another clueless no-hoper
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise Apr 18, 2005 10:11 PM EDT |
wtf is this guy going on about? Another "let's pretend to like Linux while spreading lies" story. I don't use Suse/Novell yet have been using Evolution 2 longer than most. (I use Ubuntu - the first distro to offer Evolution 2). I know that Mandrake offers it and presumably Fedora as well. To name but three. Somebody needs to do a cull of journalists. There sure are some clueless individuals out there. |
| helios Apr 18, 2005 11:05 PM EDT |
easily installed in PCLinuxOS via apt/synaptic with all libraries and dependencies. Did someone mention in another thread something about lining up the marksmen?...send 'em over this way when they are done there. |
| incinerator Apr 18, 2005 11:24 PM EDT |
I need one million dollars to hire a cleaner, NOW!!! |
| sharkscott Apr 18, 2005 11:51 PM EDT |
Just what is it that Outlook does that Thunderbird or any of the other Open-Source programs do not do? I worked in an office that "revolved around Outlook and during the ENTIRE time that I worked there(contractor for the city of Phoenix) I never had something that I could not do using either Thunderbird or Open Office. I just do not get it, does he want a different way to do it or just an Outlook clone? Its nice to see that he has a "real" job reporting on this stuff but unless he can bring something to the table other than "this doesn't do what Windows does" I am not going to take him seriously. |
| ajt Apr 19, 2005 12:52 AM EDT |
People think that Outllook/Exchange is one single entity. Some of our managers put events into Outlook (Exchange), and think it's essential for business, the rest of us never use it. It's just a woefully inadequate email client. Many senior people think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't think anyone else uses it as anything other than an email client. That's why no one bothers to write an Outlook/Exchange clone, because most people don't need the calendaring tools, or don't want them mixed in with their email client. We could migrate to LDAP/SMTP/IMAP and standard clients at work at the drop of a hat, all we would need then is a calendaring system for a handful of managers. I don't like the article, it makes many errors, but it is a common view, at least amongst non-technical people. |
| PaulFerris Apr 19, 2005 1:06 AM EDT |
I thought Steven made some points -- and he's usually not clueless in his other points of views, so maybe you should take some things into mind here. The kind of functionality (I think) he's after is the group calendaring functionality available in something like Outlook or Lotus notes -- enterprise-class group functionality -- not individual calendaring. It's easy to manage a calendar for one person -- it's much harder to do it when people are scheduling rooms and meetings with company groups and rooms and all the other garbage a large-scale operation needs. I think evolution steps up to the plate and so does he -- I think what he may be clueless about (and I honestly don't know if he's right or wrong here, but I sense he's wrong) is the ease of installation of evolution on non-SuSE distros. He eludes to "having to compile" Evolution on say RedHat. Is this the case? What he may be simply saying is "guys, make evolution binaries I can easily install on any distro. Dunno. Just the FeriCyde $.02 |
| sharkscott Apr 19, 2005 7:04 AM EDT |
Ah hah!, you hit it on the head I think. Now that I read it again I see your point. If he wrote that whole article with that in mind then a lot of what he said makes more sense. What I whiner, if he needs help then why did he not ask for it, instead of bagging on a bunch of programs that he wouldn't even use to their fullest extent even if he had to use one of them everyday? He is lazy and doesn't like that he actually has to be an active user, something that using Windows does not teach one to do. Using Linux is like driving the car, Windows is like being a passenger, get it? looking out the window? I know its pretty bad but I just got up :) |
| dinotrac Apr 19, 2005 10:13 AM EDT |
Sharkscott -- Look at the article again and consider the author's viewpoint. His point is not whether or not he can set things up. His underlying point is how things will be for corporate IT departments. If he is misinformed, that, in itself, should tell us something...and not necessarily about him. |
| peragrin Apr 19, 2005 11:27 AM EDT |
Outlook has an intergrated calendar function that allows members to look at each others calendars, and upload/download calendar dates to each others so they all have the same basc calendar. Sunbird from mozilla is working on this, i believe Apple is working on intergration as well. It is one of the very few features that MSFT has that no one else can do without spending tons of money on Lotus groupware(?) |
| PaulFerris Apr 19, 2005 3:24 PM EDT |
Quoth TuxChick:"Carry on, me lad! Carry on!" Phew! I was just about to take some of my medication. Good thing you saved me from sanity! --FeriCyde |
| phsolide Apr 20, 2005 6:03 AM EDT |
I agree that the "calendaring" part of Outlook is what makes managers treat iit with an almost psychotic devotion. Further, the calendaring makes it very easy to schedule meeting. Very, very easy. However, that should NOT be taken as a good thing. Think about it: do we as a society and as individuals want the borderline personalities that become managers (often starting out in hotbeds of stupidity like sales or marketing, or heaven help us, finance) having an easy time of scheduling meetings? I bet that historians will criticize this part of MSFT's products the most, and attribute the downfall of Western Civilization to it. |
| tuxchick Apr 20, 2005 7:29 PM EDT |
the calendaring function requires an Exchange server- it's not a standalone Outlook feature. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!