Opengroupware

An anonymous reader writes: "From the OpenGroupware.org site: the OGo project announces its formation and the release today to the worldwide open source development community of its groupware server software. Gary Frederick, Leader of the OpenOffice.org Groupware Project says: 'Just to be perfectly clear, this is an MS Exchange take-out. OGo is important because it's the missing link in the open source software stack. It's the end of a decade-long effort to map all the key infrastructure and standard desktop applications to free software.' There are also plenty of screenshots of Outlook, Evolution, Korganizer, iCal etc. accessing the server."

Comments

So... it's what exactly?

[Jonsey]

We've not got an exchange server, but with or without the insecurities of exchange?

I'm lost. Is this like exchange, or is it secure? : p

Sure, but...

[AntiOrganic]

Does it have menu shadows? :(

MAPI?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the screenshots page it says:

Microsoft Outlook using the ZideLook plugin and Ximian Evolution using the Connector for Exchange

So does this mean Outlook will work natively or not?

Re:MAPI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at this it looks as though Outlook requires a plugin in order to access the server. However as that plugin is also Open Source, I don't see a major problem with this. The users can't tell the difference.

Re:MAPI?

[Acidangl]

The problem i see with having to use a plugin is that it adds time to your install. Does the plugin and OpenGroupware support public folders, notes, and shareing calendars? Does OpenGroupware support multiple sites? How did OpenGroupware address Outlook Web Access? My users require that feature.

Re:MAPI?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a business enviroment rolling out a standard plugin is going to be a complete non-issue. You include it on the standard image(s) and/or deploy it system wide (Either using a deployment tool or the old fashioned way of sending the PFY around with a floppy). The users don't have to touch their computers or the configuration.

Can the plugin do all the stuff you need? I don't know, the site is scant on details (In fact its now at the point where I'm not sure if the plugin is Open! It may be closed and only in the "Enterprise" version...)

If OGo doesn't support the stuff you need, its Open Source and it can (And very likely will be) added.

Re:MAPI?

[WindBourne]

go to the about page. The plugin is available from the original company. I am guessing that they are selling it .

Re:MAPI?

[dalslad]

Et tu Brutus?

This project is laden with hurdles and I'd be very careful before contributing to it or deploying it. In fact, it needs a serious technical review. We've heard this story before.

Bynari, who has actually replaced Exchange with a Linux server running on the IBM S/390 had some problems with Ximian. Any plugin for Ximian required that one gives the code to Ximian, lock stock and everything.

The Ximian connector no work with anything but Exchange 2000 in "web mode". Not all functionality is present.

In an article in Linux Journal, February, 2003 page 52, the author outlines the components necessary for create this product.

Outlook only works natively with Bynari's Exchange Client Extension and it's Global Address Book. Otherwise, you're looking at an internet mode of Outlook and nothing special exists with that.

MAPI no longer runs the Exchange server, instead the monster runs XML-RPC. It will accommodate some legacy Outlook software, but not much.

Outlook 2000 service pack 3 running on Windows 2000 or XP desktop enables most of the functionality. But Microsoft has pulled off another lock in to obsolete Outlook 97 and 98 and will required installing the .Net framework to enable Outlook 2000 which will wind up on the chopping block once Office 2003 makes it's debut.

I wouldn't want to tackle this project. While the intentions appear good, it's just another me too.

Now, Colab - the German government's well funded project already works albeit with their own client and Bynari's connector which took the place of Steltor after Oracle bought Steltor.

I hope these guys succeed. But look at the carnage. Ever look at the Open Exchange Project. Abandoned by Luke. What about Sendmail.com's fierce announcement that it was going into groupware -- two years ago?

This is a tough customer. One of the worse development glitches, you need Microsoft developers to build parts of the product. Ooh, they just don't mix.

Re:MAPI?

[stinnux]

No, it is not open source. I've met them today at the Linux Tag in Karlsruhe. It will start at around 65 per User.

Re:MAPI?

[coebabelghoti]

It looks like their WebUI feature takes care of your web access question. From the screenshots it looks like it does calendars, but the rest is my guess.

Re:MAPI?

[scalis]

"Et tu Brutus?"

Wasnt this what the Czar of rome said when his former ally Brutus stabbed him in the back?
The open source movement is hardly an ally of MS Exchange or am I missing out?

Anyway, what I was thinking was that Yes, you are right. Competing with Exchange IS a tough fight mainly because of Outlook being the most popular browser combined with the most widespread and, in my view, one of the most powerful collaboration systems around.
I support, implement and manage (mostly) *nix based systems..... And then we have Exchange. Impossible to get rid of because of two things:
A) Users like outlook
B) No other collaboration tool for the same cost or less impresses management
Now, point A) is easy. Most users tend to love Evolution too since it works in the exact same way but without shared calendars and the like, no change of software. period. Points B kicks in.
Any attempt to solve point B, ANY attempt, is most welcome.
I DO hope this will work since one of the major downsides of Exchange is the crappy protocol MAPI and its successors.

Re:MAPI?

[Theatetus]

Wasnt this what the Czar of rome said when his former ally Brutus stabbed him in the back?

A: He's usually called a "Caesar" not a "Czar".

B: He was stabbed in the crotch, not the back.

C: According to Plutarch he said kai su, teknon; according to Shakespeare he said et tu, brute.

B) No other collaboration tool for the same cost or less impresses management

It's funny, I've noticed how in love PHB's are with exchange because of all the bullet-points it has.

But when I think about it, I've never seen an office use exchange/outlook for anything but email and signing up for the conference room on a single public calendar.

Re:MAPI?

[shokk]

This sounds like a complete show-stopper. The use of basic Exchange-like functionality in an organization is just a first step. After that come plugins for all sorts of CRMs and other such sales and marketing applications. Still it is admirable that they have covered the tiny fraction of the world that only uses Exchange for what Outlook already does on its own. Also important will be adding functionality that Exchange itself is missing so that people are drawn to this server.

Re:MAPI?

[Kong the Medium]

Ts,Ts,Ts. Kids today. Never read something else than comics.

A: He's usually called a "Caesar" not a "Czar".

He's not called "a" Caesar. He was the Caesar, Julius Caesar. He was killed at the idens of March 44 BC, because he wanted to become imperator of Rome. The terms "Czar", "Zar" and "Kaiser" are derived from his name. And also the month of July and until 1513 the Calendar was named the "julian calendar" because he invented or at least ordered it.

Still not good enough for enterprise...

[DigitalCH]

This still doesn't cut it for really big enterprise. Exchange has excellent features for things like VOip, blackberry, etc. That this solution simply can't meet... now or in the next few years.

That being said it is nice to see that there is an option for mid-sized businesses finally. They were the ones who really got nailed by the MSFT tax.

Re:Still not good enough for enterprise...

[Erore]

It's a misconception that small and medium sized businesses do not have needs every bit as complex as those of large companies. They still have things that need to be done that are critical to their business, and messaging may very well be one of them.

Also, a mid-sized business was hit no harder than a larger businesses by Microsoft's license 6.0. In fact, Microsoft lowered the entry requirements for Select and Enterprise agreements, which means more mid-size businesses could participate in that particular brand of extortion.

Re:Still not good enough for enterprise...

[falconed]

maybe this can't cut it in the big enterprise just yet, but there's tons of small businesses that don't need or can live without the advanced features of exchange. Especially when an exchange solution costs (I'm sure I could find it cheaper, but I'm lazy) $1199 for win2k server + ($700 || $4000) for exchange + ($67 * #users) for client licenses. For a company with only 10 employees, that's a minimum of $2570 for email software costs alone (since exchange is typically run on a dedicated machine).

Re:Still not good enough for enterprise...

[mikefoley]

Let's not put the cart before the horse. Get a solid open-sourced replacement for basic Exchange Server functionality (Contacts, Calendar, Email, etc...) and the add-ons will happen FAST.

Documentation?

[nakhla]

Hmmm...The site seems to be lacking any decent documentation as to functionality. Is this just a drop-in replacement for Exchange? Or, do I have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get Outlook, et al to connect to it?

Re:Documentation?

[saden1]

The first rule of programming.
- You never talking about what we do.

The second rule of programming.
- You never talk about what we want to do.

The third rule of programming.
- You code first then document.

Good, but

[grennis]

This is certainly a great step in the right direction, but Microsoft will be releasing their next-generation Titanium Exchange server. The major new feature of Titanium is integrated mobile device support for accessing your calendar, emails, etc.

It sure would be nice to see these features in an open source alternative!

Why always "big enterprise"?

[laetus]

Microsoft didn't start out at the enterprise level. Their apps started small and then they (tried, some people say) to scale them to the enterprise.

I'm glad to see you're at least giving these guys a chance at the "mid-sized" business market.

This is excellent

[heironymouscoward]

Slowly, slowly, one step at a time. A position taken by OSS can never be captured back, and the enemy does not have an infinite ground to fall back on. The circle widens, and there are only two kinds of protagonist: 'us' within the circle, and 'them' outside.
No apologies for my use of the language of aggression - this is the way of human affairs.
But seriously, this will drive OSS into the heart of mid-sized businesses.

Re:This is excellent

[Ciderx]

Don't be daft. If you are a professional, there is no "them" and "us". If you are unable to look at all solutions in terms of their technological prowess, as opposed to engineering some ludicrous political ambition about being "us, not them", then no one should value your opinion in an IT decision of the sort of magnitude of which Groupware product to use.

Note on Outlook compatability

[Zeddicus_Z]

If you notice, the screenies of Outlook are using a plugin called Zidelook. They dont mention whether this is requisite to get full compatibility (i.e. drop-in replacement for exchange), but they DO mention that OpenGroupware base is not compatible with Zidelook.

To use Zidelook, you must use SKYRiX, and "enterprise distribution" of OpenGroupware. I.e. it's a commercial plug-in.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that's just how it reads.

Re:Note on Outlook compatability

[lennart78]

Why you would use a security-hole ridden, payware product to access your mail and calendar, when you're allready on the open source bandwagon is beyond me.

The staying power of Outlook is mostly due to the fact that a lot of companies are hooked on Microsoft products anyway. And I guess it will continue to be that way as long as Exchange keeps outrunning open source groupware alternatives. (Which it probably will for another couple of years, since this is a 1.0 version or something like that.)

Re:Note on Outlook compatability

[a_timid_mouse]

So that you can weed out MS products from your back office without upsetting the end user. I would think that if you can replace the server without management noticing, then you've already won most of the battle. Replacing the client will be easier for management to accept once they realize that it will still work with the stuff they already have (and have paid for) and know well. It's a security blanket to know that if you end up not liking the opensource client you can always fall back on what you're already accustomed to.

Kroupware/Kolab 1.0

[twener]

Don't forget the Kolab 1.0 server which is supposed to be released during LinuxTag too.

Overhead?

[grub]

A drop in replacement for Exchange is great (I love the idea) but how does it perform? It would be silly to assume that just because it's on $FREE_OS it will outperform the Windows counterpart.

VoIP is already covered...

[955301]

There is an open source public branch exchange solution already. Supports SIP phones, conferencing, etc.

Check it out. It's stable, easy to work with, and the mailing list is very active.

WARNING: misuse of terminology in parent post

[ta bu shi da yu]

It's not an insecurity, it's a potential feature that we haven't yet activated.

Get with the program already!

Yours humbly,
Ta bù shì dà yú

Buzzwords

[uradu]

The last two "big enterprises" I've worked for (including the current one) have only used the out-of-the-box functionality of Exchange. VoIP? Ha! Blackberry? Ha! Just because InfoWorld profiles a couple of companies using that stuff doesn't mean that the majority of companies do.

Re:Buzzwords

[gi-tux]

My experiences are a little different than yours. Where I presently work, we use Exchange/Outlook for groupware. Some of the folks use it and use it well, however most use it as email (similar to your experience) or because they are forced to use it by their manager.

However, at my previous job, we didn't use a groupware package. We had a real X.500 directory server for addressing within the organization, we had an email system that was best of class that tied to the X.500 DSA, we had a calendaring system that was best of class that tied to the X.500 DSA and the email system (at the server). We had shared email folders via the email server and shared addressbooks via the email server also.

EMail as based on IMAP, SMTP, and IMSP and came from a company then known as Esys, later ExecMail, not sure if they even exist anymore). Their server was basically the same as the cyrus code. The calendar was CorporateTime (later Steltor and now Oracle). We used Palm Pilot handhelds that sync'ed with the calendars just fine. And later even added support for Windows CE (I left there before it was renamed PocketPC but I am sure that it worked as well).

We had about 3500 email users (all the full time employees of the organization) and close to 1000 calendar users (most of the professional and management type employees). We had about 90% of the users actually using the systems. Everyone was given a training class on proper usage of the systems by our in-house training staff and everyone was confident that they knew how to use the systems.

I attribute the usage of the systems to three things. First was training the users to use the systems (not every bell and whistle, but what they needed). Second was the fact that we didn't look for everything in one package, but got the best of class for each individual area. Third was that the packages would actually loosely integrate together.

That is what I would look for today, if I were assigned to get a groupware system together for a company. Unfortunately, with too many people interested in getting everything under one hood, it is getting difficult to get best of class applications. This is true in everything including office suites, office automation (otherwise known as groupware), etc. I have, to this day, never found an email client that I liked as well as the client from ExecMail. It had features that I have never found anywhere else. WordPerfect still tries to fall under my fingers occassionally for WordProcessing (however, I never really liked the rest of their suite.

My search is (hopefully) over!

[invisik]

As a consultant to small- to miz-sized companies, this has been the place where Linux has fallen short of a "complete" server solution. Everyone wants what Exchange can do, but can't break the bank to buy it. And to top it off, the archive is about 20mb!

One concern is the selection of client programs. Most need an additional connector ($) or are less then functional (Mozilla Calendar or the web--people always complain about the web access for some reason). It would be my vote that the new split Mozilla works closely on their calendar features with this project. They have a good start already.

Thanks to all the developers and companies that put OpenGroupware.Org together!!!

-m

The problem is not techical its social

[Advocadus Diaboli]

I'm working for a "big enterprise" firm and we tried out Groupware several times. All the projects more or less failed not because of technical problems, the real problem is that using Groupware also means that the user has to be "open-minded". Our users unnfortuantely were afraid that by using Groupware others could do some "data mining" on their work and that they have no secrets anymore. Everybody could see what they are working on, how much they do and so on. And they didn't want that. As long as people don't want to share their knowledge and data about their actual jobs you won't get Groupware working, no matter if its proprietary Groupware solutions or OpenGroupware.

Another groupware project - cool!

[t482]

There are two definitions of groupware in the industry. The Microsoft one: groupware consists of email with some additional productivity: Calendar, Mail, and basic forms(which are hardly ever used). And the IBM Lotus one: groupware consists of database forms for routing and document management and email.

Competing with the Outlook definition:
OS foundations Chandler (Calendar focused)
Mozilla Mail (+calendar proj)
Evolution
Open Groupware
kmail/KGroupware


And from the Lotus Perspective:
www.phpgroupware.org
zope
OpenACS
And Lotus Domino which runs on Linux. The client works fine in wine or crossover - but is not officially supported.

Re:compatabilty

[Trigun]

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Hylafax could be set up to do that easily, and has been.

Middle America, here we come!

[scottymonkeypants]

I think that this comes at a good time in the waning of the microsoft cycle. Somewhere above (the first post, I think) I read that this is not a good solution for big enterprise. I agree. The microsoft people have given the big businesses so many features (read: crutches) in their recent releases of exchange that it would be, to them, like severing a limb to switch to a software package that lacks even one of said features.

I know this because I work for one of those corporations, and they're getting killed by the microsoft licensing bullshit that's happening right now. They're still not switching to a more reasonable deployment platform, because they feel they can't live without all of the "state of the art" features in the microsoft package.

But I digress. I also agree that this is a great solution for mid-size businesses. And that's just fine, because the country is not made up entirely, or even mostly, of big business; mid-sized businesses comprise a huge chunk of the market, and they really are the ones who get screwed by the microsoft model. If they come on board to the open source game, then the market comes with them. The large businesses will follow along soon after microsoft loses the market share that small to mid-size businesses comprise.

define requirements

[cascadingstylesheet]

For all the posts saying "it still doesn't do every last little thing that Exchange does!", do you really need those things?

You might try defining your requirements based on business needs, rather than the feature set of one piece of software. Or is that a crazy, radical idea?

Reminds me of all those guys doing simple web graphics, who say that Gimp doesn't do {some esoteric prepress color feature} that PhotoShop does, so they just can't use it ;)

Oracle are you watching?

[micaiah]

We just purchased Oracle's collaboration suite for various reasons. One thing that Oracle needs improvement on is the web interface. Why, because it totally sucks! A high school web development class could do a better job. IMHO, what Oracle needs to do is borrow the code from OpenGroupware's web interface and then give back something. Just like Apple did with Safari/Konqueror.

Lotus

[dmaxwell]

But in most cases, Microsoft was the first to do these things.

I believe Lotus was a full blown groupware suite before Outlook. For all I know, maybe even Lotus wasn't the first. MS is rarely the first to do anything; they are masters at co-opting other proprietary vendors innovations....then claiming them for their own.

Re:Lotus

[good soldier svejk]

Both Lotus Notes and First Class shipped in 1989. From talking to our Exchange admin, I get the impression it still provides only a fraction of the functionality of Notes and FC. OTOH, Notes has always had a horrible client interface. I have only heard good things from FC users.

Evolution must have Connector??

[Bates]

Umm.... Why do I have to use a closed source plugin to connect an open source client to an open source server?

Re:Evolution must have Connector??

[mshiltonj]

Why do I have to use a closed source plugin to connect an open source client to an open source server?

Step 3. PROFIT!

Only part of Oracle Collab Suite

[Lysol]

I'm not necessairly a fan of Oracle and I'm definitely no fan of Exchange (out of experience), but I watched a little Oracle Collaboration Suite marketing demo on their site and for a moment, just a moment, I put myself in a biz guy frame of mind and thought "wow, that actually looks pretty kick ass". They have it intergrated not only with pda/phone but also with voice commands - everything. The whole enchalada.

Of course, I have no idea about the stability, hardware costs, and licenses. But, it seems as tho Oracle is already ahead of Titanium - not that that matters much to M$ customers. Still interesting nonetheless.

While I commend the Opengroupware product, I'm not too sure when the OS community will be able to come up with something like the Oracle Collab Suite. Not that they have to, but I guess biz types will be looking for features that exist in a shrink wrapped solution.

Yes, I was wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Starting with the launch of OpenGroupware.org, SKYRiX becomes an enterprise distribution of the OpenGroupware.org software...

The SKYRiX distribution also includes some additional software which is not available as part of the OpenGroupware.org project
[snip]
Outlook Support for ZideStore

So it is not Open Source. However the OGo wire protocol is documented & available; so it is possible to write an Open Source Outlook plugin that can interface to OGo. Now wether someone does that is another matter (No one has written any Outlook plugins for any other OSS groupware projects yet).

Another choice

[Ded Bob]

more.groupware is another Open Source project for web-based groupware.

Drop-in replacement?

[tadas]

To me, a drop-in replacement for Exchange server means that I can move all of my users' mailboxes, public folders, etc. to the new server, using something like System Manager. A drop-in will also let me replicate public folders, pick up email addresses, etc. from Active Directory, etc. etc. All I would need to do is point the Outlook clients to the new "exchange server".

If it doesn't do all that (I can't tell, site is /.'ed), it may be a wonderful product, but it is definitely *not* a drop-in replacement.

A touch niche to break into...

[thefoobar]

This seems to be one tough niche to break into. Look at the number of products trying to get into the market Exchange and Notes seem to dominate. The main issue is giving companies a reason to switch. I run an Exchange / Outlook shop simply because that's what it was when I got there. There simply is not the time or the money to try and make the switch. And why? Because it's Open Source? That is no reason to throw previously invested money out the window.

The other issue is unification. One search on Freshmeat reveals over sixty related projects. No one wants to band together on something. No one wants to create a "unified" product. It seems that there are a few things that have to be included by default - Exchange compatibility and transition tools.

Look at Oracle's Collaboration Suite, SuSE's OpenExchange Server, and all of the commercial "alternatives" out there. They include transition tools, but you have to hire a consultant to perform the transition. They include "Exchange compatibility" in that you can continue to run Outlook. Well, once you throw in the consultant and the cost of the connection utilities, you cost more than buying Exchange and licensing Outlook outright.

It's an endless cycle. Companies will continue to dump out alternatives, trying to play catch-up with Exchange, while Microsoft continues to add new features, lower their price to be competitive, and offer "free" training with purchase.

What's the solution to this issue? Hell if I know...I just install the stuff. But if we want a competitor that is _competitive_, the community will have to develop both an incentive to switch and the tools to do it.

FC Admins may feel otherwise

[ehintz]

I sure do. The UI for FC is sweet, but the back end server is a mess. We migrated off to Lotus last year, because FC was so far behind the curve. From a user point of veiw FC was great, but from the admin side it could be extremely painful to deal with(for instance, client level mail filtering was just implemented in the last year, well after we migrated; they were way behind the curve on that one, so spam filtering was rather more difficult-the gateway could tag it but the client couldn't use that information to dump it somewhere). All that being said, for a small company or some such it might be useful still; the good part is the server end was generally fairly robust(though feature poor and several years behind modern) so the admin needs were infrequent.

Re:How about finish *one* first?

[Alowishus]

What you're not considering is that this isn't an unfinished project! It's mature. It's a release into open source of a product which was closed source yesterday. Yesterday I would have had to purchase it for around 9000 Euros. Today I can download it (granted without the Exchange connection and a few other features). But it immediately leapfrogs all of the half-finished projects out there, because I can go stick it on a server today and start using it.

Exchange replacement is hard

[ErikJson]

We're trying to replace Exchange where I work and I've been involved in the process. I suppose it all depends on which features of exchange you want to replace. The main problem, I think, is Outlook. Outlook is hard to talk to. We would like to be able to use other clients along with Outlook (Mozilla and Moz Calendar, some web-based service maybe, Evolution, etc).

But Outlook has to stay. Primarily because no other application is able to do synchronization with PDA:s (both PocketPC and Palm devices) in a decent way. It's a shame that such a basic feature seems so hard to implement in OSS clients.

Mail is easy to replace. Exchange already supports IMAP, and throwing in an OSS IMAP-server (Cyrus for example) is a piece of cake. Tell everyone to configure Outlook to use the new IMAP-server and you're done.

Address book functionality _should_ work with an LDAP-server like OpenLDAP. Read this.

The calendar thing is the hard part. Outlook supports publishing iCalendar data via WebDAV and FTP, but that's just FREEBUSY-info wich Mozilla Calendar ignores, and Mozilla publishes complete iCal-events which Outlook ignores. Great. Sure, there are closed source plug-ins for Outlook that could do the job, but we're after a completely open source solution at the server end.

I think we're going to replace what we can anyway and just skip the calendar part right now. Hopefully some software will evolve that we can drop in for a complete calendar solution some time in the near future.

Esys / Execmail

[rickmoen]

gi-tux wrote:

EMail was based on IMAP, SMTP, and IMSP and came from a company then known as Esys, later ExecMail, not sure if they even exist anymore).

Originally it was called "Simeon" (MUA and MTA pieces), from Canadian firm Esys. Then it was Execmail from Execmail, Inc. Then, there were some mergers involving companies called Isode and Messaging Direct, Inc. (one of which may now own the other; I forget).

In any event, that firm now owns the rights, and could resell it if it wished, but has apparently discontinued the product, as they're no longer in that business.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com