Evolution installer for Win32 Released

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."

Finally

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

Re:Finally

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

Not to defend Evolution itself but I find integration of calendar/contacts/e-mail and possibly VoIP telephony as very useful - when I get an invitation to an event I can just click on it to add it to my calendar, and when I want to invite others I don't have to maintain a separate list of contacts for my e-mail and calendar tools and so on.

Every time I read one of those "who the F*** needs this integration?" posts I have a strong suspicion that the writer have never got around to work in a real job - he might be some school/college kid who have yet to see what real work looks like.

Re:Finally

...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.

CALs?

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

-Rick

Re:CALs?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Ba bum bump tish

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

Your drummer's license please...

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

Your drummer's license please...

What is that? A crumpled piece of paper with an "X" in big black marker? "Well, we told him it was a drummer's license. He tried to eat it at first, but we stopped him."

Just as well: any line of work where you tend to die in bizarre gardening accidents isn't for me. Then again, I play the viola so what do I know? (More viola jokes than drummer jokes probably.)

Great!

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

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

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

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:Not gonna beat Google Calendar

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.

More is better

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

The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

It still doesn't replace outlook...

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...

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.

Re:Further impressions after download

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

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

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:It still doesn't replace outlook...

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...

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

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?

That's great!

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?

Does it work with Kolab2 yet?

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...

Of course it's GPL

So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

Excellent for desktop migrations...

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...

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.

Opens up some doors

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

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

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.

About time.

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?

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!

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.....

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

Thank you, markybob and Timothy!

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

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.

Beware of software incompatibilities

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

Thunderbird replacement?

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

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

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.

Missing Redistributable dll

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?

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.

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.

For Mac users

it will run in Darwin...

I fixed it

1) download VMware Server [http://www.vmware.com] 2) register to get serial number 3) install VMware 4) download favorite Linux Distro ISO 5) burn ISO 6) put CD in tray 7) Start VMware and Create New VM 8) start VM to install Linux 9) if distro does not already have Evolution then install it 10) PROFIT............

Bug....

Did anybody else notice the bug in the screenshot? The times for the meeting don't have the hours. Kinda silly.

What's the point, without Exchange?

This just seems so silly.

Outlook is only a shell of an app without Exchange.

But if you own Exchange you automatically own Outlook for all your licensed users (ie, included in the price of the CALs).

So the only market for this is people who want an Outlook-like application, but are using it in a workgroup environment, without Exchange.

Seems like a niche. If you want the full power, you use Exchange & Sharepoint with office. But if you have Exchange, you already own Outlook. And if you own outlook, why would you use Evolution?

I am going to be a bit blunt...

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.)

At least the uninstaller worked

And thank god for that, what a piece of shit.

GTK. my god get rid of it.

Ah. Another wonderful display of the abomination that is called GTK. I don't know who is responsible for this piece of graphics-toolkit but I do hope they go learn from Microsoft, Trolltech and Apple for future versions.

Fry: "So they finally jazzed it up..."

I used Linux a lot from 1995-2002 and I was never able to find an email client that made me happy (vs Eudora). Considering how simple the email protocol is, and how it got started on unix, I was always surprised that unix had no decent front-end for email, and a lot of subtle incompatibilities between the ones they had. The default mail command was arcane, sendmail took some work, PINE was for dialup users, various GUIs (XMH for example) primitive. The closest I got was Netscape, but it was buggy and slow.

Then Eudora wiped 4 years of email archives and I became a godless heretic.

not good enough, gui-wise

It doesn't look like a typical Windows XP application. It's worse than a Windows 95 app. I think Novell needs to polish up on the interface, besides the functions, which I think is lacking too, compared to the real thing (I installed, played around abit, and uninstalled). Nothing is customizable. Can't change the size of buttons, can't drag the toolbar, etc...

Re:Of course, being from GNOME heritage....

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

Re:Of course, being from GNOME heritage....

It's funny because it's true... :)
Gnome: a solution to a problem noone has. Everyone who has gotten sick of Gnome and KDE: try Xfce 4! You won't regret it. Just the right mix of integration and minimalism.