Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

229 comments

first post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943242)

yay

FP? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943243)

hopefully this will be something to allow linux to be better than windows in something

Re:FP? (-1, Flamebait)

jrs 1 (536357) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943275)

YOU SUCK

Re:FP? (1, Offtopic)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943313)

What... other than cost, stability, performance, and flexability?

Re:FP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943401)

Those are all good qualities, until you realise Linux has no software, a crappy GUI and YHBT.

Can't be too hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943244)

Outlook 2000 is the weakest piece of shit I've seen Microsoft produce for years. I hope (but doubt) the version in Office XP is better.

Sure wish Cloudmark would ship an Outlook Express plugin for SpamNet. It's amazing how much better the freebie OE is than the full-fledged Outlook product. :(

Re:Can't be too hard (2)

Jacer (574383) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943268)

wow, that is some serious M$-bashing karma-whorin' outlook has it cons definately, viruses and worms, and definate pros, like the planner,sticky notes, contact, and having not even tried xp, just assuming that they'd just repackage the software with no enhancements is bad practice

Re:Can't be too hard (1)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943320)

Outlook XP is far worse than Outlook 2000.. even on a pure IP based workstation, connecting to an Exchange 2000 server it runs like a complete dog. And its not like I am on a slow network - straight into a wall socket, into a core switch, where said Exchange server is connected with 1000mbit fiber.

Can take up to 30 seconds to perform 'check mail' and such tasks..

But then I have also read this could be the fault of Windows XP....

Re:Can't be too hard (-1)

robsmama (416178) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943368)

I suspect you have a problem with your workstation/network. I'm on a much slower network with some 20000 other users and I can check my mail in less than a second. Good luck.

MOM

Re:Can't be too hard (3, Informative)

JKR (198165) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943504)

You (or your sysadmins) have a major problem. I administer our machines running (amongst other things including Debian) Windows XP with Outlook XP. It's never that slow.

You guys do know about the 100ms SMB turnaround time to Domain Controllers? By default DCs deliberately slow down SMB transactions to prioritize replication traffic; if you try to multi-role a DC you'll see degraded network performance. There is a registry setting to configure this behaviour - search the KB.

Jon.

And this guy's from Lotus?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943334)

Lotus Notes is the worst. Email client. Ever.

Re:And this guy's from Lotus?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943369)

Lotus Notes is the worst. Email client. Ever. :-) Word.

But that's because neither aim to be email clients. Notes/Domino and Outlook/Exchange are full productivity suites - they're way more than just email.

TBH, I like Outlook for email. It ain't perfect, but I haven't seen anything better. But that's just me.

Re:And this guy's from Lotus?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943477)

Actually that's what I meant. I don't think you can use Notes outside of Domino server. Notes' interface is horrible, flaky, unintuitive, and worst of all uses all custom controls and widgets, which makes cutting, pasting, and OLE interoperability a bitch.

So (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943246)

what?

Best of luck to him (3, Interesting)

xactoguy (555443) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943251)

I definitely wish him the best of luck. Having a free email/calender/planner/whatever else piece of software that is free, better than Outlook, and available for Mac, Linux and Windows is certainly a hefty goal, but if he can pull it off it will certainly be an excellent feat.

Re:Best of luck to him (4, Funny)

Zemran (3101) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943474)

Evolution does it for Linux but it cannot handle virii as well as Outlook.

In other news... (5, Funny)

doubleyewdee (633486) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943256)

Duke Nukem Forever is looking better than ever. No, really. It's going to rock! This will be the ultimate computer game. Really. It's gonna be great. I'll see you all in line at Best Buy!

MODS - Parent not offtopic! (1)

LucidityZero (602202) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943339)

Come on. That was just funny. :)
If you don't understand the relevance, that's your fault, but don't mod it offtopic!

Unix Instant Messenger (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943259)

I wish someone would develop a better instant messenger for Unix.. Gaim has to have the worst interface ever, and kopete is about as stable as win dows 98 with "active desktop" turned on.

Re:Unix Instant Messenger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943297)

OFFTOPIC? Yay. Now I can bitch like every other slashturbator..

Mitch Kapor (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943265)

Mitch Kapor was also responsible for the promotion of Lotus Notes.

Sure it burned the eyes out of your skull to use it, but it was a combination of Outlook, HTML, PGP, IMAP, and NNTP done back in the 1980s. If he can make that sort of leap again, it will be something to reckon with.

Re:Mitch Kapor (2)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943403)

So what exactly is wrong with Lotus notes ??

Re:Mitch Kapor (3, Interesting)

blincoln (592401) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943454)

So what exactly is wrong with Lotus notes ??

Um, everything?

My biggest complaint is that the interface is completely nonstandard, so nothing is where it would be expected. The designers couldn't even make the password dialogue box a normal one, so you can't tell how many characters you've entered.

It's also terrible at handling multiple users on the same workstation.

Re:Mitch Kapor (3, Insightful)

interiot (50685) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943492)

Lotus Domino is like that too... completely nonstandard interface. Granted, some of it is really cool, but the majority of it was just a waste of someone's coding time as they ended up doing windows controls in a slightly different way.

Re:Mitch Kapor (1)

MartinG (52587) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943506)

The client is only available on two platforms (windows and mac) and the protocols are not available for people to write clients for other platforms, meaning prople like myself who use linux at work cannot use notes very well.

Currently I am using notes for windows under wine (thanks wine team), but unless a client for linux is available soon, I will be pushing to replace the server with some more open alternative. (and judging by other peoples experiences with notes around here, I will get quite a lot of people supporting me in doing that)

Re:Mitch Kapor (4, Informative)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943571)

Where, oh where to begin...

As a system integrator it's almost impossible to work with. It encourages free-form text databases. Nice for users, crap for programmers.

It really sucks because it's easy to use and integrates some nice features automatically. Why does this suck? Because users end up putting valuable company information in there, not realizing that they've locked up the info in a format that's useless to the rest of the company.

For example, it's really hard getting sales people to keep corporate contact information up-to-date once they've started keeping their contact info in Notes. It's easy for them, they can replicate to their desktop and access the info while they're on the road. It's free form, so they can add comments. Great for sales-people. Sucks for billing when the client has moved and the sales guy who knows about it can't be bothered to update the "real" client database.

Sorry for the rant, but Notes has cost me a lot of hassle over the years. Truly an awful product.

Re:Mitch Kapor (2)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943628)

It really sucks because it's easy to use and integrates some nice features automatically
Wow..

Is this the fault of the application? Should the user-interface be cryptic and hostile so that people dont use it?

He's not the only one... (3, Insightful)

lennart78 (515598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943267)

Evolution is also trying this, and they deliver Exchange connectivity. The KDE group is busy on a groupware solution, and it will shortly be released.

If you want to use Linux in an office environment, a groupware solution is a must-have. The more people who are working on this subject, the better, in my opinion....

Re:He's not the only one... (1)

anmpl (636100) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943427)

Yep, lots of different unrelated groups working on different unrelated versions of exactly the same thing. Ohhh, but the competition will help the best one rise to the top, huh? Or will they all end up being half-assed imitations of the real thing?

Re:He's not the only one... (3, Interesting)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943471)

Evolution is also trying this, and they deliver Exchange connectivity.

As someone who uses both Outlook and Ximian [ximian.com] Evolution [ximian.com] extensively, I think that Evolution already beats the crap out of Outlook in speed, usability and features. It still has a few rough edges and some stability problems but it is definately the best email client I have ever used. Of course, it only runs on Linux and Unices at the moment, which doesn't really put it head to head with Outlook. Looks like Kapor is planning to go after M$ on their own platform.

What is currently missing is a good server side solution (although many people are working on this). Maybe Kapor will create a viable alternative. I just hope he has the good sense to put some serious effort into the design of the client-server protocol and to document it well so that it can be easily integrated into any email client.

fuck you americunts (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943272)

war-mongering douchebags

Re:fuck you americunts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943420)

Oooh, I'm poor little eurotrash with an inferiority complex. STFU! If we hadn't helped you during WWII, you'd all be talking German. Way to be grateful, asswipe! Tell me this: If USA sucks so much, why are we the only superpower left in the world?!?!?!?!?!

Why? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943505)

Because 98.5% of you rednecks can't locate CHINA on a map.

I'd like to know (2)

zephc (225327) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943273)

how many people actually consider an outlook-killer such a killer app as to be worth $5 million?

Imagine if that got put into something else like OpenBeOS (sure, I'm a bit biased towards BeOS =] )

Re:I'd like to know (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943302)

I think it would take two to four times that, assuming it makes it that far.

Re:I'd like to know (2)

Graelin (309958) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943406)

...anyone who takes the corporate sector seriously?

Perhaps you cannot grasp the sheer mass of the project. Groupware is HUGE. I can't think of any small+ sized corporations that do not have some kind of internal group-scheduling / tasking / messaging system.

Could I piecemeal my own? Sure. But it would be costly still and I wouldn't have the interopability nor the years of refinment that has gone into existing products, namely Outlook.

Clearly, this is not something you can just sit down and code in a few weeks. $5M is a drop in the bucket.

Prototypes (5, Informative)

gnuber (605327) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943276)

One must always be careful in praising vaporware, but the prototypes [osafoundation.org] on the OSAF web site [osafoundation.org] sure look impressive. I am particularly glad they place such a strong emphasis on security [osafoundation.org] ! That is an even better reason than MS-loathing to urge Outlook users to switch. OSAF will do the Internet a great service if Vista can cut down the number of Outlook viruses flooding my emailbox every day!

Re:Prototypes (1)

kilonad (157396) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943319)

They sure do look impressive... if you like loads of gray on your screen and software that looks like it came straight from 1996! Plus the widgets don't look very nice. I realize they're pretty standard widgets, but I can't see any major corporations switching from Outlook to this, at least not at this stage. Some minor gripes and room for improvement (most of the details I'm mentioning are from the three_pane.jpg image, although they apply to most of them): the icons have got to improve, both in appearance and size -- your average business PC has more than enough horsepower to display more than 16 colors; the left pane should have a white background or at least a lighter shade of gray, to promote uniformity and separate it from the menubar/toolbars, etc. I love how WMs in linux are infinitely skinnable, yet they never seem to put in widgets that look good, they're just concerned about the damn titlebars. The scroll bar and the drop-down menu ("Private") just look out of place, as do the squares on the divider bars. I know I'll get modded down for this, but making software look good (it's not "pretty," it's professional) is damn important nowadays. If Mitch Kapor and his crew want their project to be taken seriously, they've got a long ways to go on their IM client (which could be developed into the gotta-have reason for OSAF if they only realized its potential) let alone the rest of the project, and they've gotta make it look slick without looking toyish. Just my $.02

Re:Prototypes (3, Informative)

bdash (598142) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943503)

The heading of the linked page [osafoundation.org] is 'Vista: a prototype for OSAF's Networked Personal Information Manager'. It is a prototype. Quoting from the linked page:
Vista doesn't attempt to address all aspects of the eventual product, so please don't conclude that if something isn't mentioned in this description that it will be absent from the product (or the inverse as well - not everything in Vista will be in our first or subsequent releases). In particular, there wasn't much emphasis on a polished visual appearance, it didn't deal with the calendar at all, and we didn't do much involving outlines within views like we intend to.

Further on, it goes on to say:
Vista is written entirely in Python, using the Tkinter toolkit, augmented by Pmw, a widget framework written in Python. Since our real application will be based on wxWindows, most of Vista's code can't be used directly in the real thing. Since it's based on Tkinter, it runs on Linux, Macintosh and Windows.

Tkinter provides what is is by no means a nice looking interface, but one that works, and does so relatively well across platforms. The controls look out of place simply because they are being drawn by Tk, not a 'more standard' widget set such as GTK or QT. Switching to wxWindows for the final product will provide a nice consistent look and feel on Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.

Vista is a prototype, nothing more. It is designed to test their ideas on and is not intended to be a fully functional or 'professional' looking.

Re:Prototypes (3, Funny)

CerebusUS (21051) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943416)

It's not gonna succeed if they keep ripping off Microsoft's Exchange Icon :-)

example [osafoundation.org]

Microsoft : 'All your icon are belong to us!' (1)

MonTemplar (174120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943617)

It's not gonna succeed if they keep ripping off Microsoft's Exchange Icon :-)

What he said!

Re:Prototypes (3)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943462)

I'm sorry, but they hardly look impressive to me. Take a look at this [gatech.edu] , if you are looking for something impressive.

I'm happy that a celebrity has condescended to write free software, but I am sure the world can do without another Email client with one frame for folders and another for a list of messages.

Re:Prototypes (2)

G-funk (22712) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943476)

Impressive? I don't think so.... That software

a) Is hideously ugly
b) Looks like a user-interface nightmare

Re:Prototypes (2)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943489)

Eww! Yuck! That's some of the worst interfaces I've ever seen!

Re:Prototypes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943473)

Holy sh!t - it looks like Lotus Notes: The Next Generation

Re:Prototypes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943497)

Vista ... that would be a much better name than Chandler.

I don't particularly like the URL nav thing, even if it's optional.

Outlook shipped with most PCs? (2, Interesting)

ottawanker (597020) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943279)

Since when is "Microsoft Outlook shipped with most Windows computers"?

Seems to me that if Outlook was shipped, Microsoft wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to work Outlook Express into the OS as they have.

It seems like a well funded project, and seems 'noble' enough, but is it really needed? I just use KMail for e-mail. Even at work where I do use Outlook for Exchange connectivity, we don't really use the Calender features. Maybe if I had a PDA and could sync back and forth, but then I'd have to get used to entering all my appointments into the calender. It's easier to just write it down on a piece of paper or use my brain.

All I'd really need if I was in a Linux shop would be a mail client that could connect to Exchange (and there are already several projects working on this), but if it were a Linux shop, we wouldn't have Exchange, would we?

Also, a little off topic, Slashdot is soo slow (so slow as to be unusable) every day from about 2:30 AM to about 3:30 AM [EST].. I had to post this comment twice, since I lost it the first time due to a server timeout.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (3)

bedessen (411686) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943388)

Since when is "Microsoft Outlook shipped with most Windows computers"?

I think the reporter made a mistake and meant to say Outlook Express, which is shipped with most every PC since it's a part of IE.

and seems 'noble' enough, but is it really needed? I just use KMail for e-mail. Even at work where I do use Outlook for Exchange connectivity, we don't really use the Calender features. Maybe if I had a PDA and could sync back and forth, but then I'd have to get used to entering all my appointments into the calender.

So, your argument is that because you don't use Outlook/Exchange for groupware stuff, that no one should? I'm sure there are thousands of sysadmins out there that would love to be freed from maintaining an Exchange server, but there is nothing out there that even comes close to doing the job. Most regular computer users (and especially the decision makers who are the most busy) grow very fond of Outlook's calendering functions. The plain fact is there really is no viable alternative.

It's easier to just write it down on a piece of paper or use my brain.

So, that's it. Just convince all those Fortune 500 companies to switch to the high tech "Post-It Note" system. I'm sure 3M has tried that one but was forced to put it on the back burner. Sorry, just because you don't use or appreciate the app doesn't mean that thousands and thousands of office people shouldn't either.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943408)

  • say Outlook Express, which is shipped with most every PC since it's a part of IE.


*sigh*

No it is not. Separate directory, separate executables, separate registry entries.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (2)

MonTemplar (174120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943485)

No it is not. Separate directory, separate executables, separate registry entries.

Merely a holdover from the days when it was an application in its own right. Now, however, the only way you can acquire it from Microsoft's web site is as a part of the install package for Internet Explorer.

(I can remember the first incarnations of Internet Mail and News, the predecessors of Outlook Express (yeah, really lame name they chose, since it's only vaguely like Outlook). They actually had a beta version where the two were done as extensions of the My Computer hierarchy, like Control Panel. Probably gave the Windows team fits, because it subsequently changed into the interface we know and loath today. *g*)

(Not that any of this bothers me, I use Forte Agent for my e-mail and news needs.)

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943500)

  • Merely a holdover from the days when it was an application in its own right. Now, however, the only way you can acquire it from Microsoft's web site is as a part of the install package for Internet Explorer.


Which does NOT make it a PART of Internet Explorer. It just means it is in the same installation package. Big whoop.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (2)

MonTemplar (174120) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943525)

Which does NOT make it a PART of Internet Explorer. It just means it is in the same installation package. Big whoop.

Ah, but you're forgetting the code that's shared between Internet Explorer and Outlook Express (and Windows too, of course. Thanks Bill! :) ).

In any case, all the above is a distinction that only the techies can see - as far as my Mum and Dad (and most home users) are concerned, there is no distinction, because it's what came installed on the PC when they got it.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (1)

ottawanker (597020) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943429)

Actually, the argument was more along the lines of, "do we really need another Exchange client" or "do [most] Linux users really want or need to connect to an Exchange server".

I think that the software, as shown in the preview pictures, does look useful to Linux people who need to connect to Exchange servers, but do the number of people who need to do this really justify an expendature of 5 million dollars, especially when there are other packages working to do the same thing. I know where I wouldn't spend my extra $5 million, but if he thinks its worth it, then I wish him the best of luck.

Re:Outlook shipped with most PCs? (2)

bedessen (411686) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943482)

You're right: no, we don't need another exchange client, and no most linux users don't really need to connect to an Exchange server (but that's debateable if you're trying to run linux on your desktop at a company and need to use the Exchange calendaring functions as well -- not sure how far Evolution is on this matter.)

But that's not the point. The point is that people are sick of being locked into MS for their groupware. You can vary the clients all you want (although it seems the true viable alternatives to Outlook are few), but you still need the big expensive Exchange server. Sure you can run a standard IMAP server on whatever platform you wish, but you lose all the handy calendar/meeting/scheduling that almost every corporate PC user has become dependent on.

So the only way to really break out of this condition is to write a new mail system, one that includes both a client and a server component, and has all the required functionality. That's my take on what this guy's going for, and why he isn't just trying to write something that's "mostly compatible" or "could almost replace Exchange."

The problem is not lack of a groupware client (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943280)

The problem is lack of a groupware SERVER. I've been a linux-on-the-desktop user (no dual-boot) for several years now, and I have worked in several corporate environments. Evolution already has all the client functionality that is needed. Sure, Outlook still has more, but a lot of what Outlook has isn't needed, and much of it (all the macro stuff) is probably more dangerous than useful.


But, there is NOTHING like Exchange out there in the free software world. Corporate users need group calendaring most of all. I realize that OpenLDAP lets us trade contact info, but the critical thing is group calendaring (which includes task lists). Oh, and the group calendaring has to interoperate with Outlook so that Outlook and non-Outlook users can trade meeting invitations. I think Mr. Kapor should spend a little bit of money on enhancing Evolution and spend the rest on building a great Exchange-killer instead.


On a side note... it would take very little effort to get Evolution to be able to parse winmail.dat attachments, so that Evolution and Outlook clients could do peer-to-peer exchanges of meetings and tasks. That would be a fantastic step. They can already trade contacts with no problems. Trading calendaring info should be not much more difficult and it would be a tremendous help to letting Evolution sneak into offices.

Re:The problem is not lack of a groupware client (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943309)

Actually there is. SuSE has two fine Exchange killers, their email server, and Open Exchange. Both provide calendaring, contacts, meetings, PDA sync, and so forth. What's really sweet is the browser interface, it does away with the need for a standalone mail client. Though you can use an email client if you like. Check em out, they're first rate, and a helluva lot more stable and efficient than damned old Exchange.

There are quite a few other groupware projects in the pipeline, it's going to bust wide open pretty soon.

Re:The problem is not lack of a groupware client (2, Informative)

absurdhero (614828) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943386)

You might want to check out PHPGroupWare [phpgroupware.org] . Calendar, mail, project management, etc. in one web service system. If I were a corporation, I think I would be interested. If only Free Software projects reached the attention of the people who need it.

problem *is* the client (4, Interesting)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943424)

I'm working on the necessary MAPI code to have outlook connect to open source servers, eg. Cyrus, OpenLDAP, etc. but still export all functionality. Have been for a few months now. Haven't got to calendering yet ( still working on the message store), I'm hoping on an alpha code release in late Jan maybe Feburary.

The truth is the client does most the work not the server. All the server is an IMAP server with a special 'calender' folder that appointments etc. are stored. Cyrus or any other IMAP server would suffice.

The issue is that Microsoft has made sure that outlook 'MAPI intermediary code' ( in want for a better name ) requires a little more from the server, enough to mean that that code has to be written for the client.

There are many solutions out there that have written the MAPI dlls necessary. Baynari, Lotus, Samsung, etc. all do this. Hopefully we'll have a GPL version soon.

Alternatively, theres the iCal spec which is almost done I hear. Unlike the other iCalender specs, it defines the transport protocol ( relies on Beep I believe ). That should be interesting as well.

Re:The problem is not lack of a groupware client (1, Offtopic)

UrGeek (577204) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943434)

No, gawd, no. Microsoft Outlook (ad Outlook Express) maybe the single biggest security hole in the whole of the history of computing. Whoever provides a free alternate with no possible buffer overflow exploits, no damnable script kiddie hooks, and defaults set to allow the Average Joe to plug and play safely will have done all of humanity a favor.

A prediction (3, Insightful)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943282)

This will make Wired's 2003 vaporware award. But we won't care cause we'll be using Evolution, Aethera and Kroupware.

IMHO (2, Interesting)

tgrotvedt (542393) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943283)

Outlook is extremely overrated, people use it simply because it comes with the most widely used desktop OS on the planet. I think Evolution is equal to Outlook (and better because it has none of those vunrabilities).

I for one think the "Identity/Account" system is one of the most self-contadictory buggy confusing systems in any mail client. It sucks! I think apps like Evolution, KMail, Mozilla Mail, Netscape Communicator and even pine tower over outlook in usability.

I'm really looking forward to the maturation of the K suite (KOffice), as it works in such harmony with the K environment. As soon as the prones at K ditch XFree86 (a looong way down the track) in favour of a nicer, more responsive light system (ala OS X), I will be home and hosed.

Outlook has already been "bested", but if Kapor wants to throw another superior client out there, then I'm all for it!

Re:IMHO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943323)

The good part of Outlook is the scheduler, and that's what sells it.

You're right that everything else is nothing more than an average e-mailer with tons of UI polish.

Re:IMHO (2)

JKR (198165) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943491)

I for one think the "Identity/Account" system is one of the most self-contadictory buggy confusing systems in any mail client.

Sorry, that's Outlook Express you're talking about - a COMPLETELY different product. Outlook doesn't use identities.

Jon

Re:IMHO (1)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943501)

I think you are refering to Outlook express, not Outlook. Outlook doesn't ship with Windows, and it's so much more than a mail client.

It's not going to work. (3, Interesting)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943284)

It won't work, and for the same reason that people don't switch over from IE. Outlook/IE is the default. It's what came with their computer and they're just too lazy/actually like it/uninformed/used to it to change over.

Even if it is significantly better, it's not likely to gain much of a hold.

-- Dr. Eldarion --

For the most part I'd agree (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943328)

Unless some millions go into advertising. People not willing to buy a product might still be able to be sold on an image or style that goes along with it. "See Bob, we at blarg are 'down with' the latest cutting edge technology. Much as you might recall those catch phrase spouting youngsters on the television comercials were.".

Re:For the most part I'd agree (1)

john_is_war (310751) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943363)

Yeah, just look at the success of AOL. Relatively bad product, but so much is spent in advertising those uninformed take the bait.

Quick Question... (0, Flamebait)

jaybird144 (558619) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943285)

Will it have all of the nice security holes that Outlook has? Because, if it does, I know I'll be first in line to use it!

Note: This was meant to be funny. However, at 2:30 in the morning, this is the best you're going to get. My apologies.

Only can replace Outlook as long as... (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943286)

It can read and write calendar information to an outlook server. Someone should spend $5 million studying just that, I don't need another mail client no matter how bellsy and whistley.

Re:Only can replace Outlook as long as... (1)

evrybodygonsurfin (360132) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943338)

I draw your attanetion to the Samsung Contact project, which was demonstrated at theis year's Linux Expo in London and looked quite impressive:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/samsungcontact/

Better how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943293)

Aside from it being "free" which outlook might as well be since it ships as part of office, how is this better?

Cross platform stuff is great, but what features make it better than outlook for a windows user?

Re:Better how? (3, Interesting)

lennart78 (515598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943345)

If I might make a suggestion: Keep out anything that comes near VBScript, auto-rendering of e-mail, and other technologies that are easily misused by virus-builders. Outlook performs well enough as a groupware client, but its abundance of features are often used against it.

Links for your reference... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943296)

{ What a coincidence! I was just browsing their site for the last 2 hours & came here to check out if there were any articles about them. }

This is one OS project I am definitely looking forward to contribute to, big time.

I would recommend you to subscribe to the mailinglists here [osafoundation.org] ;
or atleast to the "Major announcements from OSAF" here [osafoundation.org] .

Link to prototype: [osafoundation.org]
[osafoundation.org]
People working on it: (Impressive list)

ambivalent (2)

g4dget (579145) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943318)

On the one hand, I'd really like to see an open source alternative to Outlook--something that fulfills the same functions and is easy for Outlook users to pick up.

On the other hand, I think Outlook-like programs are prime candidates for breaking with the straight-jacket of Windows-like GUIs. With sustained funding and free from the shackles of backwards compatibility with outmoded paradigms, an open source project, together with some HCI and information retrieval researchers, could really do something ground-breakingly better than anything Microsoft, or anybody else, is delivering.

Mac users (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943324)

Agent Red, a fellow MAC user, said that this "vaguely insulted" him, although he "couldn't put his finger on why."

To explain why he feels so uneasy, and indeed to unveil the true plight of MAC users everywhere, I have taken it upon myself to draw the parallels between MAC users and the H.O.M.O.'s of the world:

Well, think about it:

They're ten percent of the population.

The object of their desire comes in rainbow colors.

They are constantly vocal about their preferences for fear of being snowed under by the rest of society.

When people try to get them to switch, they scream and yell about how it's the right thing for them and ask them to "try it just once and see if they like it."

Most of them have been this way for years; it's not a decision they just made overnight.

Although their functions are criticized, the moral majority STILL agree that they are tastefully designed, have an innate sense of colour, and are always on the leading edge of style and fashion.

Too, they are often emulated by the majority with thinly-veiled knockoffs of their style.

And, no matter how we are begged and pleaded, no matter how they may tear their families apart with the shame and stigma of their choice (and some still say it was never a choice!), still they'll never change them.

Finally, their biggest and most visible supporters are in San Francisco.

It's official: Apparently, all Macintosh users are honorary homosexuals.

FAGGOTS !

Someone please mod parent down... (2)

Vengie (533896) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943353)

oh yeah, and find the poster and garrote him with some ide cables....

Re:Someone please mod parent down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943389)

Why would you bother replying, you chucklefuck?

Re:Someone please mod parent down... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943444)

so mac users mod him up of course

Re:Mac users (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943493)

FYI, the 10% figure has been debunked as crap. The person who came up with the figure had used atrociously bad statistical techniques and was entirely biased. Although there is no 'official' figure, it is thought that the number is closer to 1%.

Note that this only makes the link to Mac users even stronger.

bing (3, Interesting)

anagama (611277) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943341)

Maybe I'm the only one, but I like alt-tabbing between applications. In my last job, I found it a never ending annoyance to not be able to alt-tab between my email and calendar because Outlook is a single program (e.g., you're looking at your 25th email in the inbox, switch to calendar to see if you're available on the date of some lame meeting, remember you forgot to check the time, go back to inbox - scroll down through the junk, find that email again, go back to calendar, it's automatically returned to today's date so you have select the relevent date again, and finally you can check - it's a Royal Pain!) At home, I found Evolution to be similarly annoying. Even if one organization makes a product like this, they should be able to make it act as several components rather than a single program. Then it's just a flash back and forth.

Correction Re:bing (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943355)

Actually, Evolution does hold your place in email and calendar. I still like to between programs than mouse click

Re:bing (1)

LucidityZero (602202) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943359)

I could very well be wrong (and I'm too lazy to check), but can't you ctrl-tab in Evolution? Hell. Use a working GUI like blackbox or fluxbox, and set up a keystroke-macro to switch for you.

Re:bing (1)

effer (155937) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943458)

"Maybe I'm the only one, but I like alt-tabbing between applications. In my last job, I found it a never ending annoyance to not be able to alt-tab between my email and calendar because Outlook is a single program"

Simple, open a second instance of Outlook. Do it at work all the time. One is on Calender, the other on Inbox.

Re:bing (1)

frozenray (308282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943575)

> I found it a never ending annoyance to not be able to alt-tab between my email and calendar because Outlook is a single program [...]

Right-click on any icon in the "Outlook Shortcuts" bar, choose "Open in new window" from the popup menu, and you can alt-tab between Outlook components all you like.

On the (hopefully not too distant) day our management takes their head out of their collective derrières and replaces Outlook with a better program, I'll open myself a big ol' bottle of champagne to celebrate. More power to Mr. Kapor and his crew.

You've got flaming mail (a cross-platform virus) (2, Insightful)

AnonymousCowheard (239159) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943391)

Maybe if you instead dumped that money into a good cause for the advancment of competing projects [slashdot.org] we wouldn't have Microsoft Outlook as the efault eMail client in the first place. Besides, what makes anyone think thye can tell Microsoft what to do on its own OS? Microsoft sells licenses, albeit a verry disgusting one that Microsoft customers don't read and just select the "I agree" action to install the software. Speak on those merits, emphasize the evil, and give people their options: show them a list of current GUI userfriendl eMail clients. I recommend only implementing hotmail and try to implement yahoo mail interface through an eMail client, but is that asking too much out of the priceless time of my fellow opensource developers?

like, great, but (3, Redundant)

peterjm (1865) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943399)

has he used evolution? it's integration with everything I throw at it is incredible to the point of almost being beyond belief. of his 5 mil that he's got earmarked for this new company, he could probably spend a fraction of that and get evoluition to the point where it could blow any client out of the water hands down.

hell, he could spend that money to to fund 20 develpopers for 5 years to write a linux compatibilty layer for windoww (think wine, but Line) that would run non-native (linux) evolution faster than that pos that wants to virus me more than a bitter ex-girlfriend.

anyway, them's just my thoughts and you could be full of it, as my pappy always used to say.

BuzzWord Bingo (3, Funny)

TTL0 (546351) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943402)

"We believe what Mitch is doing may catalyze significant for-profit opportunities," Breyer said.

nice job Breyer, spoken like a true master.

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943411)

guy says he will best outlook...article posted about slashdot...

months pass, an additional media outlet finds the story and posts and article, slashdot mentions it...

but nothing new has happened yet.

WHAT IS NEW ABOUT THIS STORY? it's slashdot posting a dup and admitting it. sigh.

Rarely mentioned very useful Outlook items (4, Insightful)

Begs (599325) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943442)

I use Outlook a great deal. I used Ecco before Outlook. I really miss the outlining capability of Ecco. However, in the overall evaluation of things, Outlook is clearly more capable.

I have tried a few other clients but none had the all-around capability that Outlook has. I often wonder if the folks that diss Outlook here have used it much. I have never had a virus problem, although I had a few close calls that my virus scanner caught. I have had one great debacle when I was fooling around with the pst file about 3 versions ago. It was my fault and it cause me a lot of pain.

Outlook is much more that just an email client with calendar and contact manager.

For a time I used Outlook as my desktop. You can launch all your applications from Outlook if you choose to. It works quite effectively. It just turned out to be a little too boring, not enough visual appeal after a number of months. However if you want a sparse no-nonsense desktop Outlook has it.

Another of the seldom mentioned capabilities of Outlook are the automatic journaling of Office applications and email activity by name date and time. I just wish that could be extended to any application. You can manually journal anything. Outlook can provide journaling reports in multiple formats. This is a lifesaver for me when I do my monthly billing.

Outlook has alarms for arbitrary uses. It has rules that can automate various filtering and file location tasks.

Other applications may have some of these maybe even most of these. I don't know of any application that has them all.

I looked at Evolution. It looks like an Outlook knock-off. Certainly that is somewhat flattering to Outlook's designers. Kapor's effort also looks similar. I wish him luck and ask that he not forget the journaling capability. It would really be great if any application could be registered with the software and have its activity automatically journalized.

Did I mention easy synchronization with PDA devices? Or, that it can also use "stationery." I haven't personally found a use for this, However, I have received a few messages on "stationery." That's how I learned that it existed.

In summary, Outlook is useful, robust, very flexible and capable, and pretty secure (a la pgp) if configured as recommended for security and backed by a virus scanner. I depend on it.

will it read .pst files? (2)

Artifex (18308) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943448)

I've got years of mail archived in .pst format for Outlook. This is what's keeping me from switching my mail over to something on SuSE (or even, God help me, Gentoo). If there's a reliable program that will suck mail out of that file and sort it into the directory structure in which it's currently put, I can finally retire my Office 2000 install.

Re:will it read .pst files? (3, Informative)

Jaeger- (63372) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943466)

there are several freely available software programs available that parse your PST files and output files that can be imported by other mail programs.

we had a situation at my last employer where someone had hosed their box pretty badly due to literally 1gig of email. outlook wouldn't open and the PST files were corrupted. after searching around a bit, i found 3 or 4 programs for dealing with this issue.

poke around on google or freshmeat, i'm sure you'll find something similarly useful.

"Tight budget"? (2)

John_Booty (149925) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943450)

But James Breyer, a longtime Kapor friend, said the OSAF model is a return to the "old-fashioned way" of designing software, in small development teams on tight budgets.

Wow, $5 million is a "tight budget"?

Assuming roughly $100K/year per developer (salary plus benefits) and 20% in overhead costs (utilities, office space, etc), that's 20 developers a year for two years. Or 10 developers a year for four years.

Even if more than 20% of the budget goes to marketing (I don't know if that's applicable in their case, since they're going the free/Free route), underage hookers, or whatEVER, that still seems like a pretty nice budget to work with!

Whatever the case, best of luck to them, though! :-)

Quote from the article (2)

Enfors (519147) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943455)

Quote from the article:

"It is so easy to distribute free things now," said Esther Dyson, a longtime Internet investor and chairman of EDVenture Holdings in New York. "That's one of the things Napster told us: If people like it, it will spread freely."


Yeah, we had no idea that was true before Napster.

wxWindows / wxPython (3, Informative)

ghum (109642) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943456)

Robin Dunn [alldunn.com] , founder & maintainer of wxPython [wxpython.org] , an excellent Python [python.org] -Wrapper around wxWindows [wxwindows.org] , anounced in the wxpython-mailinglist that he was contracted by OSAF.

And who ever has enjoyed wxPython and the excellent support of Robin in the mailinglist knows: he get's things done. Or dunn.
So... if they don't succeed in travelling to space, at least teflon will be available.

What would happen... (3, Interesting)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943480)

if Mitch Kapor, Ximian, and Mozilla ever got together? With Andy Hertzfeld for lead UI designer?

Er, sorry bout that, it's late (early?) And I must be dreaming.... good night, all.

Re:What would happen... (2)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943484)

Maybe they'll drop everything and make a File manager ?

Re:What would happen... (2)

Zapdos (70654) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943520)

Andy Hertzfeld is working with Mitch Kapor on this project.. See here [osafoundation.org] If you look at folders listing you will see.

Cloning Outlook doesn't hurt microsoft. (4, Insightful)

MavEtJu (241979) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943498)

Cloning Outlook doesn't hurt Microsoft, it's the serverside which should be attacked.

A couple of weeks ago my boss asked me to find a replacement for the calendar server in Exchange, one which would work with... Outlook.

Nowhere to be found. I can replace the mail-part very easy (we're already doing that for years), the addressbook is nearly finished now (LDAP rules/sucks :-) but the calendar part of it? It's buried deep in the beast.

And as long as you can't replace all what an Exchange server does, you won't have a chance in hell to replace Outlook.

Sigh... I hope so... (2)

muzzmac (554127) | more than 11 years ago | (#4943606)

Lotsa hype. No actual code to be seen. Unfortunately it's likely to be on the "whatever happened to that?" pile before you know it.

If I'm wrong, great, congrats the world is now better.

If it's good, it *will* work! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4943645)

Even non-OS types can be moved away from MS products. After his tenth e-mail virus, one of my friends got sick of Outlook Express and wanted to change e-mail clients. I recommended Mozilla Mail [mozilla.org] which he then installed, and liked (especially the "view HTML e-mail as plain text" feature). But note he was only able to switch because:
  • Mozilla offered an easy migration path, i.e. all his mail from Outlook Express was converted.
  • Mozilla Mail was easy to use and offered more features.
I have no doubt that this program will make it out (though I'm sure Mitch will not be in a rush--he'll release it when it's ready) and it will be successful because it'll be a lot more than just a plain e-mail, news and scheduling system. It's going to be great.

<aol>I fully agree with the poster who said Pine has better usability than Outlook</aol>

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...