Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Evolution installer for Win32 Released 208

Posted by timothy from the reach-the-singularity-faster dept.
markybob points out that an unofficial Win32 installer for Evolution has been released, writing "Of course it's GPL, so have fun and spread it around!" From the site: "Evolution is an incredibly versatile email/calendar/PIM that took the Linux world by storm a few years ago. It has been called an 'Outlook replacement' by every tech site from ZDNet to InfoWorld. Evolution played a major role in allowing the Linux desktop to move into the enterprise by giving being able to connect to Microsoft Exchange Server and schedule/accept Microsoft Outlook Meetings. Here's a screenshot of how it handles meeting invitations sent by Outlook."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Evolution installer for Win32 Released More

Evolution installer for Win32 Released

Comments Filter:

  • Finally (Score:5, Funny)

    by mnemonic_ ( 164550 ) <jamecNO@SPAMumich.edu> on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:17PM (#15562977) Homepage Journal
    Windows users can try out the open source take on Microsoft Outlook 97.
    • 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.
      • 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 (Score:3, Funny)

          by Eideewt ( 603267 )
          When I started reading your post I was like, "What's this guy talking about? Didn't the post he's replying to say the same thing?" Then I realized you meant it wasn't even displaying a window. That's how it's *supposed* to work. Haven't you heard anyone complain about how Linux doesn't have enough GUI tools? Now you know what they meant.

        • Re:Finally (Score:3, Funny)

          by jsight ( 8987 )

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


          So, basically, it's only slightly less functional than the Linux version?
      • 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.
      • They should be developing something like egroupware instead.

        Honestly, why try to copy Outlook when something like eGroupWare does more of what a small business wants in a dead easy to set up, manage and use system that scales to hundreds or thousands of users. And... no Outlook required.

         

    • Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)

      by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <perfectreign@gmail.com> on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:57PM (#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.

      • 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.
        • Yeah, it has actually been awhile. (Of course I only use Windows at work and 80% Linux at home.) I still remember back in '98 or '99 when I get to work and the fax machine was spitting out "I Love You" from many of our contacts. I knew about the "I Love You Virus" before I got to work, and was ready to apply a patch to our Exchange server (we were using Innoculan I think), but the CEO had come in super early and - upon seeing an email from his buddy saying, "I Love You" - opened it.

          That was a fun day!

      • Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jamesh ( 87723 )
        Outlook 2003 introduced 'cached mode', where you are working on a local copy of your data but it is kept up to sync with the server almost constantly. It is very very nice when you are working over a slower-than-lan link!

        Previously, you would have to run Outlook in 'offline' mode, and set it to sync frequently.

        But other than that, yeah, they all suck the same :)

  • CALs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:24PM (#15563028) Homepage Journal
    Would Linux users running this still need to pay for the CALs to connect to the Exchange server?

    -Rick

    • Re:CALs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:30PM (#15563091) Homepage
      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? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 )

        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 y

    • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by CerebusUS ( 21051 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:52PM (#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? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:57PM (#15563320) Homepage Journal
          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.
    • 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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:49PM (#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? (Score:5, Funny)

    by edremy ( 36408 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:24PM (#15563031) Journal
    Ba bum bump tish

  • Great! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the linux geek ( 799780 )
    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 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Skynet ( 37427 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:25PM (#15563034) Homepage
    Which can also accept Outlook meeting requests. Plus it works from any browser.

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

      by bbernard ( 930130 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:29PM (#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.

    • Cant Sync (Score:5, Informative)

      by badriram ( 699489 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:37PM (#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 (Score:2, Interesting)

        by accessdeniednsp ( 536678 )
        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.

  • More is better (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rocjoe71 ( 545053 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:26PM (#15563046) Homepage
    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.

  • Black Marks (Score:4, Funny)

    by smvp6459 ( 896580 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:26PM (#15563052)
    The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

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

    by millisa ( 151093 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:27PM (#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... (Score:4, Informative)

      by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:40PM (#15563173) Journal
      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.
      • 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 leas

        • Re:Further impressions after download (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zerblat ( 785 ) <jonas@sk[ ]c.se ['ubi' in gap]> on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:27PM (#15563606) Homepage
          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 (Score:4, Insightful)

            by millisa ( 151093 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:38PM (#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.
            • 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.
      • Vista has a Calendar program which supports iCal servers.
        Just sayin'.

    • Re:It still doesn't replace outlook... (Score:4, Informative)

      by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:57PM (#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.
      • 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
        • 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 lov
        • The RPC over HTTPS stuff is very convenient for my mobile laptop users that want to continue using outlook, syncing their folders, without having to rely on VPN connections.

          Really? Why abuse HTTPS like that when IMAPS is designed for it from the start?

      • The only reason RPC over HTTPS even exists is because MS refuses to adopt IMAPS fully. It's just another proprietary MS protocol designed to lock customers. Come to think of it that's all exchange and outlook are too.

        Once you take that pill you become pw0ned by MS. YOu can never migrate, you can never switch to another platform, you will be forced to upgrade every couple of years. Don't even get me started on maintaining exchange. Quite possible the worst email server on the planet.
    • 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
      • 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?).
        • It is the Microsoft Exchange server type. I tried the Win32 binary talking to two different OWA exchange servers and neither one was very happy about it. I have used this option successfully in Ubuntu and Fedora though - so I know it works. Basically it just grabs the xml packets and stuffs them as mail items in Evolution. I am actually quite surprised some of the other popular mail clients (Thunderbird particularly - though there is a request for it) hasn't implemented it.

          I bet a patch will be out fairly s

    • 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 re

    • 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... (Score:5, Funny)

      by arodland ( 127775 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:42PM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:28PM (#15563068) Homepage
    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?
    • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ForumTroll ( 900233 )
        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 a
      • 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.
    • 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 combinati
      • 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 filter
        • 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" em
  • 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?

    • Re:That's great! (Score:3, Informative)

      by smbarbour ( 893880 )
      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.
    • 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! (Score:2, Informative)

      by purplebear ( 229854 )
      zimbra [zimbra.com]

      and/or

      postpath [postpath.com]

      are worth looking at.

  • Does it work with Kolab2 yet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:29PM (#15563080) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • A cancer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:30PM (#15563090) Homepage Journal
    Of course it's GPL

    So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

  • Excellent for desktop migrations... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IpSo_ ( 21711 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:35PM (#15563139) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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 o

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

        by lukas84 ( 912874 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:01PM (#15563345) Homepage
        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.
  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @02:58PM (#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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by ASkGNet ( 695262 )
      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 (Score:3, Informative)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
      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

    • 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

    • Re:GUI look (Score:3, Funny)

      by rduke15 ( 721841 )
      Why does Thunderbird look like a native Windows application?

      Because it uses these childish mushy icons?

    • Re:GUI look (Score:3, Interesting)

      by julesh ( 229690 )
      Why does Evolution's GUI stand out as much? It doesn't look like a Windows application - the colours are wrong, for one, the toolbar delimiters are non-standard, the up-down widget as well, the checkbox is non-checkboxey, the icons are bland, and there are lots of buttons around.

      Because it's a GTK application, and GTK doesn't use native widgets. As others have suggested, you can install a theme to avoid this issue, but it won't fix a few other sticking points that I've had with other GTK apps:

      * Non-standar
  • 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).
  • 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.

  • Ha! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:21PM (#15564101) Journal
    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!
  • The joy and aesthetics of GTK on Windows......
  • 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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ClayDowling ( 629804 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:49PM (#15564313) Homepage
    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.
    • Actually it's you that reinforce the prototype of Slashdot commenters ;)

      If you would have investigate more thoroughly what's happening, you would have noticed that the guy who released this installer and the wrapper executable (which apparently some people mistake for an X server, huh, how clueless can one be?), and posted to Slashdot, had nothing to do with the actual porting work that went on mostly during last year (by me). Announcing his installer on Slashdot was a bit premature in my opinion.

      And yes, I
    • Let's call you a troll, right? It is still in ALFA level, it is nor finished, nor polished, nor supported.

      Damn, people sometimes have hard time to understand it.

  • Beware of software incompatibilities (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:02PM (#15564412)
    If you have Intelligent Design for Windows on your machine, you have to uninstall it first.
  • 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?

  • Missing Redistributable dll (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zane Hopkins ( 894230 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:19PM (#15564550) Homepage
    Downloaded the linked version, and tried running it, on a clean XP SP2 box, and got a "missing MSVCR71.DLL" error - seems he's linked it to a VC 2003 runtime dll, but not shoved it into the installer. Grabbed a copy from a .NET 1.1 redistributable ( system32\URTTemp folder ). Running the "step2.cmd" batchfile, rather than the "evolution.cmd" batch file seems to work better.

    Not a great start, but the webdav shared calendar support seems quite a bit faster than sunbird, so that's got to be a step in the right direction.

  • That is an Outlook killer? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by duplicate-nickname ( 87112 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:48PM (#15564789) Homepage
    LOL

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

  • Too bad it doesn't work. (Score:3, Informative)

    by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) * <jwsmythe@nospam.jwsmythe.com> on Monday June 19, 2006 @06:14PM (#15564976) Homepage Journal
    Too bad it doesn't work.

        I saw the article, and got anxious. I told my girlfriend that she can now use the same program that I use for mail. She was anxious too. She has problems with Outlook on occasion, just as any other Outlook user does.

        The install went flawlessly, but now Evolution won't start. Her machine is a fairly plain WinXP box, kept up to date fairly regularly (i.e., every night as scheduled)

        Too bad it doesn't just work. I'm trying to figure out what it's delima is, but it doesn't make it look like a good thing for an end user. Most people would stop when it doesn't work. I definately can't tell the Windows users "Go download this!", because there may be a number of steps which they may need to do, that are beyond their abilities.

  • I am going to be a bit blunt... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 ) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:05AM (#15566780)
    I am going to be a bit blunt...

    I keep thinking this and for some reason feel the need to finally say it.

    Why does 99% of Open Source software look like bad Win95 applications?

    I know geeks don't like 'eye candy' but this is getting to the point where even geeks need to embrace images, high color icons and colorful design.

    Geeks also need to embrace 'usability' as most products are written as us 'techie' types would be comfortable with, but that is NOT the mass of people using computers. And I don't mean 'copying' MS's usability from 1997 either, I mean real world current usability expectations.

    The open source world CAN do so much better than this...

    (I know this may not seem like a positive post, but hopefully someone will find it constructive and we will start to see applications that look like they were made in this century.)

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close