Evolution installer for Win32 Released

markybob points out that an unofficial Win32 installer for Evolution has been released, writing "Of course it's GPL, so have fun and spread it around!" From the site: "Evolution is an incredibly versatile email/calendar/PIM that took the Linux world by storm a few years ago. It has been called an 'Outlook replacement' by every tech site from ZDNet to InfoWorld. Evolution played a major role in allowing the Linux desktop to move into the enterprise by giving being able to connect to Microsoft Exchange Server and schedule/accept Microsoft Outlook Meetings. Here's a screenshot of how it handles meeting invitations sent by Outlook."

Comments

Finally

[mnemonic_]

Windows users can try out the open source take on Microsoft Outlook 97.

Re:Finally

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Just without full Exchange interoperability, Office interoperability, Windows Server interoperability and absolutely no support whatsoever. But you won't get viruses. Well, not as much anyway.

Re:Finally

[ladybugfi]

You will not get any functionality either. I just installed it on my desktop XP and the installation itself went just fine, except that Evolution will not do anything. Yeah, the process is alive, but no GUI, no action.

This could almost be modded funny...

Re:Finally

[filesiteguy]

...you say that like it is a bad thing. I've used the Outlook 97, 2K, XP and 2003 clients and find them all to be pretty much the same. Outlook 97 would do just fine for me and probably 98% of the world....of course, you're still stuck with those pesky viruses if you insist on running Outlook in Windows.

Re:Finally

[GmAz]

Six years of running Outlook and I haven't gotten one of these virus things you talk about. In fact, I have only gotten one virus ever and all it did was shutdown my machine. Good 'ole shutdown /a as soon as your login solved that and it was cleaned up. Viruses are for n00bs.

Re:Finally

[AuMatar]

THe onyl echange functionality I need is to set up a calendar. I don't need Office interoperability (haven't opened an Office doc since I got this job), Window Server interop (I don't even know what this is). Its a great upgrade path. I can give it a try, and if it works I can move it over to my Linux box and stop bringing my laptop to work.

Re:Finally

[Hatta]

Just without full Exchange interoperability, Office interoperability, Windows Server interoperability and absolutely no support whatsoever. But you won't get viruses. Well, not as much anyway.

Why do you need all that crap anyway? I've never needed anything more capable than mutt, and I can't imagine why anyone else would. What's the big deal?

Re:Finally

[filesiteguy]

Yeah, it has actually been awhile. (Of course I only use Windows at work and 80% Linux at home.) I still remember back in '98 or '99 when I get to work and the fax machine was spitting out "I Love You" from many of our contacts. I knew about the "I Love You Virus" before I got to work, and was ready to apply a patch to our Exchange server (we were using Innoculan I think), but the CEO had come in super early and - upon seeing an email from his buddy saying, "I Love You" - opened it.

That was a fun day!

Re:Finally

[poolmeister]

I think you mean 'shutdown -a'

Re:Finally

[killjoe]

"Viruses are for n00bs."

So is windows.

Re:Finally

[isdnip]

Well, okay, besides all that missing stuff, it also lacks full POP3 support. Maybe it lacks IMAP3 too.

But hey, it looks pretty, as it sits there doing nothing.

And maybe it's got a swell GroupWise client. Now there's a big market. Not.

Oddly enough, there was more POP3 planned originally, but they took it out of the roadmap, since it was focused on being just an enterprise client, where "Enterprise" was defined as a place daft enough to depend on Outlook and Exchange.

Re:Finally

[WoLpH]

With the horrible looking GTK GUI it does look like Office 97, if they don't change the theme then it will scare away a lot of people (yes, I 90% of the simpleminded clients I know _like_ the teletubby XP theme)

Re:Finally

[dknj]

/a and -a are the same

Re:Finally

[Eideewt]

When I started reading your post I was like, "What's this guy talking about? Didn't the post he's replying to say the same thing?" Then I realized you meant it wasn't even displaying a window. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Haven't you heard anyone complain about how Linux doesn't have enough GUI tools? Now you know what they meant.

Re:Finally

[jsight]

You will not get any functionality either. I just installed it on my desktop XP and the installation itself went just fine, except that Evolution will not do anything. Yeah, the process is alive, but no GUI, no action.

So, basically, it's only slightly less functional than the Linux version?

Re:Finally

[jamesh]

Outlook 2003 introduced 'cached mode', where you are working on a local copy of your data but it is kept up to sync with the server almost constantly. It is very very nice when you are working over a slower-than-lan link!

Previously, you would have to run Outlook in 'offline' mode, and set it to sync frequently.

But other than that, yeah, they all suck the same :)

Re:Finally

[nwoolls]

Cause if you don't need it, surely the rest of the world doesn't.

Re:Finally

[NumerusSpy]

That's not due to safe IT practices. It's due to your popularity.

Re:Finally

[horacerumpole]

Not to defend Evolution itself but I find integration of calendar/contacts/e-mail and possibly VoIP telephony as very useful - when I get an invitation to an event I can just click on it to add it to my calendar, and when I want to invite others I don't have to maintain a separate list of contacts for my e-mail and calendar tools and so on.

Every time I read one of those "who the F*** needs this integration?" posts I have a strong suspicion that the writer have never got around to work in a real job - he might be some school/college kid who have yet to see what real work looks like.

Re:Finally

[Fred_A]

That's so that users will be more productive and won't waste time mailing funny pics and stupid jokes around, or clicking on weird files sent by random viruses.
Another great feature by the Gnome useability wizards !

CALs?

[RingDev]

Would Linux users running this still need to pay for the CALs to connect to the Exchange server?

-Rick

Re:CALs?

[blowdart]

Why wouldn't they? A user CAL is linked to the user, not the client software, although each User CAL does come with a license for Outlook. You could purchase a device CAL, and then a machine would be licensed, no matter how many people use it.

Re:CALs?

[kimvette]

Yes, but now Windows users have practical alternatives to the Exchange/outlook pairing which can effectively eliminate the need to license on a per-user basis, AND still have a "thick client." If you were previously using email-only this is a total non-issue (you could always use any number of clients for pop or imap) but for group calendaring, notes, etc. having Evolution available does open new options to avoid the Microsoft tax. :)

Re:CALs?

[hey!]

I am guessing yes, almost certainly. CALs are ways of licensing the server software, not the client software. In exchange for the right to install the server, you agree to limit the number of clients that can connect.

Re:CALs?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Why wouldn't they?

Well, perhaps because the law doesn't necessarily allow Microsoft to enforce whatever rules it wants to. Just because an EULA says something doesn't mean that: (1) the EULA is a binding contract, or (2) all the terms of the so-called EULA are enforceable. That's just for any seller of proprietary software; Microsoft might have additional restrictions placed upon it by anti-trust law or settlement(s).

On the other hand, you might not want to take Microsoft to court to find out what your rights are.

In any case, it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.

Re:CALs?

[ocbwilg]

Would Linux users running this still need to pay for the CALs to connect to the Exchange server?

Yes. Microsoft licenses Exchange servers on a per-server basis. Client access licenses are licensed on a per-user or per-device basis. They are "access licenses", not software application licenses. There is no requirement to actually use Microsoft software to access the Exchange server, but the access itself is licensed. Even if you use Outlook Web Access you still have to have a device or user CAL for Exchange.

The question of licensing Outlook or Office is completely separate.

To the person who claims that "just because it's in the EULA doesn't make it so", they are only half correct. This isn't an issue of what is in the EULA though. What is at issue is how the software licenses are sold. And if it should come to pass that MS can't legally require you to buy a CAL to access Exchange if you use Evolution, then you wouldn't legally be required to buy a CAL if you use Outlook either. In that sense it is a question of whether CAL-based licensing is legal, not whether or not the use of Evolution circumvents the need for a CAL, and it is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

Re:CALs?

[CerebusUS]

If you were previously using email-only this is a total non-issue (you could always use any number of clients for pop or imap)

Not true. No matter what type of client you use to access a mailbox, it requires a seperate CAL for each user, unless you go the route of device CALs, in which case you'll need a seperate CAL for each piece of hardware, regardless of what type of client is used.

The fact that each CAL inclueds a license to use Outlook just makes it more attractive for people to use Outlook for their other mailboxes.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, perhaps because the law doesn't necessarily allow Microsoft to enforce whatever rules it wants to. Just because an EULA says something doesn't mean that: (1) the EULA is a binding contract, or (2) all the terms of the so-called EULA are enforceable. That's just for any seller of proprietary software; Microsoft might have additional restrictions placed upon it by anti-trust law or settlement(s).

Somehow I don't think Micro$oft is limited in it's ability to charge license fees on a per client basis. Face it, it was at best a silly question. From a practical standpoint, it was asked merely because someone thought "hey, here is a way for me to get around paying for licenses". It should have been a "legitimate" question for all of half a second until the OP thought about it, or they should have just come out and asked "can I get around the exchange client licensing by using this other client", which is what they wanted to know anyway.

Re:CALs?

[kimvette]

Oh really? You need to buy Exchange CALs for servers which are not Microsoft Exchange? When did this occur? I'd better check with Microsoft to see if I can purchase Exchange CALs for use with Scalix. Thanks for the 411! I'm sure others will be interest in where they should purchase Exchange CALs for Zimbra. ;)

Notice I was referring to Exchange and Outlook BOTH together in the previous post. Availability of other full-featured PIM/groupware applications open the opportunity to run servers OTHER than Exchange, AND avoid having to pay for Outlook as well.

Re:CALs?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Somehow I don't think Micro$oft is limited in it's ability to charge license fees on a per client basis.

The real question is, if Microsoft sends you the media, would you be violating the copyright laws in your country by installing the software? If not, then you don't need a license from Microsoft in the first place.

Face it, it was at best a silly question. From a practical standpoint, it was asked merely because someone thought "hey, here is a way for me to get around paying for licenses".

How do you know? Frankly, if I were proposing a switch to Evolution to management, this is one of the first questions I would expect to be asked. A manager will want to know how much money he'll potentially save by migrating his client-side software to Evolution, in order to decide whether it's worth the risk and the temporary loss in worker productivity.

Re:CALs?

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.

"[...] shouldn't be dismissed out of hand."

Re:CALs?

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Yes; that's what I meant. Thank you.

Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[edremy]

Ba bum bump tish

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[Opportunist]

Bet it's already been worked on in Kansas.

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[chris_eineke]

Your drummer's license please...

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[edremy]

Your drummer's license please...

What is that? A crumpled piece of paper with an "X" in big black marker? "Well, we told him it was a drummer's license. He tried to eat it at first, but we stopped him."

Just as well: any line of work where you tend to die in bizarre gardening accidents isn't for me. Then again, I play the viola so what do I know? (More viola jokes than drummer jokes probably.)

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[pyrrhonist]

Then again, I play the viola so what do I know? (More viola jokes than drummer jokes probably.)

Q: What's the difference between a drummer and a violist?
A: The drummer sustained brain damage after taking up the instrument.

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[jpvlsmv]

Just as well: any line of work where you tend to die in bizarre gardening accidents isn't for me. Then again, I play the viola so what do I know? (More viola jokes than drummer jokes probably.)

Why do drummers start songs with "1..2.." ?

If they could count higher they'd have leaned the viola

--Joe

Great!

[the linux geek]

I've been trying to get people in my office to switch away from Outlook for a while now, but Thunderbird doesn't cut it as an outlook replacement. Evolution will (hopefully) be a step in the right direction to Total Office Domination.

Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[Skynet]

Which can also accept Outlook meeting requests. Plus it works from any browser.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[Anonymous Coward]

It won't work on Safari or Mozilla 1.0.1*, both of which I use daily. Sorry.

* It's four years old and it runs on Red Hat 7.2.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[HundyCougar]

Google calendar users don't show up in the GAL so they can't be auto selected for the slower users.
Google calendar and mail can't access the GAL so you have to memorize all of your organizations email addresses.
And most corporate users (who use Exchange anyway) wouldn't want there users using a public mail service...

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[Jim_Maryland]

You must consider that Google is offering multiple levels of products. First, they offer the Internet available Google website that includes the Google Calendar along with numerous other offerings. The part that a majority of Internet users don't see is the Google Appliance/Software offerings for purchase. You can purchase (might be lease...I wasn't part of the acquisition process) a Google mini to handle indexing of documents inside a corporate intranet, Google Earth Pro to handle using your data rather than going to the Google servers on the Internet, and I'd guess they have other products available or available soon. While security concerns with the Internet versions is valid, Google does have offerings that work for corporate environments too.

Jim.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[Anonymous Coward]

"Plus it works from any browser" means Evolution already kicks its ass. Web apps suck. Deal with it.

More is better

[rocjoe71]

Having seen what a weak point MS Outlook can be for the security of my clients, having an option to replace Outlook with something that doesn't carry the inherent risks of Outlook while providing them the same funcitonality as Outlook (calendaring being the big one) is really making me consider convincing them to switch.

...before anybody goes on to tell me how great iCal, GoogleCal or Sunbird is, just like to point out that my clients like many others don't see replacing one app with two as a good reason to switch. Plus, forgoing the option to process meeting invitations with one click would never be seen as an improvement.

OTOH, seeing how impossible it is to wean clients off of IE, Outlook, Acrobat Reader, etc. Evolution needs to be even better than advertised.

Re:More is better

[Anonymous Coward]

it is

Re:More is better

[zsau]

I assume your clients run on Windows, and that isn't changing. What good alternatives are there to Acrobat Reader for Windows? I love using Xpdf on GNU/Linux, but I thought on Windows my choices were limited to GView (thanks but no thanks) and Adobe?

Re:More is better

[TrancePhreak]

Foxit is alright, and I just downloaded Xpdf for Windows.

Re:More is better

[zsau]

Haven't heard of Foxit before, but I suppose I don't use Windows boxes I can control much. Looks like its interface is an Adobe clone, I really hate Acrobat Reader's MDI, particuly the latest version. Still, small and fast is good.

Last I heard Xpdf for Windows was limited to the command-line tools, and that's all I think I can see from the Xpdf website. Is there some other version for Windows, or do they have GUI stuff in the package on that site and lie? (I don't have access to a Windows computer ATM, so I can't see for myself.)

Thanks!

Re:More is better

[TrancePhreak]

After looking through it, it does seem they slacked off and only provide the command line tools... :\

Black Marks

[smvp6459]

The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

Re:Black Marks

[kimvette]

My evolution install must be broken - I'm not getting the black scribbles. Is that a Windows-only feature of Evolution? ;)

It still doesn't replace outlook...

[millisa]

First, I *want* evolution to get to the point where it is an outlook replacement as much as thunderbird is an outlook express replacement.

I constantly see these bits heralding how great it is and you can replace outlook, but frankly it just isn't true.

To replace outlook the app would have to do more than just mail, be able to interact with the meeting requests that are sent out and the like.

I'm sure much of the problem is the legalities behind reverse engineering the proprietary protocols MS uses, but with Evolution, can I:
    Go into public folders to make posts?
    Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox?
    Do RPC over HTTPS to connect to my exchange server via the web (OWA)?

I don't mean to bad mouth evolution at all. I think it's great that work is constantly being made on it and they keep bringing it closer to something the windows/outlook exchange users can use instead of something that will run VBS... I am going to try out the new win32 version as soon as I can get it to download and see if I can use it as a sort of 'outlook lite' when I don't need the extra functionality.
I just don't think it's right to consider it an 'outlook replacement' especially in an exchange realm just yet. Outlook isn't just an email and calendar app.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[thebdj]

Well, it does seem like you can access public folders. I shall point you here. Though, I would have to test it first. I cannot guarantee mail box access permission support.

I would like to point out that they actually use iCalendar. This is almost the de facto standard, well for everyone but M$ who seem to think keeping their stuff locked out of standards is a good thing (well it is for their bottomline at least). I never expect this to be a full out Outlook replacement. I am sure the second it becomes one, M$ will change Exchange Server to break it again, but for home users who use outlook this is about the only PIM replacement there is for Palm devices, short of using that ghastly Palm desktop tool.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[ocbwilg]

I'm sure much of the problem is the legalities behind reverse engineering the proprietary protocols MS uses, but with Evolution, can I: Go into public folders to make posts? Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox? Do RPC over HTTPS to connect to my exchange server via the web (OWA)?

Regarding public folders, they say that you can. I haven't tested it yet, but that's mainly because at my company (400+ users) we don't use public folders. I suspect that we are not the only ones.

Regarding delegate rights on inboxes, I haven't seen that. In some places that I have worked that is a pretty critical ability. But not where I work, and I suspect that we aren't the only ones.

On the third point, I think that you are confusing RPC over HTTPS (a feature that is new in Exchange 2003) with Outlook Web Access (OWA) which has been around since at least Exchange 2000 (not sure if we had it in 5.5). If you are using OWA, then you don't need RPC over HTTPS (which is only supported on Outlook 2003 accessing Exchange 2003). If you need RPC over HTTPS, then I suspect that Evolution won't fit the bill. But since HTTPS and RPC are fairly well known, I suspect that they could manage it eventually.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Goyuix]

I am in the process of downloading and evaluating the Win32 version - but on Linux (and I can't imagine why not on Win32) it DOES SUPPORT RPC OVER HTTPS - though it calls it something different, Microsoft Exchange (then you punch in the OWA stuff). Also, there is some rudimentary support for Public folders, I have never used it so I can't comment on the greatness or terribleness. I think Novell has some more info on novell.com about that particular piece.

Regardless, you (and I don't necessarily mean you the poster but you the user) should really look at software before proclaiming it a lost cause because of x, y and z. And I should stop feeding the trolls.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[slaker]

Vista has a Calendar program which supports iCal servers.
Just sayin'.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Azarael]

Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox?

I've done this through the 2003 Server Administration tool, so if you have a co-operative admin, you can ask them to grant another user access to your mailbox. I'm not sure that having that ability within the client is such a good idea from a security perspective anyway.

be able to interact with the meeting requests that are sent out and the like.

I get enough of these from my boss and the SS FTA shows an example of a meeting request http://shellter.sourceforge.net/evolution/evoshot1 .png/. I haven't actually tried sending one out myself, but I would be quite surprised if this didn't work.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[millisa]

There wasn't any confusion on the third point. The new outlook 2003 OWA is so close to outlook that I have a few clients that use it and never open their outlook interface. The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections. OWA has existed earlier than 2000, 5.5 had a really clunky version and the as far as I know, the new rpc over https support on exchange is only in 2003 (and much loved by my sbs based clients).

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[millisa]

Do you have a link for the rpc over https stuff (you said it was called something different)? I'm not getting the pdf of the manual to come down (it 404s) and when I'm trying the 'Microsoft Exchange' server type it doesn't appear to be connecting with the OWA server. (Or is this what you are referring to as the rcp over https stuff?).

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[ocbwilg]

There wasn't any confusion on the third point. The new outlook 2003 OWA is so close to outlook that I have a few clients that use it and never open their outlook interface. The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections. OWA has existed earlier than 2000, 5.5 had a really clunky version and the as far as I know, the new rpc over https support on exchange is only in 2003 (and much loved by my sbs based clients).

That matches up with what I recalled. Your original post seemed to be a little ambiguous on the OWA/RPC issue, but I agree that many people would prefer the Exchange 2003 OWA to Outlook 2003.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Hortensia Patel]

Outlook isn't just an email and calendar app.

True, but for a lot of people it might as well be. I have to use Outlook at work, and I'd happily trade all the other features for search that worked as well as Gmail.

I don't think this is like Office, where everyone (allegedly) uses a different 10% of the feature set. Mail plus calendar probably covers a sizeable chunk of the Outlook user base.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[arodland]

Evolution has the "functionality" part covered just fine. But what it needs to be succesful is the "bloated shit to cover up the fact that we're not getting any real work done" module. That's where Outlook shines.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[j79zlr]

I honestly don't know what RPC over HTTPS entails, but it sure sounds like it could be exploited, with fun results!

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Goyuix]

It is the Microsoft Exchange server type. I tried the Win32 binary talking to two different OWA exchange servers and neither one was very happy about it. I have used this option successfully in Ubuntu and Fedora though - so I know it works. Basically it just grabs the xml packets and stuffs them as mail items in Evolution. I am actually quite surprised some of the other popular mail clients (Thunderbird particularly - though there is a request for it) hasn't implemented it.

I bet a patch will be out fairly soon for this.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[killjoe]

The only reason RPC over HTTPS even exists is because MS refuses to adopt IMAPS fully. It's just another proprietary MS protocol designed to lock customers. Come to think of it that's all exchange and outlook are too.

Once you take that pill you become pw0ned by MS. YOu can never migrate, you can never switch to another platform, you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. Don't even get me started on maintaining exchange. Quite possible the worst email server on the planet.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do RPC over HTTPS to connect to my exchange server via the web (OWA)?

No, it doesn't need to do any of that bollocks, you can just enter the https://blah.com/exchange URL and use it straight away without the need to turn on anything on the exchange server except DAV access (OWA).

In fact, this is the one reason I've been waiting for a Windows version of evolution. Nobody in our office of Microsoft specialists can get any version of Outlook to connect the exchange server here in our office via RPC over HTTPS.

They've all been drooling over Entourage 2k4 on my Powerbook and its seamless support through OWA. When EvilUtion is finally working properly on Windows they'll be able to install it at home or on their laptops and not have to connect with VPN to get proper rich client access to exchange at home.

As an Outlook replacement it's pretty sucky, but as an OWA replacement it shines.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[miles zarathustra]

Running SuSE 9.3 (with updates) on my desktop, I tried running Evolution under KDE, until I came up against a nasty crash-on-startup bug that the developers wound up blaming on my theme manager. The problem was never fixed, and I had to switch (to Thunderbird, which has its own set of problems, a whole nother story). Since it is only Evoloution that crashes the theme manager, I thought blaming it was a bit of a cop-out (and didn't help me get my data back). I've also seen Evolution segfault when given an email address with two @'s in it.

I really want to like Evolution, and -- don't get me wrong -- I appreciate the enormous amount of work that's gone into it. But I don't think it's quite a polished product.

I've been running Outlook Express since about 1997, and kept all my incoming and outgoing mail in it, across Win95, 98, and XP. Unlike any of the open-source alternatives, it has been stable and reliable.

Trust me -- I'm no huge fan of Microsoft. I just wish the open source community could come up with a decently featured reliable UI-based mail client.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[jrumney]

The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections.

Really? Why abuse HTTPS like that when IMAPS is designed for it from the start?

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Allador]

Because IMAPS would not give you the full feature set of Outlook/Exchange (Calendar, Tasks, Public Folders, shared calendars, delegation, Contacts, Journal, Notes, etc)

RPC over HTTPS replaces the on-LAN mapi connectivity that gives you the full set of Outlook/Exchange features, as its basically mapi via rpc tunneled over https.

It's a much better experience than using IMAP, as you're always online, even if your machine is not connected to anything. And then when you are connected, a background thread continuously synchronizes between Outlook and Exchange.

For mobile/laptops users, Outlook 2003 and Cached Exchange Mode (the offline/synchronized thing) is one of the greatest things ever invented.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Allador]

How do you figure? How does the client-server protocol Outlook uses to connect to Exchange lock me in?

As long as I can fully export all of my Outlook/Exchange data into a number of different formats, pretty much at will, then I'm not locked in.

File
Import and Export
Export to a File
[Choose:]
    Comma Separated Values (DOS)
    Comma Separated Values (Windows)
    Microsoft Access
    Microsoft Excel
    Person Folders File (.pst)
    Tab Separated Values (DOS)
    Tab Separated Values (Windows)
-- select pst, as every other mail/pim on the planet can import from it
Select the Folder to Export From:
    Select All
    Include Subfolders

All that a (semi) proprietary protocol does it makes it harder to use an arbitrary mail client with Exchange. But if you do that, then you're degrading your experience, as there's nothing out there that works as well and has the same feature set as Outlook+Exchange.

If using whatever client is important to you, then use a standards protocol like IMAP, and accept the reduced functionality.

Also, although MAPI is technically a proprietary protocol, it is well understood and well documented by Microsoft. It's not open, but its not undocumented, by any stretch of the imagination.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Allador]

If all you're missing is good indexed search, then install Lookout for Outlook.

It's a separate product for now, but MS purchased Lookout a while back, so it'll likely be integrated into Outlook 2007.

http://www.lookoutsoft.com/Lookout/download.html

It's basically google desktop for Outlook, its fast, and it works great.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[killjoe]

1) Your example only shows how to export one persons mail. What do you do if you have a thousand?
2) What about the contacts?
3) What about the calender? Can you export that to ical?
4) OK so you now have a comma separated file what do you do with it? Put it in a spreadsheet? How come it won't let you export them as plain email files?
5) If MAPI was well understood or sufficient there would be a jillion email clients that work with exchange. Alas not even the MS products for the mac work well with exchange. Entourage for a long time scraped outlook web access. Then went to imap. Is it using MAPI yet?

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Sithgunner]

foss is about being loud and exagerating thinking they're the purist and the future and all...
i do appreciate the effort of the applications getting made and distributed for free and i do use them often as well.

but the way they claim their software is nothing far from any companies trying to make big advertisements...only it probably doesn't even do what's said well enough.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Allador]

1. You either use the migration tool included with your new mail product, or you write a script to walk through the users and export their data one at a time.

2. Contacts are included in my earlier post example.

3. Calendar items are included in my earlier post. iCal support (kind of) is in Outlook since XP version, but its not implemented very well. Probably your best bet is to use a 3rd party plugin, like this:

http://outlook2ical.sourceforge.net/

Better iCal support is scheduled for Outlook 2007 released later this year, for what thats worth.

4. Actually, a spreadsheet is not the most useful format to export it in. PST file is the most portable, as nearly every other mail product on the planet knows how to import from it.

And I'm not sure what format you're talking about when you say 'plain email files', unless you mean just a text representation of the email. With that you'd have to then write software to parse out the individual fields and import it to another format, and that doesnt really buy you anything compared to PST or CSV, other than an extra step of software to write. But even if you did have that, it still wouldnt help you with calendar, tasks, contacts, etc etc.

5. I cant speak to that, but a lack of good competitive clients to Outlook doesnt mean the information isnt out there.

For example, here is a link to the MAPI SDK which includes the full API:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/mapi/html/83f1e307-095b-4d27-a3ec-f f4aa22f471a.asp

Heck, there's even information in there about how it maps to X.400 and the wire-level protocol.

After looking through it for a few minutes (first time I've done that in years), its possible that its just very complicated, probably much more complicated than IMAP. So there's a real diminishing level of return on your investment, given that Outlook is free if you own Exchange (so no cost advantage to writing your own client), plus its a mature and well-developed piece of software. Starting your own would put your a decade behind MS on the client. Of course, if you started one in the Outlook 95 time-frame, that wouldnt have been the case.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[ocbwilg]

Once you take that pill you become pw0ned by MS. YOu can never migrate, you can never switch to another platform, you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. Don't even get me started on maintaining exchange. Quite possible the worst email server on the planet.

Nonesense.

Is Outlook + Exchange a proprietary system? Yes. But you can migrate to another platform. You can switch to/from Exchange with no problems. Will that other platform have the same functionality? Maybe. I personally have done a number of Notes -> Exchange and Exchange -> Notes migrations. It can be done.

You arent' forced to upgrade every couple of years. At my current employer they have been running Exchange 2000 since 2002. That's 4 years without an upgrade, and there is no plan to upgrade until MS EOLs Exchange 2000. And if you think that any other email/groupware vendor doesn't EOL their products when they get to be 7 or 8 years old, you're either crazy or have never worked in IT.

Maintaining Exchange isn't hard at all. Our biggest issue with Exchange "maintenance" is database size. If your users are in the habit of deleting or archiving their old messages, then database size shouldn't be an issue. If they aren't, then it doesn't matter what application you are using for email/groupware, you will run into database size issues. The next biggest issue that I have from a maintenance perspective are the size of log files. You can adjust how much logging you want if your log files are getting to big. In my case we have lots of logging. So once a month I un-mount the Exchange store, back up the log files, and then delete them. It takes about 10 minutes. The third biggest maintenance issue that I have with Exchange is whitespace in the database. Again, just dismount the database and run a defrag on it. It takes a couple of hours to complete, but I only have to do it every few months and it happens during a regular maintenance cycle.

If you're having problems managing Exchange then it's probably because you don't know what you're doing. There is a temptation in the Windows-based world to think that simply because you can install an application via the GUI and get basic functionality (create mailboxes and send-receive mail in this case) that you know how to administer the application. Most people who consider themselves "Exchange Admins" probably couldn't even tell you what a routing group or global catalog is, let alone connecters to other email/groupware systems, how to use non-smtp protocols, etc.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[ocbwilg]

Really? Why abuse HTTPS like that when IMAPS is designed for it from the start?

Are SSL VPNs an abuse of HTTPS as well? Because frankly, I can't see much difference between using SSL to create a VPN tunnel so that I can access Outlook via MAPI versus using RPC over HTTPS (which uses HTTPS to create a tunnel for only the Outlook MAPI requests). I mean, technically RPC over HTTPS only connects to the OWA server, whereas the SSL VPN would connect to your firewall or VPN concentrator and coule give you access to the entire network.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[ocbwilg]

If MAPI was well understood or sufficient there would be a jillion email clients that work with exchange. Alas not even the MS products for the mac work well with exchange. Entourage for a long time scraped outlook web access. Then went to imap. Is it using MAPI yet?

I'm sorry, are you actually complaining because Apple hasn't written their operating system with support for Microsoft's Messaging API?

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[Uerige]

And I'm not sure what format you're talking about when you say 'plain email files'
He probably means 'plain email files', as in text representation of the actual mail.

With that you'd have to then write software to parse out the individual fields
...like every e-mail client I know...

and import it to another format
What for? What exactly do you think would happen to the .pst file when it is imported by most software (except for Outlook)? Your other points are valid, though.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[killjoe]

What? Does MAPI need to be integrated with the OS before it can usable? MS writes entourage, apparently not one MS programmers was abled to write a MAPI /RPC based adapter to entourage to make it work with exchange.

If the MS programmers who have full access to the source code and docs can't do it how do you expect others to be able to do it?

Maybe you are right. Maybe the only way to build MAPI clients is if the MAPI is enabled at the OS level. Wow, wouldn't that suck.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[killjoe]

"He probably means 'plain email files', as in text representation of the actual mail."

Yes exacly like every other email server in existence.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[killjoe]

". You either use the migration tool included with your new mail product, or you write a script to walk through the users and export their data one at a time."

What migration tool? How is the migration tool supposed to access the proprietary email database held by exchange? You write a script? You talked about how to do it in outlook. You have to write a script to manipulate outlook and have it log in as each person and then export their emails? Wow, that might take a couple of weeks to write and a couple of months to run.

My point is that why paint yourself into that corner in the first place. Why not use a different product that does not lock you to the vendor by using proprietary formats, RPC mechanisms etc.

Vendor lock is bad. It hurts you in the long run to place all your vital information (and email is vital) in the hands of just one company.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook...

[buchanmilne]

I work in a big corporate, run Linux on my desktop (since it is just more productive than Windows for everything besides scheduling meetings) and use Evolution on Linux to access the corporate Exchange servers.

I haven't tried posting to a public folder, but reading anything in a public folder is no problem.

I used Evolution to give my team leader, project manager and a colleague access to my tasks.

Evolution actually *requires* OWA to work, not sure if it uses HTTPS, but I assume it should.

So, I assume the Windows version will probably have all the same features when it is final.

Spam filtering

[FictionPimp]

The only thing keeping me off this is the lack of good spam filtering. Even in linux I choose thunderbird because the spam filtering is easier to use and self containted. No need for bogofilter or spamassasin. How will you filter spam on a windows box?

Re:Spam filtering

[generic-man]

The same way I filter spam on a Mac OS X box, a Linux box, a BeBox, etc. Server-side filtering is the only way to go for me. Why bother with reconfiguring filters every time you install Thunderbird on another machine?

Re:Spam filtering

[MBGMorden]

Windows has several SpamAssassin-based options (I've used SpamFu in the past), as well as POPFile (Bayesian-only, though so is Thunderbird's filter).

As another poster pointed out though, server-side is the way to go. If you don't control your own mail server you can still get *most* of the same benefits (minus saving bandwidth) by using fetchmail and delivering to an MTA running on your own local machine (which has it's spam filters configured just like any large scale mail server would).

I use a combination of fetchmail, Postfix, amavisd-new, spamassassin, clamav, mysql, Maia Mailguard, and Dovecot with a LOT of sucess. When I'm at home I use Thunderbird (from any machine in the house) to connect to the IMAP server. When I'm away, I can use SquirrelMail sitting on the same machine to access my main mailstore. A little more difficult to setup, but much more versatile once you do.

Re:Spam filtering

[FictionPimp]

This is an awful lot of work to get email from a single mailbox (Its rare, but its true. I only have 1 email account with the exception of gmail which I only use the web interface for). Thunderbird's spam filtering filters out 99% of my spam and I only use it at work (My home email is gmail and suprisingly gets only 1 to 2 spams a week and is filtered by google). I really like the interface of evolution and its features. It just seems like a waste of my time and resources to setup a mat just for spam filtering. In a corp enviroment you sometimes also wish for local spam filtering. For example my work has a spam filter setup on our mail server. But because of 'lost' emails and complaints from higher ups (even though no mail was actually lost, just moved out of the inbox), our spam filtering is less then accurate. It allows though a lot of spam and I use thunderbird to filter that spam out. It doesn't seem like a good option to run my own private mail server just so I dont have to use thunderbird. However, I could see this getting setup as a side project if I had enough tech savvy people in the office who wanted more advanced spam filtering and would be smart enough to know where to look for false positives. But for now, I'll stick with thunderbird.

Re:Spam filtering

[MBGMorden]

Well in my case I do have 3 mail accounts that I pull from. A big advantage for me, is that I control everything about how my mail is filtered, and am not forced to use a particular client. You state that you use Gmail for your home mail account. This offers the flexibility of checking your mail anywhere, but when you get back to your home desktop you're still stuck with Gmail. For some people that's fine, but to me a webmail interface is always simply a temporary measure until I get back to a "real" email client. I couldn't stand to use any of the web-based email products for my main home-email. So with my setup, I have the freedom to use webmail when I'm away, but can still use any choice of email clients that support IMAP when I'm at home. Setting this up can be done easily in 2-3 hours and with any luck won't have to be done again for years.

It does sound like your current solution is working, but if you every want to setup something a bit more robust, there's plenty of free software out there to do it with.

Re:Spam filtering

[ForumTroll]

First of all, Thunderbirds spam filters don't need be "reconfigured" every time you install Thunderbird on another machine. Secondly, most people aren't going to setup a box just for server-side mail filtering... Honestly, why would anyone go through all of the trouble of setting up another box for server-side filtering when practically nothing makes it past the default Thunderbird filters? If you need better filtering than what the default Thunderbird settings provide you can alter the filter settings and save them for use elsewhere. Not to mention that server-side mail filtering requires the use of a daemon which is open to security exploits.

I also switched from Evolution to Thunderbird simply because the spam filtering in Evolution is horrible. Furthermore, the regular work around of running all mail through spam assassin is terribly slow.

Re:Spam filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Evolution's self contained junkmail filtering no good?

Re:Spam filtering

[Cal Paterson]

A lot of people who are users of mail clients don't have control over server-side stuff.

What they (and I, from time to time) need is a mail client that can do more than it's share of the work. People who run mailservers are exclusively competent. Sometimes, they're so idiotic, that I've ended up having to do the work myself in order to compensate.

Re:Spam filtering

[FictionPimp]

Evolution has not self contained junk mail filtering. You have to use a 3rd party vendor.

Re:Spam filtering

[Allador]

Install SpamBayes:

http://spambayes.sourceforge.net/

It's fantastic, trainable, and most of all:

Doesnt require setting up an elaborate set of MTAs and mail servers. It plugs right into Outlook as a COM add-in, and works in real-time.

It's one of the best ones out there, due to its bayesian trainability, plus its python based and open-source. Can't beat it.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[bbernard]

But isn't Google calendar hosted by Google? Which means that, from a business security perspective, aren't you posting "sensitive" or "confidential" info (which often acompanies meeting requests) on a non-secured 3rd party system? I could see where an app like this would have some significant advantages over Google calendar.

That's great!

[Lumpy]

So how long for the Exchange replacement to go with this?

as soon as we can kick exchange out of the server room the better but unfortunately there is no replacement or I'm missing something.

Is there a linux groupware server that works with evolution as the client?

Re:That's great!

[smbarbour]

You (as in someone who reads this and wants to do it) could write one. I know Exchange 2000 uses X.400 as the user-to-user messaging protocol. Couple that in with a Kerberos+LDAP server (ala Active Directory) and you should have a close representation of Exchange. Just substitute standards-based components for the proprietary garbage, and you'll have a groupware server better than Exchange could ever dream of becoming.

Re:That's great!

[idonthack]

The Evolution website says GroupWise (not free) works, and mentions a project for OpenGroupware.org compatability. This article also says people are implementing GroupDAV to make it work with servers including OpenGroupware.org and Citadel.

Re:That's great!

[purplebear]

zimbra

and/or

postpath

are worth looking at.

Re:That's great!

[loddington]

http://www.open-xchange.org/

GPL and $ supported versions.

Re:That's great!

[ScrewMaster]

I don't know about Linux-based solutions, but for Windows there's MDaemon. I believe they have an Exchange/groupware plug-in of some kind, although I've never tried it.

Does it work with Kolab2 yet?

[LWATCDR]

Evolution is just part of the puzzle. If it worked with Kolab2 as a groupware server it would be a total solution for my office.

Re:Does it work with Kolab2 yet?

[douggmc]

Check out http://www.clarkconnect.com/info/info40.php (the upcoming 4.0 release in coming weeks) regarding Kolab and Outlook access, etc. ClarkConnect is a kick butt distro that should be checked out ... and with the new features pending for 4.0 it will be even more so.

A cancer...

[truthsearch]

Of course it's GPL

So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

Re:A cancer...

[zymurgy_cat]

So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

That assumes that Windows was intelligently designed.....

Excellent for desktop migrations...

[IpSo_]

This is excellent. Hopefully Evolution on Win32 works just as well as it does on Linux and starts to catch on.

In my opinion Evolution for Win32 will play a critical role in companies switching their desktops to Linux. I think its pretty clear that the most successfully way to migrate people to Linux is to first migrate their windows applications to open source or cross-platform ones, then once they are comfortable migrate their operating system to Linux.

Having applications like Evolution that are cross-platform will only help this process along.

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[giorgiofr]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I've just tried it out and I found it slow as molasses. The install dir weighs in at 160 MB. The thing includes a whole frigging X server and possibily some cygwin (I was too scared to look). It draws windows at a noticeably slow speed, complete with choppy effect. It looks like the default un-themed grey Gnome. Even menus take so long to open, it's painful. Maybe the networking code is great, but I'll never find out because I uninstalled it already. Now I will go poke my eyes out, with your permission. Oh teh p41n...

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[lukas84]

It didn't even work right on my box (German Win XP SP2).

Apperently, several references to C:\program files\ where hardcoded. (It's C:\Programme\ in a German XP, and yes, there are lot's of variables for accessing this. Luckily, Vista will fix this mess.)

Also, it didn't link correctly because i already had a global install of GTK (shuffling around %PATH% solved this, though).

After it started, i tried connecting it to our Exchange 2003 Server. Didn't work. Just gave a nonsensical Error Message.

So i tried to connect it to my private mail account, which is accessible through IMAP. Showed all the folders, but no messages inside. Tried to close this abomination, but that didn't work either, so i killed it using the task manager.

There's still a LONG LONG way to go.

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[giorgiofr]

Oh SNAP! I forgot about the hardcoded paths! It plagued me too. Oh well. I share your opinion.

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bizarro IpSo_ writes: This is excellent. Hopefully Evolution on Win32 works just as well as it does on Linux and starts to catch on. In my opinion Evolution for Win32 will play a critical role in long-haired, smelly, linux hippies switching their desktops to Windows. I think its pretty clear that the most successfully way to migrate people to Windows is to first migrate their linux applications to cross-platform ones, then once they are comfortable migrate their operating system to Windows. Having applications like Evolution that are cross-platform will only help this process along.

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is fantastic news! We have a few Outlook hold-outs for whom Thunderbird just doesn't meet their needs (mainly calandar and sync related - we don't use exchange). I am hopeful that after some testing I will find their must-have functionality in Evolution-win32.

This is topping off an already great day, many thanks to the developers! Go Oilers!!

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[tml]

There are certainly no hardcoded paths in the actual Evolution and GNOME library code. That is one of the first things to take care of in porting software from Unix to Windows, removing all uses of configure-time hardcoded paths. Like GLib, GTK, Pango etc, all the GNOME libraries and Evolution that have been ported to Windows look up their installation folder at run-time, and construct the pathnames to files they open at run-time (like plug-ins, icons, etc) based on that. They can be installed anywhere, even in folders with totally random Unicode characters. (A couple of non-ASCII -related bugs have been fixed only recently and aren't yet in the binaries available on ftp.gnome.org, only in CVS).

This wrapper the installer the parent article is about is another thing. I don't know anything about what assumptions it does.

--tml (the guy who did the Evolution port to Windows)

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[tml]

X server? What drugs are you taking?

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[giorgiofr]

I'm taking Serious Sam II - oh you meant chemicals, my bad :D Seriously though, I tossed it away so I can't corroborate, but I seem to recall some xwin.exe binary and some other things that led me to believe X was running. Then again it uses GTK so it shouldn't need an X server... Oh teh mystery!

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[Tim Browse]

Apperently, several references to C:\program files\ where hardcoded. (It's C:\Programme\ in a German XP

Well, even in English, it can be something like F:\Program Files\ - drive C: doesn't even have to be present.

and yes, there are lot's of variables for accessing this. Luckily, Vista will fix this mess.)

Which mess will Vista fix, exactly? And how?

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole I18N mess.
The User Profile directory will always be C:\Users, with junctions pointing from C:\Documents and Settings and C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen (if you're using the German MUI Pack) to that folder.
Same goes for C:\Program Files\.
I still prefer the OS X Approach to this Problem (Filesystem ONLY has English names, Metadata tells Applications to Display another Name), but the Vista Solution is MUCH better than what we had in 2k and XP.

Cant Sync

[badriram]

I cannot sync gcal to my blackberry, I cannot access it in any form through my mobile. It clearly is not standards based (xmlhttprequest), so it does not work in any browser, it works in IE, newer firefox releases, and I think now safari(?) as well.

Considering I need to buy into the whole google calendar, with gtalk to get reminders, it just is not worthwhile compared to a real PIM manager aka Outlook or Evolution.

YMMV. BOCTAOE.

Re:Cant Sync

[accessdeniednsp]

You don't need GTalk for reminders. It can send SMS to your mobile. It can also send you e-mail reminders. It also sends you a daily digest at 5am for your upcoming day.

You should really check it out again. It's improved even more since Day 0.

Re:Cant Sync

[Anonymous Coward]

CompanionLink makes software that will sync gcal to your blackberry. http://www.companionlink.com/clgoogle.html

Re:Cant Sync

[zsau]

"Your Milage May Vary. Brains Often Come Together After Omission of Errors"?

Re:Cant Sync

[badriram]

I do like yours, but BOCTAOE = But ofcourse there are obvious exceptions

Re:Cant Sync

[Iaughter]

You don't need GTalk for reminders. It can send SMS to your mobile. It can also send you e-mail reminders. It also sends you a daily digest at 5am for your upcoming day.

Also, you can export subscribe to your own .ics files that include reminders. I've got all of my machines (home, work, laptop) pulling my google calendar ics file with reminders and everything, as well as getting SMS messages for important stuff all from my centralized google calendar, all for free.

If exchange worked this well across my different platforms, I'd use it.

looks the same as outlook

[Anonymous Coward]

bottom line: most business owners are not going to go after some clone like outlook. You need to come up with something original and innovative if you want to succeed.

Opens up some doors

[tcopeland]

Now to port my Ruby extension that lets you read/write from the Evolution data store. I wrote that extension to support indi, and so it hasn't been useful so far since Adobe hasn't released a Flash 8 plugin for Linux. But now it can be used with the Windows version of Evolution... good times!

GUI look

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not familiar with cross-platform applications, so I hope someone will enlighten me...

Why does Evolution's GUI stand out as much? It doesn't look like a Windows application - the colours are wrong, for one, the toolbar delimiters are non-standard, the up-down widget as well, the checkbox is non-checkboxey, the icons are bland, and there are lots of buttons around.

Is it a GUI toolkit limitation, or...? I mean, no offense, I hear only good things about Evolution from my Linux-using friends, but this wouldn't even blend in Windows 95. I honestly can't see people using it, despite all the bells and whistles it may have.

Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

Re:GUI look

[ASkGNet]

Evolution uses GTK2 library, like the rest of Gnome-based apps
That's just GTK2 with look-n-feel theme installed, that's not using base widgets. Nothing prevents you from using the wimp theme, which uses Windows' native widgets.

On the other hand, Thunderbird doesn't have to look like Windows either - it all depends on your skin. The default styling though, uses Windows services to draw the widgets as well, or at least some of them.

Re:GUI look

[dtfinch]

That's GTK2, with the default, ugly theme. It supports other themes, but it's been a while since I've installed one by hand. I bet it'll change before there's an official release.

Evolution wasn't an easy port by the looks of it. There were lots and lots of Gnome dependencies that had to be ported to win32 before they could even think about porting Evolution. It really wasn't made to run on anything but Gnome on Linux/Unix, but there's been a lot of demand, and the Evolution porting effort will open the door for porting other GTK2/Gnome applications to Windows.

Thunderbird looks like a native Windows application because they gave it a theme that looked like Windows. In reality it's all XUL, rendered by the same Gecko engine that renders the web pages in Firefox.

Re:GUI look

[MadMirko]

Why does Evolution's GUI stand out as much? It doesn't look like a Windows application - the colours are wrong, for one, the toolbar delimiters are non-standard, the up-down widget as well, the checkbox is non-checkboxey, the icons are bland, and there are lots of buttons around.

Is it a GUI toolkit limitation, or...? I mean, no offense, I hear only good things about Evolution from my Linux-using friends, but this wouldn't even blend in Windows 95. I honestly can't see people using it, despite all the bells and whistles it may have.

Erm, mods? AC asks a valid question. UI is a major component in an application that you would use your whole work day long. Ergonomics are not just an add on, and a standardized UI is key to user acceptance!

Re:GUI look

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I understand now. Thank you very much :)

It must have been a lot of work porting Evolution to Windows. I can't grasp the effort required. Kudos to everyone who worked on this - I'm sure look & feel will arrive soon, and all the hard work will pay off when people start using Evolution for Windows more. The developers deserve it.

Re:GUI look

[tml]

The ms-windows ("wimp") theme engine certainly does *not* use "native" widgets. That would be quite impossible for a GTK+ theme engine. It just draws the normal GTK widgets in a way that makes them look more like "native" widgets.

Re:GUI look

[rduke15]

Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

Because it uses these childish mushy icons?

Re:GUI look

[Anonymous Coward]

GTK (Which evolution uses) has got a windows-like theme. In the screenshots it's not using it.
Programs like GAIM use gtk and the gtk-wimp theme and look quite close (the theme isn't perfect).
Basically it's a theming thing, also Evolution isn't widely used on windows yet so these things need ironing out.

Re:GUI look

[julesh]

Why does Evolution's GUI stand out as much? It doesn't look like a Windows application - the colours are wrong, for one, the toolbar delimiters are non-standard, the up-down widget as well, the checkbox is non-checkboxey, the icons are bland, and there are lots of buttons around.

Because it's a GTK application, and GTK doesn't use native widgets. As others have suggested, you can install a theme to avoid this issue, but it won't fix a few other sticking points that I've had with other GTK apps:

* Non-standard button placement, with cancel on the left and OK on the right (yes, I'm well aware of Apple's research in this area, but it's generally acknowledged that consistency is more important and all other Windows apps do it the other way around)
* Bizarre, hard-to-use open file dialog box which doesn't let you type in file names and doesn't recognise shortcuts (so if you double-click on one it tries to open the shortcut file, rather than the file it points to)
* Bizarre, hard-to-use save file dialog box which doesn't show a list of files already present in the directory
* Placement of application files in a nonstandard place (directly in a subdirectory of the user profile directory, rather than in the Local Settings or Application Data subdirectories) which can screw up the use of roaming profiles

If GTK people want to claim that they support windows, they're going to have to do better IMO. It's just like all the projects that claim to support MacOSX but don't properly integrate with the system. We might as well be running it on a Linux box if it isn't going to work right with the rest of the system.

Re:GUI look

[baadger]

Yep, change your XP theme to something non-standard and it's a dead give away

Re:GUI look

[tml]

Well, in that case it's a bug in the ms-windows theme engine, and you should open a bug report on bugzilla.gnome.org. The wimp developer is quite responsive. As far as I know, the ms-windows theme engine tries to follow the XP theme's settings as closely as possible. But then, I am no theme freak myself (heck, I have middle gret as my desktop colour;), and I don't know how well it can do that if you use some really outlandish XP theme...

Re:GUI look

[Nailer]

As others have mentioned, there's no reason that it should look like this by default.

The package for Windows should use GTK WIMP. Here's what GTK WIMP apps look like:

http://gtk-wimp.sourceforge.net/screenshots/

Re:GUI look

[Sithgunner]

Wow geez... why do they even use GTK 1 for this?
This GUI is GTK, which is used by GIMP and GAIM and other cross platform applications, but they all got GTK 2, which does blend in Windows theme decent enough.

But this... is like Linux before year 2000. Ugly gray theme... I hope they just released to show off that it actually now runs on Windows...
Maybe wait a few years to get this actually start to get usable.

Btw in Linux, Evolution has a GTK 2 GUI, which is the whole GNOME desktop environment GTK that matches with any other applications, so at least on Linux it does look nice.

Re:GUI look

[Sithgunner]

like these...

http://www.tuxs.org/evolution.png
http://www.tectonic.co.za/graphics/evolution.png
rest...

Re:GUI look

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, purty!

(I'm the clueless AC who started this thread branch.)

Re:GUI look

[Sithgunner]

if you install it, you see it's actually the gray theme not just the screenshot...
too bad they tried to give bad impression to some average people to put them away fast.

Re:GUI look

[Sithgunner]

when a windowed mode of FreeNX is just as fast as running natively...it quite is the choice than using a 'we-barely-ported-now' thing.

Further impressions after download

[millisa]

Ok, so I've downloaded it. I'm in the middle of the setup and it seems to be real easy. My mom could handle this, assuming she knew her username and such.

When I select 'Microsfot Exchange' as the server type, it asks for my username and the OWA URL (mom is now somewhat confused, but with a little nudge that OWA means webmail, she's able to keep going) . . . It doesn't talk directly to the exchange server but uses the web access interface? It defaults to http:/// . . . a windows admin that doesn't at least put a self signed cert on your corporate mail is a particularly bad windows admin (I know, most slashdotters have low opinions already). When I attempted to use my OWA server over https (which is verified up and working) I immediately get a 'Could not connect to server'. Joe User has now decided that this really isn't an outlook replacement and has now uninstalled the app... There is no help button, F1 does nothing and when I look on evolutions site to actually find the 2.6 manual, it's a 404.

Since I'm not a Joe User, I'm going to keep poking around to see why it immediately says 'no' when connecting (the connection message comes up immediately while my owa site usually takes a solid 2 seconds to load... makes me think its not even trying). I'm disappointed at the moment.

Re:Further impressions after download

[zerblat]

Joe User has now decided that this really isn't an outlook replacement

Someone needs to tell Joe User not to expect an unofficial build of software that isn't even alpha to be able to replace anything. Joe User should wait until Novell actually releases a finished version.

Re:Further impressions after download

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo Mamma so dumb that she tried to connect to the company's Exchange server instead of calling the help desk.

About time.

[ShyGuy91284]

I liked this application as an Outlook replacement in Linux, and has been the only "free" software I've seen that comes close to the features of Outlook and the functionality with Exchange servers (I forget if Evolution has it's own groupware server software). Might fare well on Windows if they can get compatibility good and improve configuration (I remember it being a pain in the ass to get working right with Exchange due to differences in how Outlook and it handles the data needed to connect).

How long 'til MS tries to outlaw using it?

[Opportunist]

Technically, or rather legally, it could be tied into the terms of use for the Exchange server that you must not access it with anything but Outlook. Yes, this is yet another antitrust case begging to be filed, but I guess it would be enforcable.

Which I believe was the original point

[millisa]

Exactly, claiming this is an 'outlook replacement' is just not true, yet. Could this replace outlook express using pop/imap? I have very little doubt about it. Could it replace outlook for the savvy OSS user? If they don't need some features, probably.

I must not be that savvy today, after 10 minutes of searching, I still don't have an answer as to why I am unable to connect to a 2003 exchange server. I've found a few references to people having issues with the connector missing, but this doesn't appear to be the case here since I do get the drop down option. I've been watching evolution since ximian did their connector (and back then I decided I wasn't interested in paying for it) and hadn't checked it out since novell took it GPL. Today was my first re-peak at Evolution since pre 2.x.

I'm content to wait and keep watching. Most my users are firefox advocates now, the OE users are on Thunderbird, GAIM is a godsend . . . I'll happily agree with the articles re-claim that its an outlook replacement when it really is true.

Re:Which I believe was the original point

[zerblat]

Could this replace outlook express using pop/imap? I have very little doubt about it.

I disagree. The Windows port isn't finished yet. It's still pre-alpha software and shouldn't be used by normal users, no matter what their needs are. If you're interested in participating in the development or if you're just curious to see how far they've come, by all means, try it out. However, don't be surprised when you encounter bugs, unfinished stuff or (gasp) lack of polish.

Re:Which I believe was the original point

[buchanmilne]

I must not be that savvy today, after 10 minutes of searching, I still don't have an answer as to why I am unable to connect to a 2003 exchange server.

It works under Linux. The fact that it does not work under Windows may be due to this being an alpha build.

There are *some* Exchange/Outlook features which aren't available under Evolution (I haven't managed to accept a task request, or the document "Voting" buttons that apparently appear under Outlook don't have any effect in Evolution), but it *can* replace Outlook for most daily work.

And, if users on Windows really need to use an MS client ... the OWA interface is essentially outlook under Windows (but is painful on Linux/Firefox).

click here

[gentimjs]

www.scalix.com

Re:Yeah, but Mac users have iCal...

[Pink Tinkletini]

Actually, Google Calendar does work in Safari. Though as you say, I'm not sure why you'd use it over iCal.

Ha!

[Jugalator]

Of course it's GPL, so have fun and spread it around!

Ha, just to piss of those open source zealots once and for all like no man has done before, I'm going to finally put my evil plan into effect and send some shivers through the OSS community by downloading this sucker and keep it all to myself ! How about that!

Ahhhh.....

[segedunum]

The joy and aesthetics of GTK on Windows......

Re:Ahhhh.....

[Slapo]

Depends on the theme you choose, you know :)

Thank you, markybob and Timothy!

[JonTurner]

Finally, a /. post that announces an upgrade/release/patch and **explains what that software is**. Now, Evolution is a pretty popular package, but it's not uncommon that I see an announcement that some obscure (to me) component has been patched and I have to follow the link just to learn what the hell the software does.

Thanks!

Not quite what it was hyped to be

[ClayDowling]

I downloaded and installed. Checked the md5 checksums out of a sense of paranoia. The application that was installed was essentially crap. Once I resolved the path issues, the program started without errors, but even after a couple of hours there's no actual window on my screen from this. I was also thoroughly unimpressed by the fact that it by default wants to start an X server on my windows machine. My thought here is that the Evolution developers might want to consider bringing an actual experienced Windows developer onto their team. This app does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that open source apps are ready for prime time. It reinforces stereotypes about shoddy software and a lack of understanding about real world business needs. My recommendation: the Evolution team mothballs this port until they can use an interface toolkit that looks native, and they understand the issues surrounding Windows application deployment. Evolution is a good solid application on Linux, but the Windows port was sorely disappointing.

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmph, I seem to be running into the same problem here. Evolution shows up as a process in task manager but that's all she wrote. I'll try jumping through a few more hoops to get this going, but I'm not seeing any error messages when I try to launch from the cmd line.

Go Oilers!

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[tml]

Actually it's you that reinforce the prototype of Slashdot commenters ;)

If you would have investigate more thoroughly what's happening, you would have noticed that the guy who released this installer and the wrapper executable (which apparently some people mistake for an X server, huh, how clueless can one be?), and posted to Slashdot, had nothing to do with the actual porting work that went on mostly during last year (by me). Announcing his installer on Slashdot was a bit premature in my opinion.

And yes, I do consider myself a pretty experienced Windows developer, although my experience is with porting software from Unix (GLib, GTK+, GIMP, Pango, GNOME platform libraries), not with writing code against Microsoft's proprietary toolkits.

--tml

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[Pecisk]

Let's call you a troll, right? It is still in ALFA level, it is nor finished, nor polished, nor supported.

Damn, people sometimes have hard time to understand it.

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[ClayDowling]

which apparently some people mistake for an X server, huh, how clueless can one be?

When that wrapper executable is named "StartX.exe", which is pretty similar to the X initialization script on my three unix machines, I'm prone to thinking that it's probably an X server. Since no source was provided, and none of the apps appeared to do anything, it was rather difficult to determine what it was. Therefor, much like I would expect firefox.exe to start a web browser instead of a word processor, I assume by the one piece of evidence that I do have that the file will launch an X server. Should I then also assume that evolution-2.6.exe is something different, such as a C++ compiler? If so, that could be the root of my problem, since I had been under the impression that it was a well-respected email client.

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[ClayDowling]

Could you please point out where in the article or on the web site where this is marked as Alpha? It has a version number of 2.6.2, which is way past the alpha stage. Nothing I could find in the article or on the web site indicated an alpha status. Given the advanced release number and the lack of an alpha indication, I had high hopes of finding a Windows app that worked as well as it does on UNIX. Other ports such as The Gimp, Scribus and OpenOffice have conditioned me to expect such things.

I sincerely hope that the port effort does get some steam behind it and produces something really polished and solid. I don't like Outlook, but I would like some of the features like the calendar. Evolution on Win32 would solve that problem for me. Switching to UNIX isn't an option either, since I'm a windows application developer by day. So a solid, working Evolution port is my best hope.

Here's to hoping that the Evolution team gets a successful port out!

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be

[kelnos]

Or you could have googled "startx.exe", and the first link would tell you what it is. We all know what they say about what happens when you assume things. And why would you try to apply Unix/Linux knowledge to Windows, anyway?

Re:Of course, being from GNOME heritage....

[sp0rk173]

Hey, at least they didn't use QT, the actual ugliest tool kit known to man kind.

Beware of software incompatibilities

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have Intelligent Design for Windows on your machine, you have to uninstall it first.

Thunderbird replacement?

[edmicman]

Is this a viable replacement for Thunderbird for single user home use? I use Thunderbird with IMAP for my email, but it would be nice to have more robust PIM and calendaring features. I've tried Thunderbird with it's calendar and it's still not integrated enough. Does Evolution handle IMAP well? Seems like I remember Outlook not doing it so well. What about newsgroups or RSS feeds? Are there plugin options or enhancements?

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[accessdeniednsp]

feh. It's Google. They can Do No Evil. Besides, they're gonna take over the world, and I'm OK with that.

It won't work

[Meister]

I mean, I see what they're trying to do. Now that Evolution has matured after years on the Linux desktop, the developers think it's ready to take on the Windows world. The problem is, the typical Windows box already *has* several crash-prone memory and CPU eating viruses, like Outlook, Office and IE. It'll be a long time until Evolution can compete with the resource hungry appetites of current Windows software. In the meantime, we'll have to be content with it only eating excessive amounts of CPU and memory on Linux boxes and satisfy ourselves with the global, albeit much smaller, groan of Evolution users worldwide as their favorite mail/calendar/VM stress test/TDP pusher crashes yet again.

OpenOffice, OTOH, is quite ready to compete with the likes of MS Office for the office suite bloatware crown.

They should just fix it on Linux

[vtrac]

First of all I'd like to thank the evolution team for making evolution work with Exchange over OWA. It's certainly much better than using OWA through a non-IE browser, which looks like complete ass and is stripped of lots of features. It allows me to stick to my linux desktop full time and still access all the corporate stuff. That said, Evolution is the most unstable bit of open-source software that I've ever had the displeasure of using. At least 3-4 times a day, I have to forcibly kill it, kill all of its PIDS, and then restart it. It just decides to lock up every once and a while, trying to sync with the OWA server. I've never used it for anything other than getting my exchange email, since I use gmail for my personal account. Outlook is bloated and slow as hell, but I'd still bet it's better than Evolution on Windows.

Missing Redistributable dll

[Zane Hopkins]

Downloaded the linked version, and tried running it, on a clean XP SP2 box, and got a "missing MSVCR71.DLL" error - seems he's linked it to a VC 2003 runtime dll, but not shoved it into the installer. Grabbed a copy from a .NET 1.1 redistributable ( system32\URTTemp folder ). Running the "step2.cmd" batchfile, rather than the "evolution.cmd" batch file seems to work better.

Not a great start, but the webdav shared calendar support seems quite a bit faster than sunbird, so that's got to be a step in the right direction.

Re:Missing Redistributable dll

[Anonymous Coward]

Tried, this but was getting the error message "The procedure entry point g_assert_warning could not be located in the dynamic link library libglib-2.0-0.dll" (I never did get the error message the parent mentioned). Well... a little google searching later I found Glade/GTK+ for Win32 (http://gladewin32.sourceforge.net/modules/news/) and installing it (and removing the libglib-2.0-0.dll that came with Evolution) seems to have solved the problem.

Lotus Notes?

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it work with Lotus Notes?

That is an Outlook killer?

[duplicate-nickname]

LOL

That interface looks like something out of Eudora circa 1995. No wonder why people don't take Linux on the desktop seriously.

Re:That is an Outlook killer?

[Sithgunner]

too bad they came up with a 5 years old GTK 1 toolkit for some bizzare reason.
but on linux, they do look fancy enough... if u do give a search on google image with 'evolution linux'

but then again, someone pointed out the features aren't good enough to replace outlook anyway...
so everybody needs to sit tight a few more years till this gets back on news again.

Palm Sync?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it sync to the Palm? Any plans to port the gnome pilot utils as well?

Too bad it doesn't work.

[JWSmythe]

Too bad it doesn't work.

    I saw the article, and got anxious. I told my girlfriend that she can now use the same program that I use for mail. She was anxious too. She has problems with Outlook on occasion, just as any other Outlook user does.

    The install went flawlessly, but now Evolution won't start. Her machine is a fairly plain WinXP box, kept up to date fairly regularly (i.e., every night as scheduled)

    Too bad it doesn't just work. I'm trying to figure out what it's delima is, but it doesn't make it look like a good thing for an end user. Most people would stop when it doesn't work. I definately can't tell the Windows users "Go download this!", because there may be a number of steps which they may need to do, that are beyond their abilities.

Re:Too bad it doesn't work.

[Zane Hopkins]

Try running the step2.cmd rather than the evolution.cmd , and you should get a meaningful error message.

Re:Too bad it doesn't work.

[JWSmythe]

    Nope, it hung on the "This will take a while" message.

    I left it up for hours. Like, from just after I posted the last message until about 20 minutes ago. I tried to fire it up again, and still nothing interesting.

Doesn't give me much confidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading this thread on evo-win32-devel mailing list I suspect novell is not investing resources to this project, and given that most of the evolution programmers work for novell, it's not a good idea to use it on production environements.

You're absolutely right...

[Colin Smith]

They should be developing something like egroupware instead.

Honestly, why try to copy Outlook when something like eGroupWare does more of what a small business wants in a dead easy to set up, manage and use system that scales to hundreds or thousands of users. And... no Outlook required.

Re:You're absolutely right...

[rabbit994]

Egroupware needs a fat client for Win32 before it can truly be adopted. I like Egroupware but it's not as fast as compared to client on desktop when it comes to mail and calendaring.

Re:You're absolutely right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Egroupware is crap though. The user interface is a mess and the mail client is pathetic. I'm sorry but it just isn't a nice smooth groupware app. It's like groupwise circa 1997 but more clunky and with less features. I've been following this project for years now hoping it would turn out well but it just hasn't. At this very moment I have a place which is using SBS but NOT using any of its features. I've been racking my brain looking for OSS groupware suites to replace SBS(again they don't even use 1% of its features), but they are all pretty shitty. How many more hyped and then abandoned OSS groupware suites are we going to see before we get something decent that will be around long term?

Yes, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

... does it run on Linux?

For Mac users

[uptoeleven]

it will run in Darwin...

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new calendar keeping overlords.

I fixed it

[wap911]

1) download VMware Server [http://www.vmware.com] 2) register to get serial number 3) install VMware 4) download favorite Linux Distro ISO 5) burn ISO 6) put CD in tray 7) Start VMware and Create New VM 8) start VM to install Linux 9) if distro does not already have Evolution then install it 10) PROFIT............

Re:I fixed it

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning the ISO to a CD is a waste of time and a CD since VMware can just mount the image.

Unfortunately its not :(

[cloricus]

We have been using Evolution on our linux workstations and early win32 builds on the windows boxes for a rather long time. There are two huge problems that just make integration onto a network using Exchange servers pointless and annoying: first is it looks crap, not the program but the folder listing, if any one is expected to ever use it it needs to clone Outlook in the way the folders are displayed and the current 'it's close enough, it's good enough' just doesn't cut it in an environment filled with users who only know Outlook. Secondly administrators hate Outlook as you cannot add many mailboxes to the one account like you can in Outlook. Now I use Evolution at home and at work and I love it but until those two Exchange interoperation problems are fixed it will never gain mainstream adoption. Note that if they are fixed it has so many features over Outlook I think people will have trouble not looking at it.

Re:Unfortunately its not :(

[andersbergh]

if any one is expected to ever use it it needs to clone Outlook in the way the folders are displayed and the current 'it's close enough, it's good enough' just doesn't cut it in an environment filled with users who only know Outlook

Employees will use whatever they are given.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[myowntrueself]

Oh come on now, if you arn't doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide from Google? ;)

GTK in windows

[TouchOfRed]

Who honestly has a real reason to install and use the gtk on windows? It looks god awful, is slow as molasses, and takes up a shitload of memory. This looks like one of those solving a problem that didnt need solving situations.

Bug....

[TrancePhreak]

Did anybody else notice the bug in the screenshot? The times for the meeting don't have the hours. Kinda silly.

Re:Bug....

[tml]

There are known bugs related to time formatting. See for instance http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=343686 and http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336253.

SOUNDS REALLY EASY!

[Mancat]

If it's just that simple, why hasn't it been done yet?

Re:SOUNDS REALLY EASY!

[smbarbour]

My guess would be that it really isn't worth the effort. Why throw something together to behave like Exchange when the equivalent or better functionality already exist via a suite of products. Outlook can just as easily access SMTP/POP3/IMAP servers as it does Exchange servers.

Should one make a clone of a mousetrap or make a better mousetrap?

What's the point, without Exchange?

[Allador]

This just seems so silly.

Outlook is only a shell of an app without Exchange.

But if you own Exchange you automatically own Outlook for all your licensed users (ie, included in the price of the CALs).

So the only market for this is people who want an Outlook-like application, but are using it in a workgroup environment, without Exchange.

Seems like a niche. If you want the full power, you use Exchange & Sharepoint with office. But if you have Exchange, you already own Outlook. And if you own outlook, why would you use Evolution?

I am going to be a bit blunt...

[TheNetAvenger]

I am going to be a bit blunt...

I keep thinking this and for some reason feel the need to finally say it.

Why does 99% of Open Source software look like bad Win95 applications?

I know geeks don't like 'eye candy' but this is getting to the point where even geeks need to embrace images, high color icons and colorful design.

Geeks also need to embrace 'usability' as most products are written as us 'techie' types would be comfortable with, but that is NOT the mass of people using computers. And I don't mean 'copying' MS's usability from 1997 either, I mean real world current usability expectations.

The open source world CAN do so much better than this...

(I know this may not seem like a positive post, but hopefully someone will find it constructive and we will start to see applications that look like they were made in this century.)

Re:I am going to be a bit blunt...

[tml]

> The open source world CAN do so much better than this...

And your contribution is...?

Re:I am going to be a bit blunt...

[TheNetAvenger]

And your contribution is...?

If I told ya, I would have to send penguins to your house to eat your goldfish... :)

A simpler Outlook would be better with less bugs

[jesterzog]

Outlook 97 would do just fine for me and probably 98% of the world.

I'd quite happily go with a slightly simpler edition of Outlook if it'd do away with the bugs. We have to support Outlook in a small/medium (400 users) organisation, and it's frequently having problems, crashing, and just doing weird unexplained things.

To top it off, trying to write plugins for Outlook is awful. It's littered with annoying API bugs. To be fair, however, Microsoft's lack of clear Outlook API documentation in favour of documentation-by-example means that it's hard to distinguish between what's a bug and what is simply bad and nonsensical design.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[Don_dumb]

if you arn't doing anything wrong, what have you got to hide from Google?

Well for us - National security - the opposite of personal privacy in that whenever the nation is in 'danger' it gets protected more not less.

At least the uninstaller worked

[blackpaw]

And thank god for that, what a piece of shit.

GTK. my god get rid of it.

[Einherjer]

Ah. Another wonderful display of the abomination that is called GTK. I don't know who is responsible for this piece of graphics-toolkit but I do hope they go learn from Microsoft, Trolltech and Apple for future versions.

Re:Of course, being from GNOME heritage....

[Zoolander]

It's funny because it's true... :)
Gnome: a solution to a problem noone has. Everyone who has gotten sick of Gnome and KDE: try Xfce 4! You won't regret it. Just the right mix of integration and minimalism.

Fry: "So they finally jazzed it up..."

[mshurpik]

I used Linux a lot from 1995-2002 and I was never able to find an email client that made me happy (vs Eudora). Considering how simple the email protocol is, and how it got started on unix, I was always surprised that unix had no decent front-end for email, and a lot of subtle incompatibilities between the ones they had. The default mail command was arcane, sendmail took some work, PINE was for dialup users, various GUIs (XMH for example) primitive. The closest I got was Netscape, but it was buggy and slow.

Then Eudora wiped 4 years of email archives and I became a godless heretic.

not good enough, gui-wise

[mcn]

It doesn't look like a typical Windows XP application. It's worse than a Windows 95 app. I think Novell needs to polish up on the interface, besides the functions, which I think is lacking too, compared to the real thing (I installed, played around abit, and uninstalled). Nothing is customizable. Can't change the size of buttons, can't drag the toolbar, etc...

Re:not good enough, gui-wise

[Synic]

I think quite a few of these problems are either due to Gtk 2 on Windows not being very supported or the original on *nix not having these features, so you can't lay all of it at Novell's feet. It would be nice though if they added these sorts of things to Gtk 2, since I think only the Gnome team is actively pushing the GUI feature set.