Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Evolution installer for Win32 Released

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the reach-the-singularity-faster dept.

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."

58 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by mnemonic_ · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Finally by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Finally by filesiteguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...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.

      --
      The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
    3. Re:Finally by Eideewt · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

    4. Re:Finally by jsight · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?
      --
      Throw the bums out!
    5. Re:Finally by jamesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 :)

    6. Re:Finally by horacerumpole · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

  2. CALs? by RingDev · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:CALs? by blowdart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:CALs? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
    3. Re:CALs? by ocbwilg · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:CALs? by CerebusUS · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:CALs? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  3. Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? by edremy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ba bum bump tish

    --
    "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    1. Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? by chris_eineke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your drummer's license please...

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    2. Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? by edremy · · Score: 3, Funny
      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.)

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  4. Great! by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Not gonna beat Google Calendar by Skynet · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    --
    Execute? [Y/N] _
    1. Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. More is better by rocjoe71 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
  7. Black Marks by smvp6459 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

  8. It still doesn't replace outlook... by millisa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... by thebdj · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    2. Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... by ocbwilg · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... by arodland · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    4. Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... by jrumney · · Score: 2, Informative
      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?

    5. Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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?

      --
      evil is as evil does
  9. Spam filtering by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Spam filtering by ForumTroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
  10. Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really? by bbernard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ----- Connection reset by beer
  11. Does it work with Kolab2 yet? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  12. A cancer... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course it's GPL

    So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  13. Excellent for desktop migrations... by IpSo_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Open Source Time and Attendance, Job Costing a
    1. Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... by lukas84 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  14. Cant Sync by badriram · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Cant Sync by accessdeniednsp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  15. GUI look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:GUI look by ASkGNet · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:GUI look by dtfinch · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:GUI look by tml · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:GUI look by rduke15 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

      Because it uses these childish mushy icons?

    5. Re:GUI look by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  16. Re:Further impressions after download by zerblat · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
  17. Which I believe was the original point by millisa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Which I believe was the original point by zerblat · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Please alter my pants as fashion dictates.
  18. Re:That's great! by smbarbour · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  19. Ha! by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny
    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!
    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  20. Re:That's great! by purplebear · · Score: 2, Informative

    zimbra

    and/or

    postpath

    are worth looking at.

  21. Not quite what it was hyped to be by ClayDowling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
    1. Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be by tml · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

  22. Beware of software incompatibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  23. Missing Redistributable dll by Zane+Hopkins · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  24. That is an Outlook killer? by duplicate-nickname · · Score: 4, Insightful

    LOL

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

    --

    ÕÕ

  25. Too bad it doesn't work. by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    1. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by Zane+Hopkins · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Too bad it doesn't work. by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting


          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.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  26. Unfortunately its not :( by cloricus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I ate your fish.
  27. I am going to be a bit blunt... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)