are thinking of "rethinking the pim" go look at an old version ecco pro. That was one awsome pim that got buried for no reason.
War is necrophilia.
No, really, take your own advice.
Without a server, clients need to simply discover each other. Rendezvous will allow then to do this, clean and without user intervention (i.e. no typing in someone's computer name or IP). The protocol of transer will be TCP/IP, however I believe you're refering to the structure of the datagram, i.e. what goes into each packet that is sent, which is entirely up to the designers.
I don't think Rendezvous is overrated at all. I think it's the way things should have been done 10 years ago, and it's almost sad that it wasn't.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
People think that just because gnutella doesn't scale very well that any peer-to-peer will have the same flaws.
If you can have hosts that don't go up and down all the time, and you don't care about anonymity (which you really shouldn't if you're looking up addresses in other people's contact lists) then peer to peer can scale in a way which is competitive with client-server. Plus, nobody needs to invest in a massive server (or server farm).
The guy I heard talk about this has a paper up (sorry, it's postscript).
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
Except that it's open and free for use, encouraged on all platforms.
NetBIOS is pretty much limited to Windows, and it's kludgy on other OSes. Plus it's proprietary and somewhat unreliable.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
For years now people have been arguing over what is betterP2P, Client server, or thin client.
And while your comment is correct for a Simple basic P2P network it's not true for an Advanced P2P network.
With an advanced P2P network you have advanced topologies, pre-emptive retival, caching, Super Nodes, Node Proxies, etc.
The problem is that advanced P2P products are still under development (same with clustering which is similar to P2P on a lower level - single box vs lots of little boxes) whereas client server and thin client products have been out for a long time and lots of people understand them.
The problem with P2P is that it is more complicated.
Taking you example but using the minimum number of connections instead of the maximum number as you did. In this instance it looks either like a single line OR a star or multiple stars connected together(this is still a P2P network although far from optimal).
2 Computers = 1 conection.
3 Computers = 2 connections.
100 Computers = 99 connections.
Now email is P2P already and was always designed to be P2P as it the Internet. Now if your talking about scaling can you imagine the specs you'd need for a single server or a single cluster of servers!
I don't suffer from instanity!
I enjoy every moment of it!
Evolution is still not an full Outlook replacement. For example, it can't handle NetFolders, Outlooks low price and e-mail-based possibility to share calendar and contacts entries.
;-), especially not if just one spoke is missing, b) I don't like GUI MUAs (mutt rulez ;-) and c) I'm more the Apache/PERL guy than the GTK/GNOME/KDE guy. ;-)
:-)
So I have a look on every new OSS that tries to be an Outlook replacement in the hope to find something which can handle M$ NetFolders.
And no, the usual DIY isn't an alternative this time, because a) I don't want to reinvent the wheel (see above
P.S.: If I'm wrong with Evolution not being able to handle NetFolders, I would be glad, if someone could drop me a note, since which version it's available and how to configure them.
-- There is no place like $HOME.
Oh, goody! A list of features! Can that list remind me about my wife's birthday? Well, no. It can't do anything. It's not software. It's just hot air.
Do I smell JOS here? (I know that site vanished two or three years ago; that's the point).
Where's the product? I see an announcement, and I see a public discussion about what people might like to do, if by some quirk of fate they were to shut up and start writing code. I see an elaborate "Mission Statement" located on a slick-looking web site. But I don't see any code. I don't see any output at all.
A lot of people are going to jump into this and start arguing endlessly about features, programming patterns, methodology, licenses, and all manner of irrelevant crapola. No functional product will ever emerge, because they're doing it backwards. This is a truism, but people never seem to remember it: If you start with code, you may end up with something. If you start with a flashy web site, a vague 400-word mission statement (any "mission statement" longer than ten words is a death sentence), and a public call for sidewalk superintendents to gum things up, you'll never end up with anything. The latter approach is best described as Announcement Engineering. It's been tried, and it has failed, and it has been tried again, and it has failed again.
Why does it fail? Because if you start a discussion, you'll get people who specialize in discussing things. If you start a slick web site, you'll get people who like slick web sites. Both of those groups are self-selected for parasitism and uselessness. If, on the other hand, you start writing code, you'll get people who like to write code. If writing code is your goal, people who write code are the people you want. Not sidewalk superintendents. Not methodology-obsessed BS artists. Not visionaries, not self-appointed "philosophers", not "online community" addicts, not Open Source rock stars, spokesmodels, public figures, beloved elder statesmen, or opinionated teenagers -- all of which are going to descend on Kapor like a horde of locusts. For programming, you want programmers. But all the programmers are somewhere else, working on projects that actually exist.
Devil's Advocate Dept.: What about the GNU Manifesto? It does superficially resemble Announcement Engineering, but one crucial ingredient of AE is missing: Stallman never asked for anybody's goddamn opinion, and to this day he still hasn't. He doesn't want to discuss anything with anybody. When Stallman wants to know what you think, Stallman will tell you what you think. He never asked anybody for an opinion in that announcement; he just asked for code.
"Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!