Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mitch Kapor's Outlook-Killer

Posted by michael on Sun Oct 20, 2002 04:15 PM
from the ten-paces-turn-and-draw dept.
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by irc.goatse.cx troll (593289) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:18PM (#4491267) Journal
    Or did anyone else read the headline and think there was yet another outlook vulnerability?
  • by colin_n (50370) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:20PM (#4491280) Homepage Journal
    Why not build on the success of evolution?
    • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CvD (94050) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:37PM (#4491364) Homepage Journal
      +1 Insightful... why reinvent the wheel when there's Ximian Evolution [ximian.com], which already has a whole load of these features and an actual working product. I know it happens all the time in the open source world, but that doesn't take away my right to bitch about it. :-)
      • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross@nOSpAm.yahoo.ca> on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:51PM (#4491438)
        If you read his weblog he wants it to work on all platforms.

        "Have I mentioned it's going to run on Macintosh, Linux, and Windows and will not require a server"

        Evolution is not exactly intended to be run on a Windows Box or a Mac...
        • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Qrlx (258924) on Sunday October 20 2002, @06:13PM (#4491775) Homepage Journal
          ALL platforms?

          There's no mention that it will run on PDAs. In fact it sounds like it's not intended to. I think it should. If it's a really lightweight app, it should run on a PocketPC.

          (Yeah, Microsoft, dont' feed the trolls, blah blah blah. Stay with me folks.)

          The very last line of The Article says "In the era of the WEB, are PC applications obsolete?" I think, for an "outlook killer" the answer has to be yes. Not having a handheld version of a LIGHTWEIGHT, MULTI-PLATFORM PIM seems to completely miss the point of that whole "market space." Leveraging that portability onto the PDA-space would enhance this product's Outlook-killability.

          You can get PDAs with 400 MHz processors and 64MB RAM nowadays, with WiFi those things are capable of playing in realtime. Why ignore that?
              • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Interesting)

                by Tokerat (150341) on Sunday October 20 2002, @09:49PM (#4492709) Journal
                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.
        • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)

          by PotPieMan (54815) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:02PM (#4491481)
          Really? [sourceforge.net]

          It may not run in Aqua, but Evolution does run on Mac OS X.
          • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)

            by colfer (619105) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:14PM (#4491534)
            support.ximian.com [ximian.com]
            Question
            The new Macintosh operating system OS X is based on a UNIX kernel. Why don't you port Evolution to Mac OS X?


            Answer
            A real OS X port of Evolution would require a substantial amount of work, because true OS X applications are tied to the graphical interface layers of the OS ("Quartz" and "Aqua,") via the Apple APIs ("Carbon" or "Cocoa").

            Evolution will compile and run on Mac OS X if you have an X server and the GNU developer's toolchain installed. This has been done and is reported to work quite well. However, Ximian cannot offer support for this configuration at this time.
    • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by illusion_2K (187951) <slashdot@dissolv ... minus physicist> on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:38PM (#4491373) Homepage

      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 [osafoundation.org] 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)
      Access
      • home and work PC's with complete automatic replication of data

      Evolution 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.

        • Try this on a network of any size. 2 computers means 2 computers (1 for each), three means 4, 4 means 12, and so on-- the number of possible connections gets out of hand rapidly. If you have 100 peers, you have 9900 possible connections on your networks, with 99 computers that might need to be searched at a given time!

          This is why we have servers (LDAP, email, etc.) but they don't have to be expensive... P2P doesn't scape THAT well for the corporate workstation, and instead, people tend to rely on networks of servers and networks of workstations instead.

          So although this might be nice for the small office, I have serious questions about its scalability.
    • by colin_n (50370) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:39PM (#4491378) Homepage Journal
      Why is that considered funny? I wasnt trying to be funny. Was it funny to people?
    • Re:Evolution.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by arnoroefs2000 (122990) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:07PM (#4491503) Homepage
      Apparently this is why:

      "Recent open source groupware products and projects (Evolution, Kroupware) use Outlook as the baseline for design and functionality, an approach which benefits users by being familiar, but doesn't take design risks which could have big pay-offs for users in power and simplicity. We're trying to re-think the PIM in fundamental ways and expect to be judged in terms of our success in achieving that goal. We're building the product on using up-to-date architectural components (peer-to-peer networking, integrated instant messaging, an RDF-compatible semantic database) and are not saddled with legacy code. At the same time, we will be fully compliant with a variety of open standards, such as iCal, vCard and the Jabber protocol."
  • by schlach (228441) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:20PM (#4491281) Journal
    Kinda disappointed... For a second there, I thought it was another email worm that uninstalled Outlook on its way out...

    =)
  • sorry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karamchand (607798) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:22PM (#4491288)
    But as long as I do not see at least some screenshots it is just vaporware for me.
    Perhaps this is a bit exaggerated but I've simply experienced too many disappointments with software which does not exist yet.

    Anyway, still I wish good luck to this project! :-)
  • good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by solendril (415296) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:23PM (#4491294) Homepage
    Good thing. I despise outlook. I work at a tech support department at a medium sized college, and we officially support netscape (not much of a better choice) but outlook attracts email worms like a neon light attracts bugs. After the hundreth box that I had to zero or get our net engineer to block I'd love to see something more secure. I'm using Eudora right now.

    Also, I'd love to see popular email programs support background encryption, something that happened behind the scenes without the users notice, so even the most inept id10t could handle it. It's ridiculous that 90% of the world is sending it's email around in cleartext. Are we just begging the FBI or the NSA to read our minds?
    • Re:good idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:34PM (#4491345)
      Don't confuse Outlook Express for Outlook 2000. OE is the worm attractor. OL2K, though somewhat vulnerable, is nowhere near as problematic as OE. It's kind of surprising considering how much more OL2K does.

      OL2K is more than an email prog, it's got a lot of cool things going for it. You've got the calendar, the todo list, the sticky notes, and contact list. This may not seem all that interesting until you synch up with an device such as a PDA.

      I have an Ericsson T-68. It has an IR port (and bluetooth) and synchs up with my laptop. My laptop is running OL2K and has my contact list on it complete with phone numbers and email addresses. If I update a contact with a new phone # in Outlook, then it appears on my cell phone. In other words, if I buy a new cell phone, I don't lose all my phone #'s. Pretty cool considering I didn't have to buy a $120 cable to link the two.

      The todo list has been a surprisingly useful feature on my phone as well. I do not carry my PocketPC around. My laptop's not on all the time. So what happens when I need a reminder? Well, I enter something to do in Outlook, the phone grabs it and will alert me. This may not be interesting to all of you, but it is to me. Nearly forgot my gf's birthday is on Tuesday and I need to go buy her present today!

      Anyway, this isn't a 'Run out and get Outlook!' post, it's a "here's why people use it" post so that it's clearer why something like what is mentioned in this article is so interesting. MS basically has no competition in this area because nobody else seems to understand the value of it. The only app I can think of that could have given OL2K a run for it's money is the Palm Pilot desktop. It had similar features, though I don't remember it having mail. (note: I'm not saying it wasn't a mail client, I'm saying I don't remember it having one.)

      Until OL2K has competition, it is really hard to replace Office. Until Office is replaced, Windows cannot be replaced. (in a bidness setting...) As a matter of fact, that's why I'm not using Star Office right now. I'm too dependent on OL2K's org features. Might as well install the rest of Office while I'm there.
      • Re:good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

        by delta407 (518868) <slashdot@l[ ]jhax.com ['erf' in gap]> on Sunday October 20 2002, @06:07PM (#4491756) Homepage
        OL2K is more than an email prog, it's got a lot of cool things going for it. You've got the calendar, the todo list, the sticky notes, and contact list. This may not seem all that interesting until you synch up with an device such as a PDA.
        Or, until you hook it up to an Exchange server in a company with a few hundred employees. Most corporations that use Outlook do so not for the e-mail capability, but rather the groupware capability -- scheduling appointments collectively, meeting requests, delegatation, etc. As it stands, there are few products that can match Outlook's rather full feature set.

        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...)
        • Re:good idea (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonvmous Coward (589068) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:49PM (#4491680)
          Actually, he's right. The last time I tried this was OL98, so don't flame broil me if it's not true with 2k. I uninstalled Outlook Express once and it did remove a DLL that OL98 needed. The problem is, I have no clue what that DLL did. For all I know, that DLL was just the 'Preview Pane' bit.

          Does this mean that O2k or 98 is vulnerable because of OE? No. (Actually there is ONE vulnerability that's OE's fault, I'll explain that in a bit...)

          O2K has similar features to OE, but the default security settings are better. It makes better decisions about what kind of scritps can be run and what type of attachements can be called. If you want my opinion, I suspect that the reason OE's security settings are further behind is to give O2K a 'more secure!' rating on the marketing brochures. I cannot substantiate that of course, but it does amaze me.

          There is one O2k vulnerability involve IE that really frosts me. If you save a message as a file in O2k, then the extension is '.MSG'. If you save a message in OE as a file, the extension is '.EML'. Can you see the problem with the two different extensions? You can have O2k installed, but if you double click a message saved in OE format, then ... BING it opens Outlook Express. (And all the annoyances that come with it..)

          I have friends who think they need to forward every chain letter that goes around, and a good chunk of them use OE to do it. So they are forwarding a .EML file around (as an attachment) that will fire up OE no matter what email prog is your primary one. Result? They could be sending me an infected mail and I might be dumb enough (or non-attentive) to open it.

          I have a piece of advice for ALL of you that are using Windows: Reroute the .EML extension to Notepad. I don't care if you're running Netscape mail or even Hotmail, you do NOT want OE getting run. Otherwise, yes, you could get bitten by an Outlook virus even if you're not running it.

          With that said, I feel pretty confident with O2K. My company's run Outlook since it first came out and we've only had one virus actually get through and cause any problems. The damage caused was not a result of a flaw in Outlook, but rather a flaw in the person who decided to open the mail.

          Interestingly enough, that virus picked exactly the right believable message for the user to open it, so I don't entirely blame him. We used to have an employee with contacts in the gov't. He got a message one day that said "Take a look at these FBI pics..." Heh. Of all the 40 or so random messages that email picked to display, that was the one that would have pretty much guaranteed it'd be opened. Given the context of things going on around that time, it would have been akin to recieving a message like "Check out these pictures of my baby" recieved from somebody who had given birth a week earlier.

          Your mileage may vary, but you'll understand why I will stick with 2k and not bother with XP or future versions of Outlook until a.) I have a better choice or b.) Microsoft pulls out its compatibility crowbar and demands I upgrade.

          • Re:good idea (Score:5, Informative)

            by florin (2243) on Sunday October 20 2002, @07:49PM (#4492200)
            Umm, nope, I would challenge that point. VBS and other scripting stuff is turned off by default. I've never heard of a buffer overflow exploit in OL, but if you have an example somewhere I'd love to read about it. (in other words, I'm not claiming it doesn't exist.)

            Well, take for instance the vcard Buffer Overflow vulnerability [securityfocus.com] that was unique to Outlook 2000.

            The long GMT date field bug [securityfocus.com] bug caused a buffer overflow which allowed running arbitrary code in all versions of Outlook, as well as in some versions of Outlook Express.

            Seeing as Outlook uses Internet Explorer to display HTML content, just like Outlook Express does, it inherits IE's flaws as well, as was demonstrated in the Buffer Overrun in HTML Directive [cert.org] flaw.

            As for VB scripting being turned off by default now, that may be the case with Outlook XP (2002) or 2000 with all security patches applied, but I can assure that wasn't the case back in 2001 when the Anna Kournikova Worm and other similar exploits scourged through the Outlook community.
    • Re:good idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot@NOSpAM.monkelectric.com> on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:36PM (#4491360)
      I'd love to see something more secure. I'm using Eudora right now

      Eudora is full of spyware my friend. I switched from eudora to evolution for that reason.

      • Re:good idea (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jahf (21968) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:03PM (#4491483) Journal
        Qualcomm's response to the accusation of spyware in Eudora:

        http://www.eudora.com/techsupport/kb/2220hq.html [eudora.com]

        I've been using Eudora for years, including 5.1, and I can't recall any other times Eudora was accused of being spyware, so unless their response is false, it's not "full of spyware".

        I do keep meaning to switch to a fully Linux-based client, but email seems to be one of the big issues for me. I have tried Evolution, KMail and at least 4 others but never quite find it as usable. I spend probably 50% of my work time answering email.

        Of course, this whole thread is off-topic.

    • [OT] Re:good idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by benedict (9959) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:01PM (#4491477)
      It's not necessarily sensible to encrypt non-
      sensitive material. There's a performance cost,
      a risk of future unreadability, there's the key-
      distribution problem, and of course the difficulty
      of making everyone's implementation compatible.

      There are good reasons to encrypt everything, too,
      I'm just saying it's not black and white.
  • Chandler (Score:4, Funny)

    by T-Kir (597145) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:24PM (#4491300) Homepage

    Code-named ``Chandler''

    At least it wasn't named after the same character from 'Friends'...

    People might have worried that the software would take after the character... get a bit bloated and be a bit sarcastic. :)

  • More Useful URL (Score:5, Informative)

    by frenchs (42465) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:25PM (#4491303) Homepage
    I wasn't too impressed by his description and explination, so I found the page that had the real details, enjoy: http://www.osafoundation.org/our_product_desc.htm [osafoundation.org]
  • by schlach (228441) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:26PM (#4491314) Journal
    ... is Exchange =)
  • by pcx (72024) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:30PM (#4491326)
    Mozilla is already open source why do these guys need to re-invent the wheel when they could take the mail and news client already exists and expand on it to make it infinately more useable?

    I mean isn't that the whole point of open source, not having to re-invent everything but to expand and improve on what's already out there?

    Maybe I'm missing something.
  • Cool apps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LinuxGeek (6139) <linuxgeek AT djand DOT com> on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:30PM (#4491327)
    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.

  • by barracg8 (61682) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:34PM (#4491346)
    • it's going to
    • Users ... will have to wait ... to get a version they can fully use
    • a small team ... has just begun writing the production code

    Am I missing something, or is this story a little premature?
    Why not wait until, say, a single line of code has been written before proclaiming it an Outlook killer?

    I wish these guys all the best, and hope they succeed - this just feels more like anti-M$ fud than any real news yet.

  • I -want- a server (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mccalli (323026) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:37PM (#4491363) Homepage
    It's the server-side of calendaring that's missing from Linux, not the client.

    I want to store my calendars, to-do lists, contacts and mail messages on a central server. I want a variety of clienjs, from fat clients to web-based, on a variety of platforms to be able to connect to it.

    There's no shortage of client-side software on Linux to handle this. It's the server-side centralisation that's missing.

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • by Josuah (26407) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:39PM (#4491382) Homepage
    In a followup story, the San Jose Mercury has stated that Mitch Kapor's open-source Interpersonal Information Manager project will now need to be self-sustaining by 2004 instead of 2005. Kapor released this statement: "We should have never announced this. Within a few hours, and lasting for almost a day, our server was slashdotted and we had to dish out one tenth of our operating funds just to stay afloat."

    Way to support a new non-profit open-source organization!
  • by Big Sean O (317186) on Sunday October 20 2002, @04:46PM (#4491415) Homepage
    Let's see:
    • Cross-platform using wxPython
    • No expensive/incomprehensible server needed
    • Embedded Jabber technology to manage things like shared calendars, etc.
    • Backed by big minds like Kapor and Andy Hertzfeld.
    • The success of PDAs, Outlook, and iCal indicate that the area is ripe for innovation.


    Sure it's vaporware (or Kaporware, if you prefer), but it's likely to be an interesting project.

    I maintain that the Mozilla project isn't just a browser. The code developed will fuel the next ten years of browser development. You can make a similar claim about OpenOffice and office suites.

    I'm going to guess that this project will do the same thing for office and personal information managers. It's an important announcement and I'm looking forward to following its development.

  • Ummmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IamTheRealMike (537420) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:00PM (#4491472) Homepage
    I don't mean to diss their work, but considering they've spent a year "designing the architecture", where are the docs explaining exactly how it's going to work?

    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?

  • Cross platform UIs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maunleon (172815) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:38PM (#4491624)
    Now I'm not familiar with wxWindows/wxPython, but the problem I see is that by writing using a cross-platform library, you can't take advantage of OS-specific features. You are stuck with the generic widgets that appear to work the same way accross platforms. For example, on windows, you cannot take advantage of COM functionality unless you isolate the code and make it windows-only. Yes python supports COM, but that code will crap out on linux...

    Example: one of the worst interfaces I've seen is Ethereal. Excellent program, very useful, but the interface bites.
  • Python (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rbeattie (43187) <russ@russellbeattie.com> on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:41PM (#4491634) Homepage
    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 [osafoundation.org].

    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

    • Re:Python (Score:5, Funny)

      by The Pim (140414) on Sunday October 20 2002, @08:03PM (#4492256)
      The project is going to be written mostly in Python....

      I've been meaning to swap some books in Safari and check out the Learning Python... I guess I finally have some reason....

      but why is there no code available?

      When you learn Python, you'll find that it's high-level, dynamic nature allow you to accomplish a great deal in only a few lines of code. So no code in Python probably contains more functionality than no code in C.

      You'll also find that whitespace is an important part of Python syntax. So look closer--that "no code" could contain a lot of significant whitespace.

  • by steveha (103154) on Sunday October 20 2002, @05:49PM (#4491684) Homepage
    now overwhelmingly dominated by Microsoft's inelegant but overwhelmingly dominant Outlook

    This surprisingly clumsy phrase was clumsy but surprising to me.

    steveha
  • by dstone (191334) on Sunday October 20 2002, @06:58PM (#4491943) Homepage
    Among the features [osafoundation.org] the email client will have are "in-line viewing of attachments" and "user-scripting capabilities". (!)
    In order to displace Outlook, I suppose people will demand these features. But let's hope the OSA Foundation does a better job on securing these features than MS!
      • by cscx (541332) on Sunday October 20 2002, @07:31PM (#4492114) Homepage
        It would be possible to make mozilla act as described, wouldnt it?

        No. Not even close. Not trolling here, just talking reality, my friend.

        Think Ximian Evolution -- but that's such a verbatim copycat of Outlook that I'm very surprised that they haven't been sued yet.
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Sunday October 20 2002, @10:53PM (#4492965)


          Think Ximian Evolution -- but that's such a verbatim copycat of Outlook that I'm very surprised that they haven't been sued yet.


          Yes and no. Screenshots would make it seem like an Outlook clone. And Evolution does mimic some of Outlook's functionality. But they're actually quite different.

          So what's the same? Layout is simular. Mail, calandering, tasks (todo), contacts. Summary. And that's about it.

          Outlook has memos and a journal. It has a more advanced flagging system. And numerous other tidbits and features I'm probably completely unaware of. It also has better integration. For example, you can create an appointment with an email note in the appointment's notes by dragging an email to the Calendar. No such functionality in Evolution.

          But Evolution has its own features. Its searches are better. I prefer the way it threads messages. And its vfolders have proven to be rather amazing once I started to understand their use. Evolution also has nice touches such as quick access to email source and headers. And it is rather sane when handling potentially abusive HTML email (ie: by default, it won't load images from remote sources until told to).

          Yea. Evolution and Outlook look simular. And they're bound to compete in one way or another. But they're hardly identical.