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!

Evolution installer for Win32 Released

timothy posted about 8 years ago | from the reach-the-singularity-faster dept.

208

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."

cancel ×

208 comments

Finally (5, Funny)

mnemonic_ (164550) | about 8 years ago | (#15562977)

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

Re:Finally (5, Funny)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 8 years ago | (#15563197)

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

Re:Finally (1)

ladybugfi (110420) | about 8 years ago | (#15563908)

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

This could almost be modded funny...

Re:Finally (1)

AuMatar (183847) | about 8 years ago | (#15564364)

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

Re:Finally (3, Interesting)

filesiteguy (695431) | about 8 years ago | (#15563917)

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

Re:Finally (1)

GmAz (916505) | about 8 years ago | (#15564286)

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

CALs? (2, Interesting)

RingDev (879105) | about 8 years ago | (#15563028)

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

-Rick

Re:CALs? (5, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | about 8 years ago | (#15563091)

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

Re:CALs? (2, Insightful)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | about 8 years ago | (#15563169)

Why wouldn't they?

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

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

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

Re:CALs? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563319)

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

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

Re:CALs? (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | about 8 years ago | (#15563514)

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

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

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

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

Re:CALs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563517)


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


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

Re:CALs? (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | about 8 years ago | (#15563688)

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

Re:CALs? (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 8 years ago | (#15563148)

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

Re:CALs? (5, Informative)

CerebusUS (21051) | about 8 years ago | (#15563278)

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. [microsoft.com] No matter what type of client you use to access a mailbox, it requires a seperate CAL for each user, unless you go the route of device CALs, in which case you'll need a seperate CAL for each piece of hardware, regardless of what type of client is used.

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

Re:CALs? (3, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | about 8 years ago | (#15563320)

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

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

Re:CALs? (1)

hey! (33014) | about 8 years ago | (#15563159)

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

Re:CALs? (4, Informative)

ocbwilg (259828) | about 8 years ago | (#15563260)

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.

Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? (4, Funny)

edremy (36408) | about 8 years ago | (#15563031)

Ba bum bump tish

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 years ago | (#15563228)

Bet it's already been worked on in Kansas.

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer? (4, Funny)

chris_eineke (634570) | about 8 years ago | (#15563693)

Your drummer's license please...

Great! (2, Insightful)

the linux geek (799780) | about 8 years ago | (#15563032)

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

Not gonna beat Google Calendar (3, Informative)

Skynet (37427) | about 8 years ago | (#15563034)

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really? (5, Insightful)

bbernard (930130) | about 8 years ago | (#15563072)

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.

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really? (1)

accessdeniednsp (536678) | about 8 years ago | (#15564457)

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563077)

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

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

Yeah, but Mac users have iCal... (-1, Troll)

Dis*abstraction (967890) | about 8 years ago | (#15563398)

...which is 10,000x better than Google Calendar.

That's an estimate, by the way:
          10x more functional
          10x more elegant
          10x easier on the eyes
          10x easier to use
          = 10,000.
Suck it, Google. You're as bad as the rest of the Apple wannabes.

Re:Yeah, but Mac users have iCal... (1)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | about 8 years ago | (#15563890)

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar (1)

HundyCougar (732944) | about 8 years ago | (#15563141)

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar (4, Insightful)

Jim_Maryland (718224) | about 8 years ago | (#15563433)

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.

Cant Sync (4, Informative)

badriram (699489) | about 8 years ago | (#15563153)

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

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

YMMV. BOCTAOE.

Re:Cant Sync (2, Interesting)

accessdeniednsp (536678) | about 8 years ago | (#15564473)

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

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563846)

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

More is better (3, Interesting)

rocjoe71 (545053) | about 8 years ago | (#15563046)

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

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

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

Re:More is better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564229)

it is

Black Marks (4, Funny)

smvp6459 (896580) | about 8 years ago | (#15563052)

The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

Re:Black Marks (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 8 years ago | (#15563188)

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

It still doesn't replace outlook... (5, Insightful)

millisa (151093) | about 8 years ago | (#15563058)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (3, Informative)

thebdj (768618) | about 8 years ago | (#15563173)

Well, it does seem like you can access public folders. I shall point you here [novell.com] . 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.

Further impressions after download (1)

millisa (151093) | about 8 years ago | (#15563358)

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

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

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

Re:Further impressions after download (4, Insightful)

zerblat (785) | about 8 years ago | (#15563606)

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.

Which I believe was the original point (3, Insightful)

millisa (151093) | about 8 years ago | (#15563726)

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

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

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

Re:Which I believe was the original point (4, Insightful)

zerblat (785) | about 8 years ago | (#15564464)

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

Re:Further impressions after download (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563786)

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

slaker (53818) | about 8 years ago | (#15563376)

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (3, Informative)

ocbwilg (259828) | about 8 years ago | (#15563317)

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

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

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

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

millisa (151093) | about 8 years ago | (#15563409)

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

ocbwilg (259828) | about 8 years ago | (#15563461)

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

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

j79zlr (930600) | about 8 years ago | (#15564476)

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

Goyuix (698012) | about 8 years ago | (#15563324)

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

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

millisa (151093) | about 8 years ago | (#15563453)

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

Azarael (896715) | about 8 years ago | (#15563404)

Manage security on inboxes so that say George Smith can also access my mailbox?
I've done this through the 2003 Server Administration tool, so if you have a co-operative admin, you can ask them to grant another user access to your mailbox. I'm not sure that having that ability within the client is such a good idea from a security perspective anyway.
be able to interact with the meeting requests that are sent out and the like.
I get enough of these from my boss and the SS FTA shows an example of a meeting request http://shellter.sourceforge.net/evolution/evoshot1 .png/ [sourceforge.net] . I haven't actually tried sending one out myself, but I would be quite surprised if this didn't work.

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (1)

Hortensia Patel (101296) | about 8 years ago | (#15563483)

Outlook isn't just an email and calendar app.

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

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

Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (4, Funny)

arodland (127775) | about 8 years ago | (#15563755)

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.

Spam filtering (3, Interesting)

FictionPimp (712802) | about 8 years ago | (#15563068)

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

Re:Spam filtering (1)

generic-man (33649) | about 8 years ago | (#15563138)

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

Re:Spam filtering (2, Insightful)

ForumTroll (900233) | about 8 years ago | (#15563892)

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

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

Re:Spam filtering (1)

Cal Paterson (881180) | about 8 years ago | (#15564480)

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

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

Re:Spam filtering (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 years ago | (#15563435)

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

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

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

Re:Spam filtering (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | about 8 years ago | (#15563736)

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

Re:Spam filtering (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 years ago | (#15563819)

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

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

Re:Spam filtering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564235)

Is Evolution's self contained junkmail filtering no good?

That's great! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 years ago | (#15563075)

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

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

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

click here (1)

gentimjs (930934) | about 8 years ago | (#15563820)

www.scalix.com

Re:That's great! (2, Informative)

smbarbour (893880) | about 8 years ago | (#15564049)

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

Re:That's great! (1)

idonthack (883680) | about 8 years ago | (#15564125)

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

Re:That's great! (2, Informative)

purplebear (229854) | about 8 years ago | (#15564216)

zimbra [zimbra.com]

and/or

postpath [postpath.com]

are worth looking at.

Does it work with Kolab2 yet? (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 8 years ago | (#15563080)

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

Re:Does it work with Kolab2 yet? (2, Informative)

douggmc (571729) | about 8 years ago | (#15563237)

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

A cancer... (4, Funny)

truthsearch (249536) | about 8 years ago | (#15563090)

Of course it's GPL

So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

Excellent for desktop migrations... (4, Insightful)

IpSo_ (21711) | about 8 years ago | (#15563139)

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

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

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

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15563220)

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

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... (5, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | about 8 years ago | (#15563345)

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

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

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

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

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

There's still a LONG LONG way to go.

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | about 8 years ago | (#15563777)

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

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563848)

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

Re:Excellent for desktop migrations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564134)

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

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

looks the same as outlook (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563183)

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

Opens up some doors (1)

tcopeland (32225) | about 8 years ago | (#15563247)

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

GUI look (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563327)

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

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

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

Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

Re:GUI look (3, Informative)

ASkGNet (695262) | about 8 years ago | (#15563573)

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

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

Re:GUI look (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563830)

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

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

Re:GUI look (4, Informative)

tml (102092) | about 8 years ago | (#15564140)

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

Re:GUI look (2, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | about 8 years ago | (#15563600)

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

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

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

Re:GUI look (1)

MadMirko (231667) | about 8 years ago | (#15563676)

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

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

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

Re:GUI look (2, Funny)

rduke15 (721841) | about 8 years ago | (#15564327)

Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

Because it uses these childish mushy icons?

Re:GUI look (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564483)

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

About time. (1)

ShyGuy91284 (701108) | about 8 years ago | (#15563490)

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

How long 'til MS tries to outlaw using it? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 8 years ago | (#15563571)

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

Of course, being from GNOME heritage.... (-1, Troll)

bfe369 (110743) | about 8 years ago | (#15563595)

I've got a great idea! Whip up an app that has great potential and stir it around several times in the "looks like ass" vat. Throw in a pinch of inheritance from the ugliest graphical environment ever created (GNOME). Ruthlessly eradicate all possible traces of user-friendliness (whoops, I already mentioned GNOME). Carefully craft a god-awful IMAP implementation that will bring tears to the eye.

Tie all this up into a recipe with dependencies you'll never resolve in this lifetime unless your name is Miguel, and release it to the world!

<cue maniacal laughter>

Re:Of course, being from GNOME heritage.... (0, Flamebait)

sp0rk173 (609022) | about 8 years ago | (#15564386)

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

Wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15563740)

Looks like Outlook back in 97. Way to go, OSS crowd. Always copying, never innovating. Keep it up , tards :)

Ha! (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | about 8 years ago | (#15564101)

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

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

Ahhhh..... (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 8 years ago | (#15564104)

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

Thank you, markybob and Timothy! (1)

JonTurner (178845) | about 8 years ago | (#15564120)

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

Thanks!

Not quite what it was hyped to be (4, Insightful)

ClayDowling (629804) | about 8 years ago | (#15564313)

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

Re:Not quite what it was hyped to be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564500)

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

Go Oilers!

Beware of software incompatibilities (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15564412)

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

Thunderbird replacement? (1)

edmicman (830206) | about 8 years ago | (#15564426)

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

It won't work (1)

Meister (22693) | about 8 years ago | (#15564475)

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

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

They should just fix it on Linux (2, Interesting)

vtrac (876898) | about 8 years ago | (#15564514)

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