|
|
| Novell Releases Evolution's Connector for MS Exchange Server under GPL |
 |
|
Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 12:29 PM EDT
|
It looks like Novell is serious about being a member of the community. Dr Stupid just sent me this link to a Novell press release announcing they have just
released their Connector for Microsoft's Exchange Server under the GPL.
"Evolution Connector allows Microsoft Exchange Server 2000/2003 users to easily manage
their e-mail, calendars, group schedules, address books, public folders and tasks from
Linux desktops."
So, now what holds you back from moving to a GNU/Linux system?
"The Evolution Connector for
Microsoft Exchange Server source code can be found at http://ftp.ximian.com,
and developer information about Evolution can be found at
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution. The Connector code is now available
to the public along with the rest of Evolution under the terms of the GNU
General Public License (GPL). Beginning May 14, current Evolution users will
be able to download Connector for Microsoft Exchange Server for no charge at
http://www.novell.com/products/connector/download.html."
Here is the press release. You will notice they call the GPL an "open source license", which isn't
precisely correct, I don't think, unless you are speaking very loosely. It would be more
accurate to call it a free software license. The Free Software Foundation is not affiliated with open source, and they prefer the
term "free software license" for the GPL, and because they created the GPL, they should be
allowed to call it whatever they want. But, Novell is new. They mean to get it right. Releasing
this under the GPL is a wonderful thing to do, and Novell should be commended for it, and I do commend them. No. No word from the court yet.
***********************************
Novell Announces Evolution 2.0 and Release of Connector for Microsoft Exchange Server
Under Open Source License
-- Novell Evolution 2.0 coming in the third quarter with native GroupWise
support
-- Novell's Connector for Microsoft Exchange Server will be integrated
into Evolution 2.0 and is immediately available as open source
WALTHAM, Mass., May 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL) today
announced its Connector for Microsoft* Exchange Server will be integrated into
Evolution(TM) 2.0 and made available as open source, beginning today with the
current Connector 1.4. Evolution is Novell's award-winning e-mail and
workgroup client for Linux* systems and is the most widely used collaboration
suite on Linux. Evolution Connector allows Microsoft Exchange Server 2000/2003
users to easily manage their e-mail, calendars, group schedules, address
books, public folders and tasks from Linux desktops.
"As companies deploy Linux on the desktop, they must ensure that users of
either Windows* or Linux can collaborate with each other using existing
back-end systems and familiar processes," said Nat Friedman, vice president of
the desktop technologies group at Novell. "Technologies like the Connector
which allow Linux desktops to operate inside a mixed proprietary/open source
environment make choosing a Linux desktop easier for IT administrators. With
the release of the Connector source code, the entire Evolution product is now
available under the GNU General Public License, and we're excited that
customers are going to see the benefits in Novell's next Linux desktop as well
as in future releases of SUSE(R) LINUX."
Novell(R) Evolution 2.0 includes a number of new features aimed at
improving user productivity and collaboration, such as built-in spam
filtering, S/MIME and PGP security certificate management, and tight
integration with the Linux desktop and Gaim instant messaging client.
Evolution supports key data exchange and communications standards, such as
IMAP, POP, SMTP, LDAP and iCalendar, and features vFolders, threaded e-mail
view, in-line text editing and synchronization with Palm* and PocketPC
handheld devices.
In addition to support for Microsoft Exchange, Evolution 2.0 features
integrated support for the newly available Novell GroupWise(R) 6.5 for Linux,
giving users the ability to use Evolution to access their GroupWise mail,
calendars, contacts and global address books. Other features new to Evolution
2.0 include improved offline support for IMAP accounts, calendar improvements
and enhanced contact management. These enhancements complement current
Evolution collaboration capabilities including the Connector for Novell's SUSE
LINUX Openexchange Server.
"HP is committed to building on innovation to bring customers better value
through open systems," said Martin Fink, vice president of Linux, HP.
"Building on our recent announcement to bring Linux onto the desktop, HP today
joins Novell to help make the Linux desktop experience more rich and
manageable."
Mitchell Baker, president of the Mozilla Foundation, said, "The open
source release of Novell's Connector for Exchange adds an important element to
the open source desktop's interoperability with existing enterprise
deployments. The Mozilla Foundation applauds Novell's decision to move this
technology into the open source world."
Availability
Novell Evolution 2.0 will be available in the third quarter as part of
Novell's Linux desktop. For more information about Evolution, visit
http://www.novell.com/products/evolution . The Evolution Connector for
Microsoft Exchange Server source code can be found at http://ftp.ximian.com,
and developer information about Evolution can be found at
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution. The Connector code is now available
to the public along with the rest of Evolution under the terms of the GNU
General Public License (GPL). Beginning May 14, current Evolution users will
be able to download Connector for Microsoft Exchange Server for no charge at
http://www.novell.com/products/connector/download.html.
About Novell
Novell, Inc. is a leading provider of information solutions that deliver
secure identity management (Novell Nsure(TM)), Web application development
(Novell exteNd(TM)) and cross-platform networking services (Novell
Nterprise(TM)), all supported by strategic consulting and professional
services (Novell Ngage(SM)). Active in the open source community with its
Ximian(R) and SUSE LINUX brands, Novell provides a full range of Linux
products and services for the enterprise, from the desktop to the server.
Novell's vision of one Net -- a world without information boundaries -- helps
customers realize the value of their information securely and economically.
For more information, call Novell's Customer Response Center at 888-321-4CRC
(4272) or visit http://www.novell.com. Press should visit
http://www.novell.com/pressroom.
NOTE: Novell, GroupWise and Ximian are registered trademarks; Evolution,
exteNd, Nsure and Nterprise are trademarks; and Ngage is a service mark of
Novell, Inc. in the United States and other countries. SUSE is a registered
trademark of SUSE LINUX AG, a Novell company. *All third-party trademarks are
the property of their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
| So PJ can find 'em fast. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nivuahc on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
Two years ago I wouldn't have touched a Novell product if you gave it to me.
It's really wild, to me at least, to think about how much of my view of Novell
has changed over the past year.
Needless to say, the next distro I use for any commercial project will be Suse.
---
My Doctor says I have A.D.D... He just doesn't understand. It's not like... Hey!
Look at that chicken![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: texasaggie on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
I looked into purchasing a license so I could use this at work as an invidual,
but it was cost prohibitive. Moving to the GPL I think will really accelerate
adoption. This is one big step in breaking away from the email lock-in that is
Exchange. Now, if they can just continue and integrate IM (i.e. Jabber)
protocols and conferencing capabilities to compete effectively with M$'s Live
Communications Server...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: peragrin on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
I know the FSF considers the GPL a free software license but that is a truely
confusing statement, as the GPL makes sure that no matter what the source stays
open, but you can still charge for the binaries.
If you charge for the Binaries then it isn't free software. If you get the
source even if you pay for the binaries then isn't it Open Source? The GPL only
protects the Source to maintian that the Source and the changes to it are open.
The only point you can make is that it is Freedom Software, but then why not add
the three letters?.
The point to remember is Open Source is still copyrighted work and as such it
protected by copyright laws and the original copyright owner. The owner has
granted you certian rights, above an beyond what is normal for software. You
can not break those rights, doing so violates copyright law.
---
I thought once I was found but it was only a dream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: jricher on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: DaveF on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT
- Charging for binaries - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:46 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- Autonomous / Sovereign Software ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:00 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: John on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: Kavey on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- Open source or Free Software - Authored by: freeio on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
The term "Open Source" was coined to indicate a class of license that
allowed for redistribution of the source without fee, with a few other
anti-nit-pick requirements (see opensource.org).
The GPL is an "open source license" in the same sense that a Magnum is
a Dodge but also a wagon, both are in the category of Car.
Conversely, "free software" has no fixed definition. It can simply
mean no-charge binaries (e.g. "Internet Explorer is 'free
software'").
FSF means something different and specific, and requires a few minutes of
reading at the link (not often provided in casual conversation) to get the
significant details (free as in speech v.s. beer, no it is not public domain - I
can't charge, not redistribute source, or add restrictions which is not
"free", but is "open"). They also insist (and Groklaw isn't
cooperating) in calling everything GNU/Linux instead of simply
"Linux". They are free to use their own terms as they want, but at
some point it becomes a Humpty-Dumpty-ism.
I think Novell is better off calling it "open source" because it makes
the definition clearer and more specific.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
SCO's stock is up 11% already today on pretty
fair (for SCO) volume.
The market is telling us it thinks SCO will win
its remand at the hearing today, and thus the
dismissal will not be ruled on.
I regretfully predict the market is right. Any other
predictions? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:32 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Why bother? - Authored by: tintak on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT
- Hi Darl + a serious point - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- OT - hearing today and SCO stock - Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
While the FSF may view the GPL as free software license, it meets the definition
of an Open Source license by the Open Source Initiative. See
href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/">http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
a> for more information.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
This is IBM's counter attack and what a blow, instantly Novell has the product
that is the next standard.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT |
I wonder how long it will be before MS start releasing patches to exchange and
lookout to break connectivity...
This could end up like the MSN/AOL/ICQ/ETC IM protocols.. ie a moving target..
I hope not, because this will go along way to convincing companies that Linux
can work on their network... and they don't need to replace their mail server to
do it.. (though they probably should anyway. :-)
rgds
Franki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
| You will notice they call the GPL an "open source license", which isn't
precisely correct, I don't think, unless you are speaking very loosely. It would
be more accurate to call it a free software license.
I remember the days
when "Open" meant as in "UNIX", and proprietary UNIX at that - meaning that an
application that ran on one vendor's UNIX would run on another after some minor
changes and a quick re-compile, whereas stuff written for (the old) IBM would
ONLY work with IBM and was thus "Closed". (OK - The real world was never like
that and it was a marketing term more than anything else).
A lot of
commercial companies are scared of the word "Free", and do not understand the
"Free-as-in-speach" as opposed to the "Free-as-in-beer" concept. The word "Free
Software" conjures up images of "Communist Revolutioneers" and "Pirateers of
Illegal Music Downloads" and so on, whereas the word "Open" conjures up images
of "honesty" and "disclosure". I think the word "Open" will be used more and
more to describe the GPL although it is technichally inaccurate. I also think
it would be a mistake to make a big deal of this as it would give the impression
that the community is fragmented and confrontational.
On a side note, I was
amused to see a poster recently (I cannot remeber where - maybe on Groklaw) use
the expression "Free-as-in-GPL". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Christian on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
Here is the press release. You will notice they call the GPL an
"open source license", which isn't precisely correct, I don't think, unless you
are speaking very loosely.
Who defines what "open source" means?
If you follow the definition of The Open
Source Initiative, then the
GPL is an open source license. In terms of licenses, "free software" is
usually considered a subset of "open source".
This overlap disappears when
you talk about the philosophies of open source and free software. The
conceptual basis of free software and the reasons it is important to many people
are not the same as those of open source. This is where all the arguments
are.
I speculate that RMS does not want people to forget that the GPL is much
more than some other open source licenses. Maybe to him, saying the GPL is an
open source license is like saying the Titanic was a boat or Shakespeare was a
guy who wrote a bunch of stuff that rhymes. These are true statements that miss
the point. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
| PJ wrote:
Novell is new. They mean to get it right
Actually
Novell can't plead ignorance. Novell's Miguel de Icaza definately knows all of
these things very well. He just doesn't care.
I personally will not believe
that Novell means to get it right until they put the Mono class libraries under
LGPL, or GPL+linking exception. The MIT X11 license which they're currently
using may be suitable for other projects, but for Mono it's definately not
suitable. The main problem is that that form of licensing is essentially an
invitation to thrid parties to assert patent claims and thereby make the code
proprietary everywhere where those patents are respected. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJP on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
This is bigger news than it perhaps sounds.
Being able to use Evolution with Microsoft Exchange server opens up the Linux
desktop to people who really believe they can't live without Outlook (or at
least the Outlook GUI).
But beyond this, Evolution + connector can work with any IMAP and iCalendar
server, breaking the connection with Exchange.
Coupled with Sun's Outlook connector which allows Outlook itself to work with
their IMAP and Calendar server this means that a mixed environment of Linux and
Windows desktops can now preserver an Outlook interface to mail and calendar
accross both, but without having to run Exchange.
Of course, Sun's Outlook connector is not free, but then Windows users are used
to having to pay for software :-)
Outlook/Exchange has been Microsoft's stranglehold on the enterprise desktop.
That hold just got much weaker.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Has anyone else noticed a subtle difference in a lot of the posts just recently
(today)? Is it just me, or are we under attack?
SCOG must be losing bigtime.
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
I dont know if id say that novell is trying to be a part
of the community. Like microsoft and other proprietary
businesses if you happened to look through there code you
will find Open source code in there somewhere, All you have
to do with novell is look through some of there software,
take a hex editor to it and youll find that they havent even
bothered to take out the Credits from the code they...
Procured so to speak.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cxd on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
Everyone take a deep breath. We are leaving for the court in a few hours. It
starts at 15:00 hours MDT Mountain Daylight Time. It is now 12:00 hours.
My son and I are going. I thought it would be a good lesson for him to see a
Court of Law. I will imptess on him the serious nature of the place and
people.
Hang in there...
Karl[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
SCO have filed an answer brief to Red Hat's motion for reconsideration (asking
the stay to be lifted)
I haven't seen the filing, but I expect it should be a hoot.
If you remember Red Hat said the court had stayed the case on its own initiative
without argument, and the case should not be stayed pending the IBM suit, for
several reasons including (1) SCO's case is against IBM and RH is not a party,
(2) SCO's case against IBM doesn't determine copyright issues that RH is suing
about, (3) SCO's law suit against AutoZone who are is a Red Hat user was filed
after the RH suit against SCO
SCO's reply is bound to spectacular considering
(1) is undeniable
(2) SCO have just said this themselves in their motion to bifuricate IBM's 10th
counterclaim
(3) is undeniable
Additionally the RH court has stayed the RH case pending IBM provided discovery
in IBM is proceeding okay.
In the IBM case, SCO has asked for an additional year for discovery, and a stay
of parts of the case, pending the later filed AutoZone case (these are bad
arguments in themselves, I won't go into that). There mere fact that SCO is
asking this in the IBM case is bound to undermine their arguments to continue
the stay in the Red Hat case.
Anybody seen the SCO reply memo?
I believe RH's reply to the reply should be filed today too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Uh Oh! I can see the SCOX press release now.
(Its sarcasm
folks).
"P.J. of Groklaw says GPL'ed Linux is not Open Source",
Spokesperson Blake Stowell said, "and if it is not open source it is
proprietary. Because you are either one or the other you know. The SCO Group has
been a leader in providing proprietary software for several generations (of may
flies). "
TSG CEO Darl McBride continued for B.S,, widening his greedy
grimace, and rubbing his hands, "If Groklaw says Linux if not Open Source, we
now have the legal force of paralegal What-ser-name Jones saying it is! This
means it is proprietary, of course it is, it contains millions of lines of our
precious SCO code. We own proprietary code so we own Linux!, P.J. says so, and
so the Judges in all of our lawsuits will say so too." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
My bet is an "urgent security update" that'll stop the Connector
working with "Updated" MS Exchange. (New EULA, of course...)
Well, if they're behaving like a rabid terrier and won't let Linspire alone in
the Dutch court, what's to stop 'em flaunting another Anti-trust law and (trying
to) kill this off?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:27 PM EDT |
My company bought a license as part of Linux-Windows interoperablity trials.
Configuration was a bit difficult, but after that Connector worked like a champ.
It's a good piece of software and one of the critical missing links in a viable
Linux desktop. Way to go, Novell!
Fruity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pb on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
| The fact is, the FSF's usage of the phrase "free
software"
is at odds with what the phrase generally
means to most English speakers.
Another good example would
be "hacker" vs. "cracker"--"hacker" has an
established
meaning in the English language that doesn't mean what the
actual hackers would have it mean. "Cracker", on the other
hand, is a word
that's created to be unambiguous in its
meaning.
If you search for
"free software", you will find
that--with the exception of the FSF--it
overwhelmingly
means "software you don't have to pay for"--or as the FSF
likes to put it--free as in beer. On the other hand, if
you search for "open
source software", you'll find that it
only has one meaning, and that it is a
marketing term designed to promote--among other
things--"free software",
in the FSF sense of the phrase.
Obviously Novell has the right to
publish whatever they
want, and maybe they think they can better serve the
community (and themselves, naturally) by marketing their
products to the
CEOs, CIOs, and CFOs of the world. And if
they put marketing terms in their
press releases instead
of hacker terms, I won't be surprised.
The FSF
also has the right to publish whatever they want
(in fact, they publish quite
a bit just explaining their
special terminology), and if they ever convince
the world
that "free software" predominately means "free as in
speech", and
that is what will benefit everyone the most,
then Novell will likely start
using that terminology too.
Until then, though, don't be surprised if
newspapers,
journalists, CEOs and journalists talk about "open source
software", GPL'd or not--because people know what it
means, and if they
don't, then they won't just assume from
the words involved that it means
something completely
different.
I mean, sure, we know that GPL'd
software is "free
software", and we know that free software is "free as in
speech", etc., etc. Then again, we also know that GPL'd
software is open
source software as well, and we know all
the distinctions and the fine points.
Whereas the rest of
the world knows that "free software" is software you don't
have to pay for, and "open source software" is software
that the programmers
can fix for them.
So maybe Novell wants to open this up to a broader
audience, so everyone will want to--and be able to--check
their e-mail on
Linux... not just us. And that's fine with
me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
| Microsoft Corp. the software giant once again asking a Dutch court to fine
Lindows €100,000 ($118,570) a day.
http:
//www.infoworld.com/article/04/05/11/HNmsagainstlindows_1.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shareme on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
PJ GPL is recognized as an OSI License.. and thus Novell's claim as open soruce
is correct
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rvergara on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
Last night I read an interview to Ximian's Miguel de Icaza. He mentioned that a
MS Windows port of Evolution was being developed within the Evolution 2.0
project.
I am a user of evolution at home. Here at work we already replaced MS Office by
OOo, however the bit we have been unable to replace is Outlook by a full blown
email client such as Evolution.
Does anybody know anything about this port? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
Why did Novell do this?
Now they have no way to charge big companies who use Evolution (and who must
interoperate with MS Exchange and generally are happy to pay for it).
The reason, probably, is they couldn't get Connector debugged by themselves, and
hope the community will help them out.
At the moment, Evolution+Connector feels like the early days of Mozilla - great
promise but too buggy for non-hackers.
Getting it right is difficult because Microsoft works very hard to make it so.
I hope this works. Evolution can sweep the tournament if it (and Gnome...) ever
reach stability.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fgoldstein on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
One thing that limits my use of Linux is the lack of a single adequate mail
client. Hearing all the talk about Evolution, I tried it in Mandrake 10.0.
I've been using Kmail. Mandrake decided to hide that inside Kontact, the KDE
answer to Evolution. It's an ugly container that puts mail, news, and some
other stuff in one window. In other words, an attempt to clone Evolution and
follow Outlook's style. Annoying! So I decided to try Evolution again.
While it has some clever features, it still has lousy POP3 support! That's what
ISPs give you; Exchange is for corporate mail. Kmail is better, but nothing
comes close to Eudora (not available for Linux). Evolution has no "leave
mail on server, delete after x days" support. (Mozilla got it recently.)
That's necessary for keeping home and office machines, or for that matter Linux
and Windows partitions, in sync. (Holy grail: A Linux app that can share the
actual mail files with its Windows version. Yes, I know they represent ASCII
text differently.) It was "grayed out" (as a planned future) in some
Evolution 0.x releases, but removed rather than implemented. Oddly, it was in
Sylpheed-claws for a while, but removed in 2003.
Eudora goes one farther than that. It has "change server status" on
the right mouse button, on selected messages or ranges. So you can look at your
filtered spam, pick out the false positives, and delete the rest from the server
without removing real mail. Very nice. Or clobber big attachments so your ISP
account doesn't fill up. Nobody has that in Linux. "Savemymodem"
pretends to do it as a standalone app, but doesn't seem to actually work.
What really, really s*cks about Evolution is that when you have already read the
mail on client A, and Evolution is on Client B, it fetches the mail and displays
it as Unread, because it wasn't read *on that machine*. Some servers can't
handle this (boo, Comcast's Sun server) but many get it right (hooray, BSD!).
Eudora marks it as Read, so I only get the Unread marker for really new mail.
Kmail goes one better; it goes blue for "not read on this server" and
red for really new (not fetched anywhere yet).
All of the Linux mail programs seem to think that the POP3 user has exacty one
client touching his server account. Like Eudora, Microsoft Outlook doesn't; it
has the "delete after" function. So much for Evolution being a clone.
And of course the usual Slashdot-crowd responses are a) switch to IMAP (as if I
had a choice), or b) write my own code to do it (as if I were a coder). That's
the attitude that Novell will have to overcome. That and the standard Linux 90%
solution model of desktop applications.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
So, did nobody see the following line:
Novell Evolution 2.0 will be
available in the third quarter as part of Novell's Linux
desktop
This is the big news here I would think! The desktop is
definately coming, and it will be here very soon indeed !
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjf on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
I'd like to point out that it's Novell's software. If
they want to use the GPL, and call a Novell Open License.
It's their software they are giving away. Besides Free
Software is a very confusing term. There are a number of
good reasons the term Open Source software was coined. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sam on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Motion to Remand and Motion to Dismiss both taken under advisement. Surprised
anyone?
More comments and analysis later.
---
Don't forget. IAAL. (I am a layman.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bmathias on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
So, now what holds you back from moving to a GNU/Linux system?
To be
completely consistent Novell could open-source the
SUSE Openexchange
Server. Having a Exchange connector for Evolution allows you to migrate
desktops to Linux, but you're still stuck with your Windows mail server. Suse
might have licenced some proprietary software for this, so it might be
impossible.
I could have mixed feelings by the fact
that this might promote
Micro$oft protocols, but I think it's more important to give solutions and
opportunities for people wanting to migrate to Linux.
--
Mathias[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 11 2004 @ 07:06 PM EDT |
<nitpicking>
I find "open source" a much better short-hand description of GPL
software
than "free software".
"Free software" for most people - including people who don't know what
the
GPL is and including people giving away software - means just that: software
that is free as in beer.
And "open source" means "look, here, you can see the source code,
it's open
to everyone".
That's just being literal, but I think it's better to go for a term that
explains
the core of GPL instead of one that you like. It would also do something about
the misconception "open source means free as in beer".
Yes, I know there is something like "free as in speech", but is that
really
obvious when you speak about "free software"?
</nitpicking>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:22 AM EDT |
You already confused "Open source is not just Linux" with "Linux
is not open source". Now, I agree that open source is not free software,
but that doesn't stop all free software being open source. Open source is a
subset of free. So Novell is correct, just incomplete.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
Free Software is a more narrowly defined subset of Open Source, because not all
open source licenses meet the free as in speech requirement of free software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
<i>So, now what holds you back from moving to a GNU/Linux
system?</i><p>
arrgh, according to our OPS we're running a too old version of exchange - which
we have no intention of upgrading so we can't!! :-([ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
