2) I see no evidence that Evo or Kontact let you group your folder items by from/date/sender/subject/etc.
Ever heard of threading? Much more useful for tracking email discussions. Need to sort by sender? Just keep threading and click on 'From'...
3) Can you automatically format items based on rules? What if I want emails from my boss to show up in red?
Rules on incoming e-mail pre-date Outlook by many years... specially if you add reliability to the equation.
4) Is there a rules manager so I can also automatically do things with incoming emails? Delete them, send a reply, file in a folder, etc?
On evolution and if you're on a GNU/Linux box, you'll most likely have procmail, which can do many much more powerfull things with incoming email, even before they get to evolution.
6) I'm sure Kontact has HTML email editing, I just don't see the toolbar buttons.
This feature (html email) should just die die die...
7) Contacts don't appear to let you add your own fields (corporate users love this!). Nor do I see a gigantic Notes field or support for Journaling.
More fields? Ok, custom fields could b useful, but what the heck? How do you keep that straight with other people when you send vcf files?
9) It does not look like you can assign colorful labels to your Calendar events. This feature is priceless!
You can do that with multiple calendars.
11) Can you schedule appointments with other users at all? If you can, I don't see the field to do it, and I certainly don't see how you can see their schedule.
Yes you can schedule, by sending standard vcal (or is it iCal?) files.
12) The implementation of Recurrening Appointments on Evo would drive business people insane.
All it lacks would seem to be guessing without user input.
13) It doesn't look like Evo has enough fields to support a proper ToDo list. I don't even see a Due Date field.
As you noted, screenshots can't follow every single feature...
Maybe these things are not missing, but I couldn't see them from the screenshots.
The package systems are halfway there, you can find programs to install eaisly enough.
The package systems? I mean what package system do you get bundle with Microsoft Windows that allows you to do almost anything your hardware can handle?
Any popular GNU/Linux distribution has a package system and thousands of available packages.
Maybe it halfway there to ideal status, but that's halfway there ahead of any other commonly used proprietary desktop system.
Well, then we're not communicating. I'm say it is unacceptable. 99.99% of the time inside a car... you're driving. If it happens on the 0.01% you're not driving, what's keeping it from happening in the other 99.99%?
If it does that while NOT DRIVING, what's to tell you it won't happen while DRIVING? You make no logic. What good is a car if not for going to some place (aka DRIVING)?
What if you just like to use what you regard as the best and most economical tool for the job?
Because on the job you need to sistematically analyse whther your company has:
* The freedom to work (no expiring licenses, etc...)
* The freedom to grow (just copy this software to any employee, no extra cost to grow but the hardware)
* Vendor independence (if you can hire someone to study and adapt software to your needs, or do it yourself!)
* Maintenance cost dillution (if you distribute the cost of maintaining some software with the rest of the community, there's less chances the software will loose support and maintenance on the long run)
Well, that may happen over there, but in latin countries we have a word for it: Livre (or Libre, or whatever the slight variation). Software Livre. It works well, and it always boils down to how you present it.
The main problem I see is neither wether you call it "Open Source" or Software Livre. Its neither that they inconsiously accept Microsoft's "Shared Source" as being "Open Source". And its neither wether it has support or not. The community's support together with a knowledgeable and non-lazy worker works far better than the proprietary software, and we're (yet slower than I'd like) starting to understand how things usually do work when we use Software Livre and they usually have problems when you use proprietary software with all the bells and whistles of support
If you have a critical business that needs to be running in the mathmatical limit of 100%, who cares if you have support but your service has a couple of hours of downtime?
Many incompetent managers love the blame game, they love to throw the responsability to the supplier. But ultimately, it was their choice to use that supplier, so I see no solid basis to justify the blame game.
For me, freedom is important. A business needs the 0. freedom to work unfethered by expiring licenses or licenses that restrict what they can do, a business needs 1. to have vendor independence if it wants to have the best support at any given moment, it needs 2. to be able to grow freely, just by copying a worker's computer to the new guy, for instance, and finally, it 3. needs to reduce maintenance costs by cooperating with the community on what regards to software support.
I now present Software Livre this way, and the arguments are much more solid than those of "Open Source".
Oh, and although some have the idea that "open sourcers" would sell their grannies for money, I don't really buy that.
The industry lobby's definition of stealing does "semantically parse", it's just different from yours.
It only semantically parses if you intentionally want it to. Otherwise, you've just fallen into their lies. You're eating poison without questioning.
Regardless of your software ideals, stealing software is wrong, and it's certainly within Microsoft's rights to restrict premium content to genuinely licensed copies of Windows.
I'm confused. How do you steal software? Do you throw your hands around the bits, remove them from Microsoft and hold them tight and hidden into your pockets or a safe?
Or are you simply making an unauthorized copy?? Regardless of your software ideals, you don't steal software unless you actually remove all copies from the copyright owner and everyone's licensed copy.
You're making a copyright infringement, not theft. Sometimes I think those guys at BSA/RIAA/MPAA should go back to English 101 or just buy a dictionary.
Or are they try trying to fool you into thinking of wrong english that doesn't semantically parse by saying you "steal" immaterial goods?
Yeah, paranoia is fun and all, but I wouldn't mind a few links to support the downsides claim.
You'ld think IBM would know better than to associate the word "Trust" with "Technology". That combination is like a buzzword for suspicion to the Tech-wise.
When MySQL AB speaks "Commercial" they really mean proprietary.
This confusion is being laid down on MySQL AB themselves for not following wise advice from the FSF.
So put aside MySQL AB's stubborn remarks and read this:
Of course you can make a Commercial program linked with the GNU GPL. You can make Free Software and charge for 1st sale copies. What you can't is turn a GPL'ed software into a non-GPL'ed program.
But you can still make lots of businesses with it!
Come to think of it, many don't follow FSF's advices and call them fanatics or worse things. The funny thing is, they never force nothing upon you, they simply advise you, give you an example, and criticize you when you go "yay proprietary".
Maybe you should read more of what's on their site instead of relying on what your friend or idol says.
which clearly
states that Novell agrees to grant back to the
developer all the rights over the code that they
contributed.
If one reads the contract instead of believing you, they learn that is only true if all you want is to receive the software you yourself wrote as GPL'ed.
The projects uses the GPL as way to lure developers, and then it can turn GPL'ed software into proprietary.
How can they do it legally?
By acquiring all exclusive rights to the source code. That innocent contract you just signed...
It won't happen by itself. The EU is approving a Constitution that codifies this undemocratic situation. You have to fight it or it will happen, instead of disappearing in my lifetime.
You can't read the working documents or know who is in the working groups because "the citizin does not have the legitimate right to know" -- this was in a reply to a letter a short time ago.
Very democratic indid.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
Bzzt! You're All Wrong!
Red Hat is making support contracts where you agree to waive certain rights for the duration of the support contract in exchange for some things they will only provide through Red Hat Network.
Most of the software they include is covered eitherby the GPL or the Lesser GPL. That way they can't make distribution restrictions. What they can is charge for their service, which is to provide you with timely updates, and such. Tough luck. I'm looking more and more into WhiteBox...
Paul Meller's articles at IDG have constantly been in favour of Big Business' interests.
Software Patents, EUCD, IPRED, etc... Paul's a constant and conscient carrier of misinformation (it's certainly not innocent since he's been contacted by a lot of people trying to inform him better).
For instance, about IPRED, he said that the proponents were glad that a last minute compromise amendment limited the effects of IPRED to to the commercial scale.
What he didn't say was the the amendment followed on the same phrase to end in... or not. There is a door for member-states to impose extreme sanctions on 12 year old girls (like the European RIAA's and MPAA's raiding her home and seising as much as they can).
I've heard that this EU compromise might not be much more than forcing RAND licenses, just like in the US, so Paul Meller would be over enfatuating as if it was something extreme when in truth it's just what Microsoft wants.
No, producing GPL'ed libraries compels every non-GPL developer to GPL their code (so they can use that library). There is no exception for (say) BSD developers and you can hardly call them proprietary
BSD style is friendly towards proprietary software...
As a developer, I may choose a less restrictive license than the GPL because it suits my goals better
interesting food for thought... those goals might include something like allowing some to take freedom from their users?
Popularity is a shallow goal
No, it isn't. Many great things can only be achieved by popularity.
Popularity is something you might deserve upon your good deeds, and that might help you do more, but never as a goal.
Democracy can only work if most people are allowed to vote and do so. A well educated populace is also highly desired and can only be reached by having a 'popular' education system.
You're mixing apple with oranges. Are trying to deliberatly influence others into thinking I'm agains Democracy? I seriously hope not.
People don't vote because they are popular but because it's their right to participate in Democracy, and voting on THAT guy only because he is popular is a perversion of Democracy. You should vote on the guy who you think represents your interests best.
I also don't think that RMS considers popularity something beneath contempt, since he would be happy to have all the software GPL'ed.
Your problem is that you confuse goal with reward.
Stallman's goal: freedom for _all_ (yes, all, that's why GPL is so important), not just those who got the code with a Free license like BSD.
His reward: popularity for being one of the most important freedom fighters of nowadays.
Perhaps you wanted to point out that popularity should never be the end goal,
but it never is. There is always some underlying reason, in the case of BSD-like licenses:
Oh really? Let's look at your examples:
- Spreading good code
Spreading -> popularity
- Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc.
Popularizing -> popularity
- More people contribute
More people -> popularity
- Personal satisfaction
If your goal is popularity, of course you'll be satisfied, all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...
Slashdot Mirror
Rules on incoming e-mail pre-date Outlook by many years... specially if you add reliability to the equation.
On evolution and if you're on a GNU/Linux box, you'll most likely have procmail, which can do many much more powerfull things with incoming email, even before they get to evolution.
This feature (html email) should just die die die...
More fields? Ok, custom fields could b useful, but what the heck? How do you keep that straight with other people when you send vcf files?
You can do that with multiple calendars.
Yes you can schedule, by sending standard vcal (or is it iCal?) files.
All it lacks would seem to be guessing without user input.
As you noted, screenshots can't follow every single feature...
Any popular GNU/Linux distribution has a package system and thousands of available packages.
Maybe it halfway there to ideal status, but that's halfway there ahead of any other commonly used proprietary desktop system.
Well, then we're not communicating. I'm say it is unacceptable. 99.99% of the time inside a car... you're driving. If it happens on the 0.01% you're not driving, what's keeping it from happening in the other 99.99%?
If it does that while NOT DRIVING, what's to tell you it won't happen while DRIVING? You make no logic. What good is a car if not for going to some place (aka DRIVING)?
I hope you don't need an emergency reboot when you're at 120 Km/H in the highway.
This is just idiotic. It should be taken as completely unacceptable.
Because on the job you need to sistematically analyse whther your company has:
* The freedom to work (no expiring licenses, etc...)
* The freedom to grow (just copy this software to any employee, no extra cost to grow but the hardware)
* Vendor independence (if you can hire someone to study and adapt software to your needs, or do it yourself!)
* Maintenance cost dillution (if you distribute the cost of maintaining some software with the rest of the community, there's less chances the software will loose support and maintenance on the long run)
These are excellent reasons to use Free Software!
Well, that may happen over there, but in latin countries we have a word for it: Livre (or Libre, or whatever the slight variation). Software Livre. It works well, and it always boils down to how you present it.
The main problem I see is neither wether you call it "Open Source" or Software Livre. Its neither that they inconsiously accept Microsoft's "Shared Source" as being "Open Source". And its neither wether it has support or not. The community's support together with a knowledgeable and non-lazy worker works far better than the proprietary software, and we're (yet slower than I'd like) starting to understand how things usually do work when we use Software Livre and they usually have problems when you use proprietary software with all the bells and whistles of support
If you have a critical business that needs to be running in the mathmatical limit of 100%, who cares if you have support but your service has a couple of hours of downtime?
Many incompetent managers love the blame game, they love to throw the responsability to the supplier. But ultimately, it was their choice to use that supplier, so I see no solid basis to justify the blame game.
For me, freedom is important. A business needs the 0. freedom to work unfethered by expiring licenses or licenses that restrict what they can do, a business needs 1. to have vendor independence if it wants to have the best support at any given moment, it needs 2. to be able to grow freely, just by copying a worker's computer to the new guy, for instance, and finally, it 3. needs to reduce maintenance costs by cooperating with the community on what regards to software support.
I now present Software Livre this way, and the arguments are much more solid than those of "Open Source".
Oh, and although some have the idea that "open sourcers" would sell their grannies for money, I don't really buy that.
That's it.
Or are you simply making an unauthorized copy?? Regardless of your software ideals, you don't steal software unless you actually remove all copies from the copyright owner and everyone's licensed copy.
You're making a copyright infringement, not theft. Sometimes I think those guys at BSA/RIAA/MPAA should go back to English 101 or just buy a dictionary.
Or are they try trying to fool you into thinking of wrong english that doesn't semantically parse by saying you "steal" immaterial goods?
Nah... they would never go so low... oh wait....
Right. Just until the BIOS uses Treacherous Computing to determine wether you're launching an approved operating system.
Phoenix has already announced they support TCPA... and many others do too.
You should also read Can you trust your computer? and The right to read, both by Richard Stallman
This last particular one is very insidious about effects made possible by Treacherous Computing.
When MySQL AB speaks "Commercial" they really mean proprietary.
This confusion is being laid down on MySQL AB themselves for not following wise advice from the FSF.
So put aside MySQL AB's stubborn remarks and read this:
Of course you can make a Commercial program linked with the GNU GPL. You can make Free Software and charge for 1st sale copies. What you can't is turn a GPL'ed software into a non-GPL'ed program.
But you can still make lots of businesses with it!
Come to think of it, many don't follow FSF's advices and call them fanatics or worse things. The funny thing is, they never force nothing upon you, they simply advise you, give you an example, and criticize you when you go "yay proprietary".
Maybe you should read more of what's on their site instead of relying on what your friend or idol says.
Which should be dropped if Ximian/Novell want's to join the larger community that is GNOME's.
The projects uses the GPL as way to lure developers, and then it can turn GPL'ed software into proprietary.
How can they do it legally?
By acquiring all exclusive rights to the source code. That innocent contract you just signed...
The only thing it made was stirr up the voice into wanting to be heard.
Don't just think. Do it.
It won't happen by itself. The EU is approving a Constitution that codifies this undemocratic situation. You have to fight it or it will happen, instead of disappearing in my lifetime.
You can't choose who's on Council.
You can't read the working documents or know who is in the working groups because "the citizin does not have the legitimate right to know" -- this was in a reply to a letter a short time ago.
Very democratic indid.
Bzzt! You're All Wrong!
Red Hat is making support contracts where you agree to waive certain rights for the duration of the support contract in exchange for some things they will only provide through Red Hat Network.
Most of the software they include is covered eitherby the GPL or the Lesser GPL. That way they can't make distribution restrictions. What they can is charge for their service, which is to provide you with timely updates, and such. Tough luck. I'm looking more and more into WhiteBox...
Paul Meller's articles at IDG have constantly been in favour of Big Business' interests.
Software Patents, EUCD, IPRED, etc... Paul's a constant and conscient carrier of misinformation (it's certainly not innocent since he's been contacted by a lot of people trying to inform him better).
For instance, about IPRED, he said that the proponents were glad that a last minute compromise amendment limited the effects of IPRED to to the commercial scale.
What he didn't say was the the amendment followed on the same phrase to end in... or not. There is a door for member-states to impose extreme sanctions on 12 year old girls (like the European RIAA's and MPAA's raiding her home and seising as much as they can).
I've heard that this EU compromise might not be much more than forcing RAND licenses, just like in the US, so Paul Meller would be over enfatuating as if it was something extreme when in truth it's just what Microsoft wants.
bzflag, tuxracer, chromium, etc.. etc.. . etc...
interesting food for thought... those goals might include something like allowing some to take freedom from their users?
Popularity is something you might deserve upon your good deeds, and that might help you do more, but never as a goal.
You're mixing apple with oranges. Are trying to deliberatly influence others into thinking I'm agains Democracy? I seriously hope not.
People don't vote because they are popular but because it's their right to participate in Democracy, and voting on THAT guy only because he is popular is a perversion of Democracy. You should vote on the guy who you think represents your interests best. Your problem is that you confuse goal with reward.
Stallman's goal: freedom for _all_ (yes, all, that's why GPL is so important), not just those who got the code with a Free license like BSD.
His reward: popularity for being one of the most important freedom fighters of nowadays.
Oh really? Let's look at your examples:
- Spreading good code
Spreading -> popularity
- Popularizing a certain standard, concept, etc.
Popularizing -> popularity
- More people contribute
More people -> popularity
- Personal satisfaction
If your goal is popularity, of course you'll be satisfied, all you said were goals of popularity, and none of doing something good which results in popularity...