Slashdot Mirror
Outlook, Evolution and Kontact Side-by-Side
gaijincory writes "Opensourceversus.com has put together a nice side-by-side comparison of Microsoft Outlook, Evolution and KDE's Kontact groupware programs. The screenshots delve in to the nitty gritty details and should help in making an informed choice, if nothing else. This is a follow up to their comparison of the Outlook Express and Thunderbird e-mail clients."
How comes copying GUIs, look and feel and functionality of software is seen as a normal thing while people go mad about copied Ipods etc?
I don't see how three almost identical screenshots(of each piece of functionality) actually gives you enough information to make a choice.
The problem is that there are two groups arguing here, and often members are interchangable depending on the specific case. Group A wants innovation and less copying, to attract users. Group B wants everything to look like a commercial product to attract users. The problem is that Group B wins out hands down in the intial run, because most people out there want something that looks and feels familiar to them. If corporations are to take up linux on the desktop, you can bet they are going to go with something that looks and acts a whole lot like microsoft. Group A can get it's way when people have adopted the software philosophy, because they are then more open to trying new things that could potentialy be better than what they are used to.
stuff
Gmail is the perfect example of what can be done for the interface of an email client, even if it is only web only. Content groups, filtering, integrating search technologies, etc.
iCal is another good example, even if it doesn't seem it. It's simple enough for anyone to pick up and understand in minutes, and is compatible enough to work with the open source programs out there that do the same thing. Plus it gives you a lot of room and leeway to do what you want to do with it, such as RSS-like calendar feeds, which was all defined in the standard it was written to project.
Calendaring and email systems in my opinion are the worst programs out there in interface, which is why I stay with separate, very down to earth solutions for both. If a calendaring program could do good group management, automatically set up my contact groups based on who emails me, build social nets, etc etc, I'd switch to it in a heart beat. But these carbon clones of Outlook aren't helping me as a software consumer, which means there is virtually no incentive for me to switch to Open Source.
God forbid anyone thing that Open Source authors learn something about design instead of functionality. That's the difference between Software Engineers and Code Monkeys.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
A comparision side by side of the features of all these programmes. Can I handle my 2 Gb of PST files with Evolution and Kontact? If not, then I'm not interested. Can I search pretty quickly? If not, forget it.
Can I connect to POP3 / IMAP / Exchange / Notes servers? If not, come back when I can. Integration with calendar requests from MS Exchange and Lotus Notes? I think that is very necessary.
This sort of eyecandy is very nice to look at, but utterly useless.
No. I think if a code author writes code just to be writing it, he's a code monkey, reinventing the wheel.
A software engineer spends his or her time researching as well as implementing. For most Open Source authors, researching encompasses a Google search coming up blank. Now I'm not saying all of them are. There are a lot of good authors out there, creating things that I could have never dreamed up. But the problem is, these people are good engineers, and often are gulped up into companies like Microsoft for example, which has its margins, which means you do it their way, or its the highway.
If something really sucks, then that's an example of poor design, which means that the engineer did a poor job researching the situation.
Email clients are notoriously hard to get right. They've got to deal with a lot of information coming in, and try to process it in a way that it's useful, hopefully without cluttering the whole world up with useless buttons and scroll bars and chrome. But if you sit down and point out what's important in a mail client (the MAIL perhaps?) and think of how to represent it in a clear, concise way, then you quickly start getting ideas of how to implement it, and you can quickly go through those ideas, choosing which are good, and which are crap. I swear I don't think most of the code developers I know ever go through this step. They just look at something that exists, and clone it. And that's what I'm against.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Simple: it's the law. The specific appearance of the iPod can be protected by design patents and its wheel thingy has a device patent on it. In contrast, the general arrangement of buttons and menus in an application cannot be protected.
Having said that, it doesn't bother me in the least if other companies clone iPod in any way they like.
Open Source projects are broader than KDE, Gnome and Mozilla.
Get out and look around, what you see might surprise you, but then don't start bitching that it doesn't have the interface you're used to.
In the meantime what the majority of users want is a Linux mirror of what they're already used to, not innovation.
Innovation itself is highly overated anyway. What you really want is what works, tweak it only when real improvement results and otherwise leave it the bloody hell alone, but you can't keep a revenue stream of new sales to old customers going that way.
KFG
The screenshots delve in to the nitty gritty details and should help in making an informed choice, if nothing else
...Outlook somehow manages to shine compared to the other two.
No the screenshots show some dude with one email account and one contact.
Even if this is to be just a UI comparison, there isn't much here to compare, really is there?
Given it (as advertised) only scratches the surface, and from the surface they all look pretty much the same... the screenshots hardly allow for an informed decision.
I've looked into all of these in some detail, although to be fair none of OSS offerings in some time. I hate to say it, but when you have 1000s of contacts, a pile email accounts (of both imap and pop), and the shit hits the fan (ie, bad server, bad connection, heavily loaded client machine)..
At the last indepth trial of non-Outlook groupware I just kept finding things missing from the other applications. Usually little things, like being able to group email a certain way, or create filters for one thing or another. Stupid little things I'd admit, things I normally wouldn't care about, but to be honest 100% of my usage for this sort of thing is for work.
That said, when all is going well, and the server is fine, and the connection is fast, somehow, outlook manages to shit it pants at random though infrequent intervals. To be honest, Outlook's ability to import and export to / from other sources is a bit weak and possibly worring (how will I get all these email attachments back out when I finally jump ship)
I'd be happy to switch to another system provided it did a better job than Outlook (*shudder*) I feel so dirty.
umm .. sorry, but SO WHAT?
would it have been so hard to have actually used each one of these programs a bit first? a visual comparison is USELESS without DATA!
those screenshots are mostly whitespace. beh!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Just some comments. I think the comparisons are a little bit biased.
For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.
In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).
The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them! that was the most biased comparison for me.
I know that the idea of making these comparisons is cool, but, again I would like to see them made by a non biased source, this seems a bit biased.
I do not want to deffend Windows, as I like Linux (I run Ubuntu in my house PC) but if we cry when we see those TCO studies that Microsoft pays... ok we can not make the same mistake.
P.d... so loooooooong (karma falling down to the bottom of the abyss...)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
>>Stealing the interface of an iPod is stealing the iPod.
Stealing the interface of Outlook is stealing Outlook.
I have a lot more respect for Apple (for Address Book and iCal) and OSAF (for Chandler) for their attempts at an "Outlook Killer" than I do for these two examples.
In the late 1990s, I was using Day Timer Organizer. It was essentially an electronic version of their paper organizer. For what it was, I thought it rocked... I switched to Outlook because of the integration between contacts and email (and it was on my new computer). In other words, I switched for a functionality.
>>most Open Source coders look at something that already exists, and try to mirror its functionality.
I think your comment does a disservice to Open Source coders that _don't_ do that. The real heroes are the ones that create an entirely new take on an existing problem. They're the ones who are pushing the envelope and they get my respect, open or closed.
My father is a blogger.
... and this is why Linux is years from the corporate desktop.
I think evolution is a stone-age Email client. I am actually a KDE user but since using ububtu I decided to give gnome a try and was very impressed, until I migrated all my mail to evolution. I did this because I wanted a PIM suite that will allow me to sync with a mobile at some stage in the future.
Anyway, swicthing from KMail to Evolution really is taking several large steps backwards. Here's why:
a) Evolution is slow. There is a 3 second pause on my computer between clicking "New Mail" and the window appearing. This is not the case when the same machine is using KMail or Outlook.
b) There is no *simple* way of changing the date format (mm/dd/yy -> dd/mm/yy which europeans prefer). I believe it can be done via shell variables, but come on, Evo is supposed to be a proper GUI application.
c) There is no sensible simple mail notification. There is a "beep" option which is inaudible and some other useless / highly complex hacks. In Kmail you can specify whether new mail triggers a notification *per folder*, all via the GUI and without obscure shell scripts.
d) The junk mail filter is crap. I trained it on a folder of 1000 spams but still it doesn't seem to recognise half of them. And I have "external check" enabled. KMail uses external spam filters in a transparent way.
e) Spell checking: almost all modern spell-checking applications offer suggestions in a context menu when opened over a misspelt word. In Evo you have to open an extra window.
f) New Junk is not marked as unread. This would be nice so that you know what junk you've checked for false positives and which you haven't.
g) Sending a mail twice takes a whole load of inelegant cutting and pasting. See KMail for the elegant solution.
i) There is no way to automatically fetch mail immediately after startup. See KMail and Outlook.
j) You HAVE to specify a mail server in the Evo startup wizard. There is no way of getting around this. Very annoying.
k) The calenders feature is not too hot either. I only ever use the whole-month-view and when I scroll through the months it takes ages. Outlook was 10 times more responsive. And the default colour scheme means that looking for today's date is a real eye strainer.
These are just my views on evolution. I had always heard that it was such an excellent PIM suite and am dissapointed that it simply doesn't live up to the hype.
One of the advantages of using software that makes the source code available is that you are able to "correct" things like this. You could add a feature to the configuration where you could choose what happens after you delete a message. If you are not a programmer, you might have friends who are who could implement this for you. You could probably send an email to the evolution mailing list and say "Hey! I really want this feature. I'll pay the first person to add this to evolution $X." Or if you didn't feel comfortable with that maybe "Hey! I really want this feature. I'll make a donation of $X to the FSF (or any nice charity for that matter) when this has been implemented." Make the FOSS development model work for you!
The way to a man's heart is through the left ventricle
For example, in the Calculator comparison, while the Linux ones are on scientific mode, it seems they didnt wanted to show that the Windows calc can also do it.
:D
Uhm, no. That was the basic mode. Have you seen the scientific mode??
In the Instant Messenger comparision, what about opening a messenger windows (in the Windows version) and starting a video or audio conversation, and comparing it to the others (mmm I do not think it is possible to have an audio or video conversation with gaim).
Yes, you can. There's Gaim-vv. Also you could use GnomeMeeting.
The paint program comparison... WTF! comparing paintbrush with The Gimp?? if you tell me that it is because the Gimp is part of the OS, let me tell you that it is NOT, and you CAN install it on Windows too, so no, there is no point comparing them! that was the most biased comparison for me.
Well, I'm sorry but I find it fair. When you install your WinXp system, how do you process images? The only tool you got is MS Paint, unless you want to pay some £500+ for photoshop.
On the other hand, on Linux you got Gimp which is included on your installation, is on par with photoshop and costs nothing.
Sure you could install Gimp on WinXP, but you'd need to compile and install GTK+ and then compile and install Gimp. That's too much for most average users. On Linux it'll be installed without any action from you.
And btw it would be unfair to boost MS WinXP by showing open source programs on it. If you use open-source programs on Windows, why run windows at all?
I know that the idea of making these comparisons is cool, but, again I would like to see them made by a non biased source, this seems a bit biased.
How can you bias a screenshot?? There was no bias at all. You can tell windows has lost their "edge" when you get windows fanboys trying to defend them from simple screenshots!
And it's good that websites like this are around to show people what they can do with Linux and open-source.
VStrider.
I hear you. But after reading Windows Nearly Ready For Desktop Use (currently still on the /. home page), I'm more inclined to say it is a valid comparison. The fact that Windows isn't a "distribution" is simply a point against Windows. It's all a frame of reference and it is about time we promoted the idea that Windows is a naked OS and doesn't meet the standards of a distribution in total value and ease of desktop installation.
Open source is not Linux. Open source applications such as Firefox, Apache, GIMP, are applications, that happen to run on a variety of operating systems.
The assistant replies "Have you tried Windows XP?"
"Yes", the young man answered.
"Excellent", the assistant said. "Because without it there is no way you can play all the latest and coolest games out there."
Damn. Didn't realize Playstation 2 was running Windows XP...