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

[mnemonic_ (164550)]

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

Re:Finally

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

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.

Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[edremy (36408)]

Ba bum bump tish

Re:Now where's the Intelligent Design installer?

[chris_eineke (634570)]

Your drummer's license please...

Not gonna beat Google Calendar

[Skynet (37427)]

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

Re:Not gonna beat Google Calendar - oh really?

[bbernard (930130)]

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

[badriram (699489)]

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

[Jim_Maryland (718224)]

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

[rocjoe71 (545053)]

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

[smvp6459 (896580)]

The black marks would get annoying after awhile.

It still doesn't replace outlook...

[millisa (151093)]

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...

[thebdj (768618)]

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

[zerblat (785)]

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.

Re:Which I believe was the original point

[zerblat (785)]

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...

[ocbwilg (259828)]

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...

[arodland (127775)]

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

[FictionPimp (712802)]

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?

A cancer...

[truthsearch (249536)]

Of course it's GPL

So that makes Evolution a cancer on Windows and Christians?

Excellent for desktop migrations...

[IpSo_ (21711)]

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...

[lukas84 (912874)]

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.

GUI look

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

That is an Outlook killer?

[duplicate-nickname (87112)]

LOL

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

Re:CALs?

[blowdart (31458)]

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?

[ocbwilg (259828)]

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.

Re:CALs?

[CerebusUS (21051)]

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.