More on KDE Groupware 307
e8johan writes "The KDE PIM Team will integrate all their applications into one common interface and create an Outlook-like application.This is being done in the Kroupware project commissioned by the German government. There is a prototype of KOrganizer with KMain embedded into it (shots 1, 2), and another prototype with KMain running as a KPart in Kaplan (shot 1, 2, 3). This looks hopeful and if they manage to build the application as flexible and modular as other KDE projects this will hopefully mature into something great." Kroupware is a catchy name, but I wonder if the KDE team is aware of the English word croup.
This is huge (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is huge (Score:2)
You mean Kontender....
Re:This is delusion (Score:2)
evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:evolution (Score:5, Informative)
You should be able to use Evolution with all of those parts anyway (and actually, currently I don't think Evo supports stuff like LDAP and shared calendering, a project like this might influence support for such things).
Re:evolution (Score:3, Informative)
dunno about the shared calender stuff =)
Re:evolution (Score:4, Informative)
These guys should be supporting and helping http://www.opencap.org, which is implementing the IETF draft for real-time shared calendaring. What they are doing is pushing static free-busy files to an FTP server then using a Calendar folder in the IMAP server for storage.
This does not enable real-time calendaring. From what I can tell, they aren't writing anything for the server-side, just configuring known packages. I can understand that their goals and time restrictions may mean that the methodology they are using for calendaring is the best they can do right now. In fact I believe this is the case, since you would pretty much have had to come across the CAP protocols doing the research that would lead you to the solution they've chosen.
I think this is a great project, and I hope they write some nice server admin tools, but this is not the 'Exchange Killer' that everyone seems to be touting it as. It is a nice start.
If you want an 'Exchange Killer', help out http://www.opencap.org. This guy has the right design (LDAP and SASL support) that will allow it to integrate with Cyrus IMAP and OpenLDAP. Since most of the OpenSource calendaring client projects (Evolution, Mozilla, etc) use libical, it should be relatively small amounts of work to make sure they work with OpenCAP, once it's ready.
BTW, Evolutions history with LDAP support has completely sucked. I noticed the last release had some work done on LDAP, but it had a ways to go last time I tried it. I want the ability to add addresses to the LDAP address book from Evolution (assuming the LDAP server has the correct ACL's).
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Re:evolution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Actually this is pet peeve of mine (Score:3, Funny)
Re:evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
If we all stopped at the point where somebody says "It's been done before" we wouldn't have Linux, KDE or GNOME and I'd be posting to /. in IE.
Why not compete? I bet with a little pride on the line, Kroupware and Ximian could take turns leap-frogging each other, possibly resulting in having TWO products that outstrip Outlook!
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Competition vs. redundancy (Score:2)
Two pieces of software that are virtually identical except for their GUI toolkit are not competitive, they are redundant.
Now, we don't know exactly how this Kroupware will come out, so we really don't know yet whether it will be competitive or redundant. If it's basically just Evolution written to the QT toolkit and KDE libs, then it will be redundant; if it (hopefully) offers something distinctive and raises the bar for Linux groupware, then it will be competitive.
Re:Competition vs. redundancy (Score:2)
But it's likelier to happen when there's *at least* two products have the same objectives to measure up each other, side-by-side.
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Well, the whole point is to replace the MS Exchange server. Those MS-server licenses are not really cheap, especially if you take the CALs into account.
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Anyway, Exchange support is needed, as has been pointed out by many others, because the only way to (easily) get companies to switch to a linux desktop is to be able to say "Look, you can browse the Internet, check email, open word documents, and use Exchange". That's why Ximian has gotten some corporate contracts. Once KDE can compete for those contracts as well, the more the merrier
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Time wasted (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine if we have a KDE compatible/look like evolution, we can save so much time in redoing just another outlook client - kaplan, which is basically the same thing as evolution.
I dont ever need to use two PIM client (outlook clone) that has identical functionality but with two different set of configuration files and stores my information differently.
Re:Time wasted (Score:3, Insightful)
And what if all the developers work on one app and it sucks? The net result is we will be even further behind Outlook. If we have two or more projects in development at least if one sucks, others will come out on top.
We have that much over Microsoft - if they fuck up, they're fucked. Look at
Re:Time wasted (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops. I forgot to comment on this. I agree with you here - we need a standard format (open good, standard better). Different apps, same storage format. Ain't gonna happen but it would be nice.
Re:Time wasted (Score:2)
--
Evan (mo reference)
Re:Time wasted (Score:2)
But more importantly, it's about the SERVER which will be the FIRST free MS Exchange replacement. (Yes, this means Outlook-compatibility, too.)
Re:Time wasted (Score:2)
Ugh... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Ugh... (Score:2, Insightful)
In an office environment, especially one that's all about communicating ideas amongst coworkers and clients, you'd be running all those separate programs at the same time anyway. You might as well have all that stuff (mail, shared calendar, contacts, appointments, meetings) stuck in one window.
Another advantage of an integrated suite like Outlook or Evolution is that you can have a single homepage-type screen that neatly summarizes any new mail messages, tasks or meetings for the day or next few days outwards.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
There's also the notion that internally these programs and their servers work by passing messages; in many ways its already email internally.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
Re:Ugh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Also remember that a big part of this is getting something that works client/server. This is one of my personal complaints. I would love to have a scheduling server at home for the family. We have a busy family life and keeping up with everyones schedules would be so much easier if it were in a centralized place. I used to use Star Office as it included email and scheduling, yes I actually bought it for the scheduling server. I didn't really like the one big application, but it had what I needed and thus was my choice. But Sun dropped the email client and the scheduling stuff and that leaves me out of luck.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
Have you looked at Open Web Mail [openwebmail.org]? I've used it for myself, and it is easy to set up and use. It has calendaring features and offers web based email access as well.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
I would love to have a scheduling server at home for the family.
Mozilla Calendar recently got the ability to read calendars on the net and there's work started [opencap.org] on a real calendar server implementation.
But your first point is right, you have to begin with treating every file as a server to make a descent user-interface, then supporting local and distant calendars is merely a question of fileformats. That said, I still have to see a calendar that separates appointments and public holiday information in a structured way.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
Re:Ugh... (Score:3, Informative)
The components (KMail, KOrganizer, KNode and knotes) will continue to be available seperately
So everybody should be happy, right? - Wrong, some people will always whine, no matter what.
Re:Ugh... (Score:2)
And they can still interoperate (Score:2)
Not the last step (Score:3, Insightful)
First it was web browsers.
Then an office suite.
Now an 'outlook' killer.
What next? `
Personal security/prefs setting ala 'passport'? Though that hasn't seemed to have taken off as pervasively (or publicly) as might have been. Honestly I can't think of what it might be, but there'll no doubt be some other area of corporate culture MS gets embedded into quickly, which will take years to wean people away from (if in fact they want to get weaned away - if it works for them, just let it be).
Re:Not the last step (Score:2)
You're right, it won't be. It's all a matter of covering certain pieces of the market. Getting a usable desktop with a nice office suite, including the big 3, a word processor, spreadsheet, and integrated email/PIM, was the first step. GNOME 2 with Evolution + OpenOffice does this.* This gets us a sizable chunk of users right there. Then we get, say, a native port of Photoshop. There's another huge chunk of people whose needs are now met, etc, etc. For every new clone app or ported app (or every new thing that Crossover Office supports!), we get another chunk of users. Slowly, we chip and grind away at the Windows userbase. It's all a matter of going in steps - no one app will gather up all users.
* One could say there are various KDE solutions that do this, too, but I think GNOME 2's usability is superior, but I'm also more familiar with it - I'm not going to comment on KDE programs much because I don't know them well.
Re:Not the last step (Score:2)
Linux needs enterprise management software (accounting, payroll, taxes, inventory). GnuEnterprise strives to fill this hole, but it has a long way to go.
Also, I don't think OpenOffice and KOffice are ready to replace MS Office.
Once open source provides quality replacements for all proprietary software, companies will be reluctant to switch because they will have to rewrite their expensive, custom software.
Re:Not the last step (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience joe-generic office drone, when faced with OpenOffice or MS Office, is gonna make all the same mistakes independent of brand.
Try MS Word/Writer:
He's going to double carriage return to put spaces between paragraphs. He's going to indent with spaces. He's going to to use the B I U and font settings to change heading's characteristics (which are double carriage returned as well). He's going to freak out if you mention ODBC and mail merge. He's going to tediously type out envelopes and form letters ("testing" them in the printer to align them correctly). After you teach him how to mail merge off of a DB, or that documents are easier to update when you define styles etc., he will thank you. When you return a few weeks later, he will be back to his same tried and true plodding slow-wittedness.
Powerpoint/Presenter
He's going to make a presentation by first deciding on a background and header style. Then he's going to mess with borders for 30 minutes. Then he's going to play around with slide transitions. Then he's going to import some useless graphics. Eventually he will think about content. Once there, he will repeat steps used to make MS Word document.
Excel/Calc:
Will pour over columns of numbers for hours, hand editing and typing values. He will alt-tab between his spreadsheet and his calculator program to add numbers. He will select some columns and make a chart, spending 15 minutes to find the pie/scatter/bar configuration that looks prettiest, and then proceed to misname the dependent and independent axises. Then he will select fonts, backgrounds, borders... and then spend no less then three hours trying to get his 40x129 monstrosity to fit on ONE page. He will waste no less then 40 sheets of paper to accomplish this. Upon success he will make 56 copies for distribution.
Did I miss anything? I'd say both products let people do their work as they normally do. I've observed for some time and both products give you equal levels of functionality.
This has been my experience for 95% of all office workers, and I also find that their adamance towards MS is inversely proportional to their competence with it.
Re:Not the last step (Score:2)
First it was web browsers.
Then an office suite.
Now an 'outlook' killer.
What next?
Well, for us at least, it's something that can compete with AutoDesk Inventor and AutoCAD Mechanical Desktop. Then it's something that can compete with OrCAD (no, Eagle doesn't cut it). After that, it's getting Microchip's IDE to work. No, it won't talk to the ICE2000 over the parallel port in WINE.
After all that, it's a decent inventory management/accounting package, perhaps some decent MRP/ERP functionality. And finally after that, it's something that can compete with MacroMedia DreamWeaver -- quanta is for those who know HTML.
So yeah you're right, we've got a long way to go before it can replace everything. But for most office types, what we have is pretty damned good.
But you're right, we need some way to spread viruses around via email quickly. I don't know how business ever survived without that. :-)
Re:Not the last step (Score:2)
GNU Enterprise [gnue.org] and NOLA [noguska.com] are going to hopefully get there at some point in the future.
GNUe is porting NOLA to its platform, and should be pretty slick. (I've been working on that some, but not much recently..... need to get back to it!)
Re:Not the last step (Score:2)
A web browser has become a fairly important part of an office workstation, and granted it was a problem when the browsers sucked.
What more does almost every person need - well a calendar, some contacts, and of course e-mail, are all pretty basic needs as well. I used ical once, it was "good enough". I use mutt for my personal e-mail, it "sucks less" that the other MUAs. Contacts? I haven't needed anything except for the aliases file for mutt, for my personal needs. At work I use Evolution, because it very conveniently integragtes these three functionalities - calendar, contacts and e-mail.
And that's it. I'm a developer, I don't need a friggin office suite - documentation is written in stable file formats (that still work even a year after they were written (.text or
If I was a beancounter I'd want a spreadsheet. If I was a marketing person I'd want a presentation program. As I'm a developer I need a compiler, an editor, and some tools to go with that.
I can't see that there's any "next new thing" in the near future. I bet it's another 10 years until we see some new technology that becomes ubiquitous like the browser did. Browsers came up in the mid/early '90s, as the newest technology by far. Outlook/Evolution - well the part that people need is just calendar, contacts and e-mail, and we've had that kind of software for decades. Outlook and Evolution just wrap the functionality in a pretty and easy to use interface. It's not new technology.
What I'm trying to get at is, that there are some "fundamental" needs - web, e-mail, calendar, contacts. Which we have covered more or less. Then there's "specific" needs, which depend on what your job is. A part of an office suite, for example, is a tool for a specific need. There's not going to be one killer "specific" application, since there's no killer job out there that 90% of us are going to occupy in a few years from now.
Specific stays specific. Fundamental got one small addition almost ten years ago, and that's it.
}:-O Hey!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmmmm.....
A viral disease, often caused by..
Well, it _is_ supposed to be an Outlook replacement, isn't it?
Soko
Re:}:-O Hey!!!! (Score:2)
--
Evan (no reference)
Re:}:-O Hey!!!! (Score:2)
A direct ripoff of Outlook. How clever.
Re:}:-O Hey!!!! (Score:2)
Personally, I like it better than Hola, Komoused, and other proposed names. Especially the latter, which has a forced 'K'. KMail, kvim, kpaint, etc, I can see having the K-prefix, as these are KDE GUIzed versions of standard applications (kmail vs. the *nix standard mail, kvim vs. vim, and kpaint vs. xpaint). Konqueror is an extension of the Navigator and Explorer naming theme, and Konsole was cute when it came out with a K. Since then, it's gotten quite old, and although some new applications are coming out with a K name (Kopete), for awhile now many major and/or core application have dropped the K prefix (Noatun, Brahams, Cervisia, PixiePlus, Quanta). The prefixing on a normal word still makes sense to me to generate a recognizable namespace - KWord, KSpread, KChart, KFormula, KThesarus, KDevelop - but the cutsie 'use a K instead of a different letter' is, imo, dumb.
--
Evan (no references)
Re:}:-O Hey!!!! (Score:2)
That's not the definition I read (Score:2)
croup, rump, of German or Icel. origin; cf. Icel. kryppa hump; akin to Icel. kroppr. Cf. Crop [everything2.com].]
The hinder part or buttocks of certain quadrupeds, especially of a horse; hence, the place behind the saddle.
© Webster 1913.
'Croup' Has Another Meaning... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:'Croup' Has Another Meaning... (Score:2)
This is so great! (Score:2)
The fact that all this is going to tie into a non-proprietary groupware backend is icing on the cake for me. The company I work for has been interested in groupware for some time, and I can finally stop fending off the requests for MS Exchange from our Sales dept.
--Wulfhere
Re:This is so great! (Score:2)
--
Evan (no references)
Temporary name (Score:4, Informative)
It's been pointed out to them and they've explained [kde.org] that it's a working name, not a final decision.
Meanwhile, I've tried to suggest that the developers of the Perl/QT [kde.org] user interface compiler choose a less disgusting name than "puic" ...
Re:Temporary name (Score:2)
Ugh! I would say, keep pressing on. Having a name like "puic" is like asking to be ridiculed into oblivion!
This is kantastic! (Score:5, Funny)
Khe kells kea khells by the keakhore.
Mmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
So, which standards / protocols does it use? (Score:2)
Sounds awesome but... (Score:2, Insightful)
applications/desktops/wm's/etc
that are made to look exactly like
microsoft applications is that it
only fuels the argument that no
actual innovation is happening.
There seems to be too much
emphasis on making things as
pretty and familiar as possible
for the annoyed windows user looking
to migrate, and less emphasis on
making something unique and earth
shatteringly ground breaking. I'd
think it would be more important to
make something that is so much
better that it's forgone conclusion
as to whether or not you want to bother
playing with it.
Re:Sounds awesome but... (Score:2)
Sure, you couldn't do any of those things, but why would you want to? There are indeed ways to get the mouse pointer to pre-point at the default choices: you install a program on the computer. Logitech's MouseWorks does this, IIRC. You, on the other hand, advocate ONE application to behave inconsistently with every other. That's not innovation. That is pissing off me, the user. If I want the button to do that I'll install the software that will facilitate it system-wide,damnit. I don't want one single application to think it's cool.
Furthermore, this does not hinder interface innovation. The innovations will come in future OS revisions, which is when users expect that things will be different. You don't go changing the way Windows works until the next version of Windows comes out.
I know I sound bitchy and cranky, but this is how I get when people try to be Jakob Neilsen [uesit.com] when they obviously aren't. A general rule about interfaces: if you don't know what your talking about, don't mess with them.
And there you have it. We are not allowed to "innovate", that is actually something that only "experts" (paid professionals?) are allowed to do. As long as this mentality remains, there will be no innovation no matter how much the programmers want to do it.
Unix innovations (Score:2)
1) Network transparency -- X windows
This is something the Windows folks really really hard at with little luck. Java is all about being able to distribute apps. As most of us Unix guys know most Unix apps run fine on very limited dumb X-Servers which means they can be made to run fine on PDA's and Cell phones.
2) Custom File Systems -- FAT, XFS, HFS, etc...
Unix systems are designed to support a large number of file system seamlessly. So for example I can pop a Mac disk into my Linux laptop and read it no problem. Further on the high end we support file systems designed for specific tasks like XFS which speeds up disk operations on large files about 2x over most file systems.
3) Detailed system information --
With the invention of the
4) Language support --
While the commercial systems are catching up Linux is way ahead of most commercial systems in support languages especially languages which are very different than English (for example Hebrew and Arabic are written right to left). We've had this for decades and the result is that everything is fully implemented almost across the board.
5) Academic software
In almost every area of academia Linux systems are used and support compex innovations that simply don't exist anywhere in the PC world.
6) A powerful command line
FYI (Score:3, Insightful)
It also means it is mostly "just" a shell around existing components, not another re-invented wheel. Not more bloated than running the components seperately (probably less overhead even, because you only need one KApplication instance).
In a sense it is tying existing technologies together (think back-end here too, using Open Source tech) into a slick package.
You don't *have* to use it, but corporate settings will probably like it.
As for your tax money (you live in Germany?) paying for the development, would you rather see the money go to Microsoft and get a product in return which will need upgrading eventually? Oh, and *you* personally don't get anything out of it, whereas now you get to use this development to your heart's content. And even if you don't like to use it personally, you'll be able to deploy it for your clients so they can at least use open technology).
To loosely quote Miguel de Icaza: it's not about making money, it's about *solving the problem*.
Personally, I'd happily pay 1% extra taxes to Germany (and I don't even live there!) to be used on similar projects because they benefit *everyone* (read below before you say "except software companies").
You see, times change. It used to be good business selling boxed software, but it's becoming less and less so. The trick now lies in providing a *service*. There will always be a need for skilled IT people, but to provide services, not simply products. I.e. a company specifies what their infrastructure needs to do, what requirements there are, etc, and you implement it using open source technology. There are no purchase or license fees (apart from specialised high-end software) and the value is in how well you set things up. It works for me
Its a shame (Score:2)
I barely understand this because it is not officially a KDE program but a QT program. Still, how many times does that darn wheel need re-inventing?
If the source is available shouldn't there be a way to get the program to tie into KDE better as opposed to figuring out a whole new approach?
Does anyone know the reasoning behind this?
_______________________________________________
Re:Its a shame (Score:2)
Re:Its a shame (Score:2)
Nice flame.
Afaik Koffice and Kword are older then Abiword. In June 1999 it did come with Suse 6.1 for kde1. I'm not sure how old the project was then.
I just checked an Abiword mirror, where the 0.7 release is from December 2000. There weren't earlier versions on the mirror, but it seems to me that Abiword was started after Koffice, or at least around the same time.
Re:Its a shame (Score:5, Insightful)
While you definately have a point, it's also the developer's choice. Most KDE development is in framework, i.e. you can embed the Kmail component into Kaplan. The requirement for this is that the component was designed with this framework in mind, or is ported to do so.
Application development with KDE is fast, because you get to build on a great framework with many components to choose from.
There is very little duplicate code in KDE, although much of the KDE code does the same as similar code in other projects. What you have to remember is that this KDE code can be plugged into any other KDE program, and KMail for example is a shell for the (now) KMail component which is built on SMTP, POP, IMAP, etc kio-slaves.
KDE's architecture is very advanced, and very well planned. To make full use of it, it needs to be considered from the start. Hence re-doing something for KDE as opposed to slapping KDE menu's on an existing program.
The reason KMail is part of KDE is that any KDE app can embed and control KMail components and vice versa. If you need IMAP in your application, it's trivial to add it.
The reason Xchat is part of Gnome is that it uses Gtk and some other Gnome libs. If you want to include IRC in your Gnome app (along with all Xchat functionality), is it also trivial?
There's a difference. And no this does not say anything about wether Gnome or KDE is better, bless both projects. I'm just pointing out there *are* others reasons than NIH.
How about (Score:2)
Meeting Planner (Score:4, Insightful)
The one serious flaw in the planner is the human factor. All too often people wouldn't keep their calendar up to date or wouldn't bother to reply to a meeting notice.
NO! Not Outlook! (Score:2)
A better name (Score:2)
Re:Is this supposed to be good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the government supposed to squander our tax money on over-priced software produced by a company constantly in court due to anticompetitive business practices and abuse of its monopoly? I see where you're coming from but it's not that simple. Frankly I'd rather compete against open source apps in a truly open market than compete with microsoft.
WAKE UP! (Score:5, Informative)
You said to wake you up...
From the link in the article...Kolab is the name of the server component.
Archetecture Paper [kroupware.org]
Once again a /. comment that goes off ranting without folowing any of the links in the story...
Re:WAKE UP! (Score:2, Funny)
he said he can't be bothered to learn to program,
so why should he bother to click the link and read?
it's a lot easier to sit an screach and squawk and
feel all important and smart.
Re:WAKE UP! (Score:2)
Re:WAKE UP! (Score:3, Informative)
BTW: if you read about the server components [kroupware.org], you should have noticed that most of these things exist already (postfix, cyrus, apache, inetd, proftpd, openldap2). Kolab is just going to tie them together and slap a pretty administative UI on top.
--
Daniel
Re:WAKE UP! (Score:2)
Re:Server ? (Score:2)
Exchange configuration... As much as I hate sendmail(I prefer qmail's
minimalism) and sendmail.cf Turing-complete rule system; I'll take it any day
over the nightmare that is configuring Exchange.
If you can't remember what each file is for, and you are unable to use vi to
edit the configuration files, then you shouldn't be allowed to touch them any
way.
Email server, calendar server, etc. should be administrated by *professional*
system administrators that are supposed to know their stuff, there are few
things more dangerous than a incompetent/ignorant MCSE sysadmin that the only
thing he knows is how to follow wizards and reset the computer when it crashes.
If you can't edit a damn text file, you can't administer any production grade
box.
I'm all for simplicity of configuration systems, but that means text files with
sane, consistent, flexible *and* powerful syntax.
And no, I don't mean XML.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
Re:Server ? (Score:2)
I skimmed through the architechture paper, and I didn't see much about calendaring on the server. From the specs [kroupware.org]:
Re:Yes, we expect ADMINS to edit config files. (Score:2)
After all, it is a lot harder to build a GUI interface that does syntax/sanity checking, etc. than to call the user lazy/stupid/trained monkey.
Re:Yes, we expect ADMINS to edit config files. (Score:2)
The problem with that assumption is that many admins, after having mastered the initial shock of dealing with text files, find that they actually prefer them. Now, don't get me wrong, sometimes GUIs can be handy, but text files are easily version controlled, easily commented, and they make remote administration a heck of a lot easier. Not too mention that with text files you can simply copy and paste to configure new systems, and you can script changes with your favorite text-based tools.
When I first started using Linux, I used the GUIs for everything, but now I never bother with GUIs, and I know that I am not the only admin that feels that way.
Re:Yes, we expect ADMINS to edit config files. (Score:2)
Yes, actually, since I would be done and on to something else before MMC even finished loading.
Back to the 5000 user system, say you want to create a group called, marketing,
How is this not 100 times worse?
You can't sort and shift click them since they aren't in a group currently.
You have to drag and drop 300 times.
Assuming you have a list of users who should go into the new group in a file called users.txt, this takes one line.
usermod -G marketing `cat users.txt`
Even if you didn't know how to do this, you could learn how and complete the job quicker than you could through MMC.
If you find text files as an easier solution, then by all means go ahead use those, I don't. And that is why I want an admin tool.
I'm sure there are cases where it actually is easier to use some sort of admin interface, but these are horrible examples, since they go directly against your point.
Re:Yes, we expect ADMINS to edit config files. (Score:2)
2. Your solution of having a list of users in a file called users.txt does not explain how the users got to that file.. and
3. I didn't say click 300 times, I said somehow have the ability to select the 300 users, and then say move them all to group marketing, this is the same amount of work needed to put your users in a users.txt file.
4. It may be easy for you, but I want to spend more time making sure the system is up and running, than reading man pages on awk and sed.
Re:Yes, we expect ADMINS to edit config files. (Score:2)
Further you can do even better and have the director of marketing assign someone to maintain the list. Then anybody they put the list gets added to the marketing group automagically without you ever having to drag and drop anything ever again.
Re:Server ? (Score:2)
Re:I suspect the "K"-naming was the (Score:2)
--
(Note: the rest of my
Re:phoenetics (Score:2)
This is true, but the KDE people don't seem to accept that. Bill Klinton, Amerika, etc, changing a C into a K gives it a racist/fascist overtone.
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:4, Interesting)
And why would this be the end of Linux? It might be the end of egotistical elitest Linux hippie types, as any and everyone would be able to use it rather than just the 1337 few but, it wouldn't be the end of Linux. In fact, if Linux were exactly like Windows, do you think that anyone would ever again PAY for Windows? This is exactly what Microsoft fears the most from Linux. If it does get to be the same as Windows, no one will shell out US$300 for a copy of Windows XP whatever when they can down load the "same thing"(Linux) for free.
Indeed, if Linux were to become the same as Windows, it would be a crushing blow to Microsoft, not Linux. BillG can't sell his product against the same thing for free. If Linux were being made by a company and sold for even only US$5 a pop, Microsoft wouldn't be worried. In that case they could afford to give Windows away, just long enought to put that company out of business and then Microsoft could return to charging thier usual prices. But, Linux is totally free. Forever! Microsoft can't compete against that and BillG knows it. So, he must instead make Windows better and point out the shortcomings of Linux to make people want to spend big bucks on his overpriced OS.
The fact is however, that Linux is not becoming the same as Windows. Linux is very different from Windows and that is part of the reason that so many people presently fear using it. But, the KDE and Gnome interfaces to Linux are becoming more Windows like everyday. This is a good thing as it will hide the differences and complexities of Linux from people who do not know, care or want to think about what's underneath. Instead, it will present them with an interface that 99% of the computer using population is already familiar and comfortable with. They will be far less fearful and far more likely to give Linux a try. Then they will think, "I can spend US$300 for MS Windows or I can have the "same thing" for free?!?!?!?!? Hmmmm....."
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:2)
Of course they would, since it would still be included in the proce of the computer. If Linux==Windows there really is no reason to switch for the vast numbers of people that think Windows comes free because they don't get an itemised bill.
Instead, it will present them with an interface that 99% of the computer using population is already familiar and comfortable with.
Yes, a shit one. You remind me of the stories of car manufacturers that spent time trying to duplicate reins instead of going over to steering wheels.
Basically what you are saying boils down to "we fear and hate change". Well, that's your problem and I don't care if you think I'm being "egotistical", "elitest" or even "1337" because I don't want you to hold me back.
TWW
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:2)
Wrong again. The user may not see the cost on their itemized bill but, Dell and HP and Gateway definitely do. If the could provide the same thing on their PCs without it costing them they could increase their profit. Or they could reduce the cost of their PC to the consumer and increase their sales.
Furthermore, what about upgrades. Case in point, my father-in-law. The other day he says, "I went into your favorite retail store the other day to see about getting a new copy of Windows. I fugured that the price must have gone down in the last cuple of years but, I was amazed to see that it costs US$199 now! Needless to say, I didn't get it."
Basically what you are saying boils down to "we fear and hate change". Well, that's your problem and I don't care if you think I'm being "egotistical", "elitest" or even "1337" because I don't want you to hold me back.
You may well be right. Perhaps 90% of the computer users out there DO fear change. After all it's human nature. But, no one is holding you back.
That's the beauty of KDE and GNome. They are totally configuarble. You can do whatever you want with them and they won't hold you back. But, by having the default install look like Windows, that 90% of the computer using population don't immediately slam their minds shut when they first see it. It is a win-win situation for everyone. Unless you're Microsoft, that is....
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:2)
Even better than that: you don't need to use them at all! WindowMaker keeps me happy.
I think that your father-in-law is slightly unusual. None of the Windows users I've known in the last nearly 10 years has ever bought an upgrade, they just get a new machine or make do with the version they had. And, of course, the new machines had new versions "free" with them. You are right about Dell and Gateway but their problem is not price, it's MS's muscle that stops them selling Linux machines.
TWW
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:2)
No. Even Motif was much more configurable than KDE or Gnome. KDE and Gnome are basically Windows UI clones with a few more options in their "Preferences" panels. That kind of thing may have a place in this world, but don't delude yourself that it's innovative or configurable.
Re:as long as I have the option of not installing (Score:2)
Yes, the same "egotistical elitist Linux hippie types" that created UNIX and Linux in the first place. I am one of them, and I am not ashamed of it.
I took refuge a little less than a decade ago in Linux from lousy Windows user interfaces and overpriced Sun workstations, and if that kind of junk follows me to the Linux platform, I have to move again.
if Linux were to become the same as Windows, it would be a crushing blow to Microsoft, not Linux. BillG can't sell his product against the same thing for free.
And why the hell would I care? If Linux becomes just like Windows, why would I care whether it comes from Bill Gates or whether it's free? What makes Linux interesting to me is that it is still different, in particular in its UI.
But, the KDE and Gnome interfaces to Linux are becoming more Windows like everyday.
As I said, as long as they don't become a core part of the Linux infrastructure, it's fine with me--it's a free country. The moment I have to run them in order to, say, configure the kernel (the new Qt-based kernel configurator is a bad step in that direction), I'm off the platform, as are many other "egotistical hippie types". Fortunately, there are still plenty of obscure, non-mainstream operating systems to go around.
Re:AS ong as it stays modular. (Score:2)
But what's even better is that Kroupware will offer an Outlook-compatible alternative for MS Exchange. Many companies already running Linux on servers will use it - and will also make desktop-Linux possible in their organization.
In countries where users are not scared away by RedHat/Gnome, Linux is already making inroads on the desktop (for example non-technical German usegroups already have a 5 - 15% share of Linux-posters. Of course those are not representative for all computer users, but it shows that Linux is already used by A LOT of people on the desktop.), this will fuel the adaption even more.
I think it's pretty realistic that Microsoft will lose their domination outside of USA within the next 3 years. (Of course the majority will still run Windows, but Linux will no longer be neglectible - which means game companies will have to offer games, business companies will port their apps - no more MS domination. I'd say about 25 to 30% Linux marketshare is needed to break this domination.)
Re:AS ong as it stays modular. (Score:2)
Re:Killer application. (Score:2)
Or did you mean the functionality of Outlook and Project?
Once you have used Exchange, you'll understand. (Score:4, Informative)
The calendaring goes beyond what you describe. Not only can you receive a meeting invitation, you can also share calendars or entire mail boxes. This is a common practice, where managers will share their calendar or mailbox with a secretary so that the secretary can perform various functions, like setting appointments, for the manager while they are out of the office. If you call and would like an appointment with the manager, you will more likely get his secretary who, if they are using Exchange, can look at his calendar and tell you when he would be available for such an appointment. Then the secretary can register the appointment in the manager's Outlook calendar. Beyond that still, even if you do not care to share a calendar with anyone, people who wish to schedule meetings with you can immediately see if any and all of the meeting participants are available at that particular time. They cannot see what is on the calendar but, they can see that you have something scheduled and are unavailable at the time they are trying to schedule the meeting for. This makes meeting scheduling much faster than the older method of offering several different times to various participants and hoping that they will respond and that their responses do not conflict with other meeting participants.
Then there is the additional feature of Exchange called public folders. Here you can store publicly available discussion forums, rather like USENET. Also, you can store forms, bulletin boards and any other public information that you like. You can also restrict access to these "public" areas to certain people.
Exchange 2000 also has a NNTP server built in so you can host USENET news or your own NNTP news groups.
Then there is the BIG difference. Exchange is extensible meaning that other applications can be layered on top of or integrated into Exchange. These third party applications include things like document management, voice mail, Faxing and much much more.
Don't forget, Outlook is not the same as Outlook Express and that Outlook is simply a client application. It is the Exchange server at the back end that really provides the great services that people want. Many of these service are mission critical to a LOT of businesses. Also, don't forget that although you claim not to like Outlook, the VAST majority of users like it very much. They like having everything right there in a single convenient location and for them, it just works!
Re:Once you have used Exchange, you'll understand. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exchange is just a simply IMAP4/LDAP3/NNTP/POP/SMTP + Calender server. I say 'just' because all of these services except calendar are already available as open source already.
The functionality you speak about parts of the individual ietf standards and not invented by microsoft. It's now a matter of configuring them to play nice with each other, which is what the kroupware people are doing with kolab. eg make the NNTP server look to LDAP for accounts ( already been done I'm sure), make the calender store appointments in the a user's IMAP folder ( trival, really it is ) etc.
Exchange goes far beyond what you describe. First by centralizing these functions it makes it easier to manage the single application, rather than several different ones. Backups are a breeze.
point all youre data directories to somewhere in /var. backup /var. I don't see it getting any easier then this.
The calendaring goes beyond what you describe. Not only can you receive a meeting invitation, you can also share calendars or entire mail boxes....
IMAP4 standard supports shared folders. You can share a folder to a group of other IMAP users, to everybody, etc. It's a lot like standard filesystem permissions but on folders in your IMAP inbox and managed by the IMAP4 server through the IMAP protocol. This is all support in Cyrus IMAP server already.
What MS probably did was to take the calender info and store it in a special "calendar" folder which is special to exchange. Being a IMAP folder , permissions could be set as needed and subfolders can be created to manage calender between groups. Nobody is going to win a noble prize for this.
Then there is the additional feature of Exchange called public folders.
Same as above. Nice racket MS has running there.
Exchange 2000 also has a NNTP server built in so you can host USENET news or your own NNTP news groups.
INN from ISC works great.
The biggest part of the puzzle missing is Outlook integration, and there are DLLs out there for that. Bynari has one, wish there was a GPL version though. It's amazing that MS builds a service on standards and still manages to make it incompartible with others using those exact same protocols.
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
Also, regarding your advice about pointing to directories... Exchange stores all of its information in a high performance database. This technique makes it much faster than a directory and file based system. Much faster! This is especially important when you are looking at information stores that support thousands of concurrent users, tied to dozens of other information stores. If this weren't true, there would be no need for Kolab. We could simply throw Postfix and Cyrus together with iCalendar and we'd be done, somewhat like Caldera/SCO does with the Volution Messaging package..
But, Kolab IS needed because, so far, nothing else compares with Exchange except Notes and GroupWise and none of them is open source.
I have the highest hopes for Kolab, the HIGHEST hopes.
Re:You're missing the point. (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the filesystem.
Reiserfs, for example, is meant to give high performance accesst to many small files. Possibly there may still be advantages to using database formats when searching by metadata though.