Evolution has been part of the default installation of Ubuntu since I first started using Ubuntu (that was v5.04 and I'm now running 6.10). However, it's the only mail client installed. I just ignore it and "sudo apt-get install mozilla-thunderbird" and get on with it.
Considering how much the Evolution folks *cough*ripped*cough*off*cough* borrowed from Microsoft Outlook, you'd think they would have gotten one of it's most basic features. It's also a feature of Thunderbird and Kmail.
What is the feature? Multiple accounts under one user (without the need for filters or virtual folders).
The last time I looked (at whatever the version shipped with Ubuntu Hoary was) they still hadn't gotten that right yet.
That is the #1 most important feature to me in an email client and it's why Evolution won't be on my radar screen until they ad it.
Otherwise it's such an Outlook clone that I'd be using it now. Outlook for all it's flaws is still the most convenient piece of software on the planet.
I currently use Thunderbird but I like what I've seen in Kmail. The only thing keeping me from switching is that Thunderbird is the only one of the bunch that is cross platform. It's also very customizable thanks to extensions.
Anything multimedia wise was handled by "helper" applications that
would launch when you clicked on the applicable hyperlink.
Nothing was embedded in a web page (at first).
HTML was in it's infancy, so web pages with ordinary fonts with no
color and pages with plain backgrounds were the norm (till someone
figured out how to make an image file into a web page background, that
is - then everyone went nuts with it).
This and this
are examples of what your typical web site looked like in 1995-1996.
If they are using mysapce.com at a library they are wasting resources. A lot of those people standing in line waiting for a computer actually have something important to do (which may include research on the web).
I have no problem with myspace.com per se. But for someone to waste time on it at a library is just "not right".
I've used Fedora core 3 and 4, Debian etch and Sid, Mandrake 7 and 8, RedHat 7, SuSE 7, 9.x and 10 and Ubuntu 5.04 and 5.10.
You can geek out all you want on any of these operating systems. Don't run X at all. Run just a plain old shell. And while you're at it, forget bash, install and run pdksh,tcsh or Zsh instead.
Coder? There is every imaginable package you could want available. Perl,Python,Ruby,GCC, QT, GTK and anything else you'd find in Debian right now.....
That's the thing about Ubuntu. It's Debian Improved. It's "pretty" on the outside but has the guts and the heart of Debian below.
The last time I checked there were over 17000 packages in the Ubuntu archives.
And that's one of my favorite things about Ubuntu when compared to Fedora. 1) They have more packages than Fedora and 2). The base install that gets you up and running is only on 1 CD. If you want or need more it's an apt-get away.....
Fedora is a FOUR CD distribution. And most of what you are downloading is stuff you'll never use.
So why download stuff you'll never use instead of stuff you will use?
Fedora could learn from Ubuntu, reduce it's base install to one CD and then suggest you "yum install..." anything else you want or need.
That's just what Ubuntu is doing right now.
As far as desktops go, I don't really see that much different between the two (save for color schemes). Fedora has "up-to-date", Ubuntu has "update manager".
They both follow freedesktop.org standards so the menus are pretty much the same.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Fedora is any better.
Honestly, I don't think Microsoft has anything to worry about. The overwhelming majority of documents an MS Office user will receive will not be in OpenDocument format.
That's part of the point of Microsoft choosing to ignore OpenDocument. They know they can get away with it.
It stinks, but they can get away with it and they know it.
Ordinary users (i.e. those who have come from Windows or Mac) are not used to not being able to do something simple like change the color of their window title bar or background. Or change the color of the widgets. Or menus with vague entries on them.
Therefore, it sounds like GNOME might be quite a challenge for them, whereas KDE would be less of a challenge....
The "story" is all over. I've spotted it elsewhere. Whomever started this here (I'm too lazy to look) probably saw it elsewhere just as I have (and no, I don't mean post from Linus itself).
As a matter of fact, when I came across it, I raced over to here/. to see if I could finally be the one to get a story with my byline posted.. Alas, I missed the boat (and then some).
Doing things the right way is having to check in three different places to for various system interface/administration programs?
Doing things the right way is having no user-configurable way to do a simple task like change the color of your window background, selected menu items or widgets.
No, I don't mean install a new theme, I mean just change the freaking color.
Using generic names like "Text Editor" instead of Gedit but then the name Gedit every place else (discussion, documentation etc) is doing things right?
Putting system administration tools as a submenu of a menu titled "Desktop" is doing things right?
Hacking your way through some Windows Registry-esque program (Gconf) in order to change settings for desktop icons or how a Nautilus window appears is doing things right?
GNOME suffers from ugly icons and themes. And it doesn't get much uglier than the default Ubuntu desktop. Are you sure didn't mean to say you started with Kubuntu and then later did "sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop"?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Evolution has been part of the default installation of Ubuntu since I first started using Ubuntu (that was v5.04 and I'm now running 6.10). However, it's the only mail client installed. I just ignore it and "sudo apt-get install mozilla-thunderbird" and get on with it.
as in BNU vs. GNU?
You've lost me.
But it's mailing list managment stinks. It eats your own messages sent to a list which is, at best, annoying.
Other than that it's pretty good. I just prefer POP or IMAP. Plus I have my own domain as well.
Considering how much the Evolution folks *cough*ripped*cough*off*cough* borrowed from Microsoft Outlook, you'd think they would have gotten one of it's most basic features. It's also a feature of Thunderbird and Kmail.
What is the feature? Multiple accounts under one user (without the need for filters or virtual folders).
The last time I looked (at whatever the version shipped with Ubuntu Hoary was) they still hadn't gotten that right yet.
That is the #1 most important feature to me in an email client and it's why Evolution won't be on my radar screen until they ad it.
Otherwise it's such an Outlook clone that I'd be using it now. Outlook for all it's flaws is still the most convenient piece of software on the planet.
I currently use Thunderbird but I like what I've seen in Kmail. The only thing keeping me from switching is that Thunderbird is the only one of the bunch that is cross platform. It's also very customizable thanks to extensions.
NCSA Mosaic ran on Windows 3.1 (with Win32s) (and later on Windows 95), X-Window and Mac. It was the first web browser I ever used (that was in 1994).
By today's standards it's a piece-of-crap, but back then it was quite a marvel.
It was not an editor, just a web browser. It's still around for historical purposes and if you can get it to work, you'll see just how far we've come.
Anything multimedia wise was handled by "helper" applications that would launch when you clicked on the applicable hyperlink.
Nothing was embedded in a web page (at first). HTML was in it's infancy, so web pages with ordinary fonts with no color and pages with plain backgrounds were the norm (till someone figured out how to make an image file into a web page background, that is - then everyone went nuts with it).
This and this are examples of what your typical web site looked like in 1995-1996.
And who can forget the famous and long-defunct "Trojan Room Coffee Machine"?
If they are using mysapce.com at a library they are wasting resources. A lot of those people standing in line waiting for a computer actually have something important to do (which may include research on the web).
I have no problem with myspace.com per se. But for someone to waste time on it at a library is just "not right".
He's doing it himself. He did mention his use of Amaya and Nvu.
Yo! Big Hairy Guy! uhh I mean, I mean, RMS, is that you?
I've used Fedora core 3 and 4, Debian etch and Sid, Mandrake 7 and 8, RedHat 7, SuSE 7, 9.x and 10 and Ubuntu 5.04 and 5.10.
You can geek out all you want on any of these operating systems. Don't run X at all. Run just a plain old shell. And while you're at it, forget bash, install and run pdksh,tcsh or Zsh instead.
Coder? There is every imaginable package you could want available. Perl,Python,Ruby,GCC, QT, GTK and anything else you'd find in Debian right now.....
That's the thing about Ubuntu. It's Debian Improved. It's "pretty" on the outside but has the guts and the heart of Debian below.
The last time I checked there were over 17000 packages in the Ubuntu archives.
And that's one of my favorite things about Ubuntu when compared to Fedora. 1) They have more packages than Fedora and 2). The base install that gets you up and running is only on 1 CD. If you want or need more it's an apt-get away.....
Fedora is a FOUR CD distribution. And most of what you are downloading is stuff you'll never use.
So why download stuff you'll never use instead of stuff you will use?
Fedora could learn from Ubuntu, reduce it's base install to one CD and then suggest you "yum install..." anything else you want or need.
That's just what Ubuntu is doing right now.
As far as desktops go, I don't really see that much different between the two (save for color schemes). Fedora has "up-to-date", Ubuntu has "update manager".
They both follow freedesktop.org standards so the menus are pretty much the same.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how Fedora is any better.
"...but there is no fucking way I'd tell someone 'Yeah, I'm running Breezy Badger Ubuntu on my desktop'."
;-)
Uhhh..
You don't like Breezy Badger? Then say "5.10" instead....
http://releases.ubuntu.com/breezy/ is a/k/a:
http://releases.ubuntu.com/5.10/
(or is it the other way around?).
Also maybe a good massage is in order? You seem a bit uptight.....
Arch has been around much longer than Ubuntu. I doubt we'll see any "rise to fame" unless they make some big changes.
Just as good as Debian, RedHat or SUSE. Why wouldn't it be?
And it's been certified for IBM DB2
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/newsitems/db2cert
Honestly, I don't think Microsoft has anything to worry about. The overwhelming majority of documents an MS Office user will receive will not be in OpenDocument format.
That's part of the point of Microsoft choosing to ignore OpenDocument. They know they can get away with it.
It stinks, but they can get away with it and they know it.
I don't want my web browser to be anything but a web browser.
The exception to that is if it's can interate nicely with the OS' file system (i.e. Konqueror).
Firefox is great. I'm baffled as to why Seamonkey exists.
Ordinary users (i.e. those who have come from Windows or Mac) are not used to not being able to do something simple like change the color of their window title bar or background. Or change the color of the widgets. Or menus with vague entries on them.
Therefore, it sounds like GNOME might be quite a challenge for them, whereas KDE would be less of a challenge....
True. The only opinion that matters in the open source world is that of this man. Just ask him and he'll tell you!
FileRunner is Copyright (C) 1996-1999 Henrik Harmsen.
Wow I've gotta get my hands on that! It appears to be *cough*olderthandirt*cough* an awesome file manager!
The "story" is all over. I've spotted it elsewhere. Whomever started this here (I'm too lazy to look) probably saw it elsewhere just as I have (and no, I don't mean post from Linus itself).
/. to see if I could finally be the one to get a story with my byline posted.. Alas, I missed the boat (and then some).
As a matter of fact, when I came across it, I raced over to here
Everyone gets this backwards. OS X is quite polished as is KDE. Windows XP is "OK" but not as spiffy as OS X.
GNOME is "OK" but not as functional as KDE which is not only more functional but more polished.
Therefore
KDE, much like OS X.
GNOME, much like Windows.
So tell me. Let's say I am running GNOME and I want to change the color of my window title bars or or I want to change the color of the widgets.
No, I don't mean change the whole theme. Just the color.
I'm sure it's a simple thing. After all, GNOME aims to be simple. That's one way of winning Windows users over, right?
Doing things the right way is having to check in three different places to for various system interface/administration programs?
Doing things the right way is having no user-configurable way to do a simple task like change the color of your window background, selected menu items or widgets.
No, I don't mean install a new theme, I mean just change the freaking color.
Using generic names like "Text Editor" instead of Gedit but then the name Gedit every place else (discussion, documentation etc) is doing things right?
Putting system administration tools as a submenu of a menu titled "Desktop" is doing things right?
Hacking your way through some Windows Registry-esque program (Gconf) in order to change settings for desktop icons or how a Nautilus window appears is doing things right?
These are doing things right?
If you say so....
WindowMaker and GNUstep. How retro! It's 1995 all-over-again!
I think you have that backwards.
;-)
GNOME suffers from ugly icons and themes. And it doesn't get much uglier than the default Ubuntu desktop. Are you sure didn't mean to say you started with Kubuntu and then later did "sudo apt-get install ubuntu-desktop"?
Idiots don't read very well....
If you've got the money and use Firefox. Windows is pretty good, actually. And XP doesn't crash any more than GNOME or KDE....