Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

Interview with Miguel de Icaza 140

Posted by timothy from the miguel-loan-me-some-brain-cells? dept.
GonzoJohn writes: "Linux Orbit editor-in-chief John Gowin contacted Helix Code to catch up on where their products and projects were heading in the New Year. Miguel de Icaza, GNOME evangelist and developer and Helix Code co-founder was kind enough to answer our ten question interview. Included in the interview is some new information on the Red Carpet Project, the next iteration of the Helix Update utility." Miguel also speaks here about the not-yet-feature-frozen Evolution (what happens when Evolution is declared "finished"? ;) ). Is anyone out there using Evolution in their own workplace?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview with Miguel de Icaza More

Interview with Miguel de Icaza

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Maybe she read the README (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm pretty sure emacs is done. God forbid someone decides it isn't and adds anything more.
  • Here [linuxorbit.com] (for the lazy).
  • Yah -- but doing that can involve a significant amount of extra work, depending on how the program's structured.

    If the author uses a plugin architecture, then it's not an issue at all -- optional functionality can be compiled into standalone libraries, and those included in subpackages. Easy, done. However, if the options change the single, primary binary, then making subpackages to handle the problem is all but impossible -- even if you have them overwrite (or flat-out provide) the main executable, you can't provide a subpackage for each possible configuration of even a moderately complex package.

    For an example of this problem, look at Red Hat's vim package. It includes 'vim-common', 'vim-minimal' and 'vim-complete'. 'vim-common' and one of 'vim-minimal' and 'vim-complete' may be installed. However folks can't pick and choose as they could with a source package ("I want the python scripting, but no TCL, and..."). Frankly, there's no easy solution that doesn't involve asking program authors to do way too much. After all, having a 'vim-python-only' and a 'vim-python-and-tcl' is hardly a workable solution.

    Thus, while binary packages are a simple solution, folks who really care about their system's configuration are best off with source -- simple as that. It's hardly fair to blame the program authors, though.

  • You are truly confused about what free means, and what the Gnome project's goals are.

    Why don't you just install Windows and Outlook? You'd be happier.

  • PINE is under a proprietary license by the University of Washington. You are not allowed to distribute modified versions. Please do not lump PINE and EMACS in the same category.
    --
    I noticed
  • Hah. The thing that'll cook your noodle:

    As a user, I'm free to use either Outlook Express OR Evolution.
  • Why? Why would you want to store your OS let alone your data files on remote servers? What benefit do you get? I have SDSL here and I'd still kill someone before saving anything over 150kb on a remote server on a regular basis. Time! Time! Don't waste your clock cycles...
  • That's what I immediately thought, too. But it all depends on how it's implemented. You can simply have a button in the clip arts folder, labeled "More". This could take you to sites with downloadable clip arts, some of which have to be payed for. And you could simply do this from within the Gimp dialog. This scheme could be useful in a number of contexts. Depends on intent of the implementers.
  • C++, on the other hand, is a language considered unsafe because it allows unchecked array accesses among other flaws.

    This kind of reasoning is simply dishonest. The fact is that the only reason to use pointer arrays in C++ is for performance. If you're satisfied with java=like performance, you can use vector and not worry about "array out of bounds" errors.

    Python "answers" these concerns by providing container classes (like C++), and providing reference counting.

    C++ has container classes which are managed automatically, so let's move on to reference counts. Reference counts are fairly easy to implement in C++. They do not free you of all memory management because it uses reference counts, and not garbage collection. This is a convenience for sure, but when one runs into hard memory management issues (such as writing a graph class for example), the reference counts don't make things that much easier. In fact C++ programmers usually use reference counts as a performance enhancement technique (since it saves redundant copying)

    Python may well supplant perl one day , but it will not replace C++ because it is not and never will be as fast as C++. Its design goals are completely orthogonal to those of C++. It's certainly a great language, but you're kidding yourself if you think its performance is acceptable for speed critical applications.

    Still, I disagree with the following comment the other guy made: The fact remains that Linux and Gnome are based on a language and runtime that is processor and architecture dependent, provides no support for runtime safety and fault isolation, and provides no dynamic type information.

    CORBA has built in exceptions, C is an ISO standard and GNOME sits on top of various portability layers (such as glib). I'm pretty sure GTK+ has some kind of dynamic type information, CORBA certainly does.

  • Gnome, KDE, and Mozilla are large C/C++ systems, and they both try to force a dynamic object system on top of those languages. It's a testament to human persistence in the face of great odds that those systems are as nice as they are. But it's also pretty clear that those systems are neither easy to extend nor easy to modify--the learning curve is pretty high.

    A high learning curve doesn't mean that the systems are "hard" to extend or modify, it means that it's hard to learn to extend and modify. I know this sounds pedantic, but it's actually an important difference. I'd argue that a reasonably proficient C++ programmer shouldn't have much trouble working with KDE, for example. I'd agree that it's quite difficult to become a reasonably proficient C++ programmer though.

    Aren't MS using some big virtual machine for their common runtime ? I'm not that familiar with it, pardon my ignorance. I'm suspicious of anything that sits on top of a VM. (I'm concerned about performance, mostly ) I'm also suspicious of GC. I can see them pulling off a good imitation of Java, with slow performance as part of the deal.

    I didn't really get what you were trying to say about GNOME. Are you trying to say that CORBA doesn't have exceptions, or an object model or type information anything like that ? IIRC, GNOME has all the things you claimed it didn't have (though I don't program in GNOME that much -- I prefer KDE). QT certainly has its own rtti system, its own object model, and a CORBA-like system (DCOP) which acts as a cross-language object system.

  • .NET also provides for garbage collection,

    GC, virtual machines, etc. Is it going to need a Pentium 4 to even run ?

    Bonobo doesn't even come close. It doesn't provide a common runtime, fault isolation, or garbage collection.

    CORBA provides reference counts and exceptions. I believe it also provides runtime type information.

    Bonobo would basically just give you the same functionality COM/DCOM give you, with all the problems that that entails

    Such as ?

  • Can't get to page, it says the page doesn't exist.

    --
  • Oh, and first post!

    ACTUAL ERROR:
    --------------

    Slow down cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of /comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.

    It's been 1 minute since your last submission!

    --
  • What I meant was that Evolution is free software; i.e. you get the source code, can make changes, redistribute your changes, etc. Outlook Express is available binary only (free as in beer), and only runs on Windows (maybe Mac too?). If you want to run Outlook Express (or IE), Microsoft has already over-charged you for Windows, and possibly Office, so you really are paying for it. You don't have to pay Helix Code a cent to use Evolution, or Helix Code Gnome or anything else for that matter. I believe all their software is GPLed.
  • Outlook Express is not free in the sense Miguel is talking about (free as in speech). The cost of development was absorbed from the profits from Windows & Office, same as Internet Explorer.
  • Did you read the article? Miguel explains why updates having been coming for a while. For the lazy:

    Linux Orbit: Since Comdex, I've noticed a bit of a slow down on the number of updated packages on the Helix Code Update servers, is there a reason for this?

    Miguel de Icaza: Yes, there is a reason. As we grow to support more operating system and more distributions, we have been working in parallel on a new system that will allow us to automate a lot of the work that we did in the past manually and to provide better quality assurance and support for our users. This project (called blue sky) has taken most of our resources recently, and the last batch of updates has been completely done with it, so we have been basically migrating from our old setup to a new, more extensible setup. For example, some users want to have a stable system and are just interested in getting bug fixes, while other users are interested in getting the latest and craziest inventions from the GNOME community. So part of our work is to establish various "levels" that can address the needs of those groups.
    ----

  • I just don't get the remote storage thing. Why would I bother storing files in a remote 25 meg space, when it's cheap to buy a hard drive with 25 gigs?

    Off-site remote backup is important because your data can be accessible anywhere on the planet and more secure than it being on a secondary drive (as i know personally).
  • Why? Why would you want to store your OS let alone your data files on remote servers? What benefit do you get?

    Among other things ,a system backup i can't readily fuck up.

  • Actually, Helix will use Nautilus. The reason is that Helix is a distribution of the Gnome environment.

    I agree. And as you stated, Helixcode is under the umbrella of Gnome, so Gnome + Nautilus would remain correct.

    Gmc is going out the window

    GMC core dumped on me numerous times, so i won't be missing it. Good info though =^)

    Nautilus isn't just some add-on file manager for the Gnome project. It will be the file manager for the Gnome project.

    Good news indeed. But i've used Nautilus from the beginning, and it's far more than a file manager, unlike Red Carpet which seems like a package manager on steroids.
  • It's New Years Eve and i have all sorts of craziness going on in my house at the moment, but i'm going to reply to your posting anyway...

    If open source efforts want to compete with .NET, they'd have to adopt similar technologies. A Java runtime is the most obvious choice, though not necessarily with Sun's Java libraries.

    I'll agree Java is designed to make it difficult to code illegal operations. C++, on the other hand, is a language considered unsafe because it allows unchecked array accesses among other flaws. But i believe Python answers those concerns, and i expect Python will completely usurp Perl and C++ within the next 10 years. Already, many C++ programmers use the Python language for prototyping the full specifications of a product because it's syntax is so clean and readable.


    The fact remains that Linux and Gnome are based on a language and runtime that is processor and architecture dependent, provides no support for runtime safety and fault isolation, and provides no dynamic type information.


    Bullshit. It sounds like your an advocate of Microsoft Internet Information Server 4.0. Open Source supports everything you claim it doesn't. [nec.com] Except your precious Visual Basic.


    It's depressing to me to see how much projects like Mozilla, KDE, and Gnome have followed in the Microsoft footsteps and are repeating the same mistakes.


    Again, subtle M$ bullshit propaganda. Mozilla 6 couldn't have been constructed any differently than IE, and Gnome has always been radically different than anything M$ has ever conceived. Gnome should be considered a raging success, especially considering it's young age.


    Happy New Year q000921
    Make it your new years resolution to leave the dark side!

  • Inside Gnome and KDE Desktops [hardcorelinux.com] will give you the skinny on GNOME and KDE.

  • Open Source's approach will be different than Microsoft's, because the two philosophies and user bases are different. I believe Microsofts .NET strategy is to:
    • make money from popular software like Windows and Office
    • combat pirating
    • widen it's reach to more computing devices
    while Linux will uses this internet intergration to help users like you and i keep up with the warpspeed Open Source development going on around the world.

    I agree Open Source will use different technologies than MS, but the means is the same: software will be delivered as a service on demand to more devices than ever possible.

  • the "h" is missing from the start of http.

    try this instead. [linuxorbit.com]

    +++++
  • Many of those installations are probably reinstallations. I've completely reinstalled Helix-Gnome onto this desktop right here 4-5 times.

    On the other hand, to save bandwidth, or to simply work around having to download using a modem (oh so slow), I download Helix-Gnome at work, burn it to disk, and then install it elsewhere. At last count, there's probably about 12 machines using helix-gnome from a single download.

    If installs of Helix Gnome are anything like installs of Linux it'll be near impossible to count the number of users.

    Regardless, I think this misses the whole point. I don't use Linux because there are a lot of Linux users, I use it because it works. There are a lot more Windows users, but that hasn't made Windows a better platform has it?

  • <sarcasm>Yea, miguel de icaza wants free software over usability, lets kick him off the evolution devel team ! </sarcasm>

    <rant>
    I mean, come on. This is a big part of open source, you get what the developers want. If miguel finds open source to be the most important thing to him, then thats what your going to get. You always get what the developer wants. OSS developers(not all, but ones like miguel) are doing this because they enjoy doing it, and because he wants to. Corporate companys do it because they are a slave to the dollar and do anything to make a buck.

    So corporate america doesn't care, so what? While i like the ammount of applications and support linux is getting, and know that corporate america is where the "cash cow" of linux is, I really wouldn't mind if people started saying "Why do we need that, 99% of linux users dont want that, just corporate america, screw that and lets do something we want in our software."

    I know this isn't the way to get linux "into every home/office/etc." So what? If your giving away your work, your doing it for a reason. His reason is because he beleives in OSS ...

    </rant>
  • Well, I suppose there's still the faint possibility that somebody might find another bug in it, after all these years, but it's not getting any new features, and it hasn't changed in years.

    --Moss

    This is a .sig.
    Now there are two of them.
  • Outlook express is *not* free. The opportunity cost is very high.

  • "Software like Outlook Express has been free for ages, so that's pretty much the norm (not the exception) for this kind of software."

    Again, the word free shows its ugly head... For many, the source to freedom is the source.

  • The last time I did try it was rather crappy, esp. for slow IMAP mailbox windows.

    The best one for Linux/x86 for the moment is the recently released mulberry.
    Its a closed-source commercial product, but if you do IMAP, it really rocks your world. You can even adminster parts of the cyrus imap server with it !


    Samba Information HQ
  • This is extremely obvious, but 'Gnu-Compliant' most likely refers

    If it's so obvious, why does it only "most likely refer" to GPL-Compatible?

    Secondly, plently of "free" code that's free enough to allow anyone to make contributions aren't "GPL-Compatible" - so it's pretty irrelevant what license is used. There are plently of routes that benefit from having available source..

  • "For example, if you want to get more clipart in the GIMP, or get a pantone palette, you could buy those directly from the software you are using (on the color selector, in the font selector) "

    Eww that doesnt sound good at all. I don't want an add popping up every time I try to select a font or color in the GIMP.
  • However, I think that a focus on how GNU-compliant the software is doesn't help anyone: let's work to make this the best mail client available anywhere, period! [Emphasis mine.]

    And just how are we to 'work to make this' anything if it's not free software? Don't like Miguel's focus? Grab the sources and start hacking. Can't write code? Get some cash together and pay a bunch of hackers to make it what you want.

    If it wasn't GNU-compliant, you wouldn't be able to take the "let's make it x" attitude at all.

    In contrast to your thought that having the software be free helps no one, I think it helps anyone--anyone who wants to take advantage of it.

    Your post reads like more armchair quarterbacking than anything else.

  • Outlook Express is not free in the sense Miguel is talking about (free as in speech). The cost of development was absorbed from the profits from Windows & Office, same as Internet Explorer.

    Right but by this definition Evolution is not "free" either, because the cost of development will be absorbed by Helix's profits from their for-pay services. Miguel and company have to eat =). (Not that there's anything wrong with that; after all, you can only accomplish so much with donated spare-time labor...)

  • I think you're missing the point of Evolution -- it's is GROUPWARE -- which Outlook Express is not. I personally cannot wait for Evolution to be finished, it looks like it will be one helluva groupware client. Now, what about a free, more-powerful alternative to the crappy Exchange 5.5 groupware server I'm running at work?...
  • All that discussion of Red Carpet, and nothing about using SSL or PK signatures to ensure no rogue apps are installed. Naturally, they haven't started to sign the packages they provide. And the main site still recommends the extra-dangerous 'Lynx hack' [helixcode.com] to install HelixCode.

    According to Miguel, "you could say that Evolution is targeted to replace Outlook". Do you think they mean in terms of introducing new security holes, too? :-( It sure looks that way. Helix Code, like Microsoft, seems quite adept at crafting eye candy, but I'm not sure security is even an afterthought.

  • He did say the main site and there are plenty of sites that mirror the installation....so this could be right.
  • I've been using evolution since I needed a new pop mailer for school, and it's wonderful. Just got preview 8 up, and I'm happy as a pig in shit with it. The only problem I had was one dependency, libgal3, that wasn't satisfied automatically -- which brings me to the next topic:

    helix-update isn't doing it for me. I'm a Mandrake 7.2 user, and they aren't updating our RPM's well enough, and I'm using some stuff that is just simply old, like I was with that libgal3 that needed to be updated. For Mandrake, xmms 1.2.3 is still in the helix tree -- although 1.2.4 has been out and stable for quite a while. If helix is going to start packaging certain things, they must stay on top of it, and for ALL distributions.

    Mike Roberto
    - GAIM: MicroBerto

  • i maybe wrong, but i heard a while back that different front-ends could be made for it, also, you could run it under kde any even if its not a kde app :)
  • it sounds to me that it wont have adds, but a interface for the gimp developers to hook into so they could do this, not really ads poping up in the gimp, just a button to go get more addons with redcarpet. mozilla and netscape has a button so you can go download themes, i think thats like what this is.
  • Many of those installations are probably reinstallations. I've completely reinstalled Helix-Gnome onto this desktop right here 4-5 times.
    OTOH, I've downloaded twice, and put it on my extras CD, and installed it on over half a dozen systems.
  • palm-utils doesn't use it. yet.
  • Netscape, as you cite it, is really no better than vim -- the communicator and navigator packages each include a full replacement for the binary, rather than extra plugins loaded at runtime. If there were more options than merely "with/without mail/news/etc", this variant of the subpackage solution would be unable to handle it.

    I agree that having better-architected apps is a Good Thing, too, but the overhead involved is often significant. Practical issues are involved, too -- I'm not about to go back and rewrite my old apps to use a plugin architecture, though I frequently do so with my new ones. A better interm solution is needed for today's users when they're in need of greater configurability. Right now, that's compiling from source.
  • Ah, then. Well, we agree on The Right Way.

    Only thing is, when I'm writing an app, I architect things that way if it's conveniant. Frequently it is -- using a plugin-based architecture, if it's well-thought-out, is an excellent way to avoid the need to hack in features crudely. However, at times when that's not expediant, I'm not going to spend an extra few days that could be spent actually Getting The Thing To Work on modularising it just for the sake of binary packages.
  • That's a common problem with binary packages. If you compile Evolution by hand, it'll detect the lack of palm-utils and not use it. Done, fine, everyone happy. That the binary packages are compiled with palm-utils support in is their problem (unless you think it's important 'nuff to break off subpackages to deal with the problem). In short, it's an RPM problem, not an evolution problem. Use the source and you'll be fine.
  • SharkMail [lanshark.com] was doing the virtual folder (they called them persistent search folders) thing back in 1997. I think they were the first email client to have this feature, but I may be wrong. FYI.
  • In the world I live in, developers, Open or closed, are attracted by platforms with large user bases.

    Why, then, did all those people contribute to Linux in 1993? Why weren't they busy writing code for something with a wide user base, like Windows (very popular at the time, I gather).

    ESR has said some odd things, but he was right when he noted that most Open Source developers do it to scratch a personal itch. If you want other developers to help out on a project -- make it something they'll be interested in *using*, and if it's something with a large scope, make it modular so people can write their own bits independently without treading on each others' toes (see Apache, the Gimp, Emacs).

    UNIX originally attracted a lot of coders because the pipe mechanism suited programs that were small and acted as 'modules' -- "tr" isn't much use on its own...

    I believe there is a set of applications that lack the glamour or the in-built hackability that makes them attractive to volounteer developers. Whether open or closed source, I think these tasks need coders motivated by a paycheque (or some other reimbursement).
    --
  • Thanks, Miguel. I've started to read those docs, and some of my worries are disappearing.

    With a bit of luck I'll also find that there are also (going to be) non-graphic front-ends to generate the intermediate XML to drive the back-ends, so that the remote, non-graphic or scripted installer is not left out in the cold.

    Keep up the good work, and a Happy New Year to you!
  • You answer your own question in an oblique sort of way. Helix Code is focusing on providing an alternative to Windows. It seems quite obvoius, to me, that the best way to do this is to hire a bunch of competent programmers and start cranking out code. Now please tell me why, in God's name, would they want to waste precious time and money training the said "puke" to use an entire other operating system and mail client and God knows what else when they can just use those resources to improve their software instead? How is this not obvious to you? I've never really investigated the market for clerical workers before, but I'm almost positive that the benchmark for proficiency is being able to use Word, Excel, Windows, and Outlook. I for one sleep better at night knowing that Miguel de Icaza is harnessing his formidable coding skills to improve Gnome than wasting a week teaching Wendy the temp how to recompile her kernel and word process in StarOffice. Focus on the ends, not the means, man!
  • The vision of the Helix Setup Tools is tightly integrated with our vision of component-based programming and interface/contract-based programming.

    The whole vision of GNOME is to enable a level of scripting that has never been available before. If you are interested in the technical details that address your concerns you can read the Helix Setup Tools white paper (http://primates.helixcode.com/~miguel/helix-setup -tools.html [helixcode.com]) and if you are interested in our approach to component programming and how we think these things should fit, look at http://primates.helixcode.com/~miguel/bongo-bong.h tml [helixcode.com]. And finally, if you are hooked into an object name space and service location you might be interested in the Moniker white paper (http://primates.helixcode.com/~miguel/monikers.ht ml [helixcode.com]).

    Best wishes,
    Miguel.
  • I was using filter expressions in Elm in 1991. It provides a view just a normal mail folder, but that of mail that matches the filter. The only difference was that Elm's weren't persistent. It's not a terribly new concept, and it certainly isn't going to revolutionize e-mail.

    --
  • please be careful about your generalizations. some of us use mutt (i don't know about pine) and love it. i'd rather read my mail with a bunch of thrown together perl scripts than use a GUI for that.
  • Actually, Helix will use Nautilus. The reason is that Helix is a distribution of the Gnome environment. As of version 1.4, Gnome will include Nautilus for file management, help browsing, and the like. Gmc is going out the window. It will be included with the Gnome 1.4 Extra Apps, for those who prefer it, but it won't be a part of the core Gnome environment. Nautilus is its replacement. Helix Code will ship Nautilus in addition to the other core Gnome packages. Nautilus isn't just some add-on file manager for the Gnome project. It will be the file manager for the Gnome project.
    ----
  • actually, Helix will use Nautilus..see my reply [slashdot.org] to your previous comment.
    ----
  • When I look at the the Gnome.org Get more software I see a lot of things that Helix does not distribute.

    I can understand why this would be confusing. The Gnome software map you are refering to is just a list of Gnome software, not necessarily software that is part of the Gnome Project proper. If you check out the releng module [gnome.org] in Gnome CVS [gnome.org] you'll see a list of packages that will be included in Gnome 1.4. At the bottom of the list you'll notice that mc will not be included in the core release of Gnome. That's because Nautilus is replacing it. Nautilus is part of the Gnome Project [gnome.org], not just a third-party add-on for Gnome.
    ----

  • When Helix ships Gnome 1.4, Nautilus will be included. Now, they may ship a version of Nautilus that doesn't contain Eazel's services stuff, that I don't know. You'd have to talk to someone from Helix Code. I do understand your question regarding the overlap of services between Helix Code and Eazel. I've often wondered the same thing. In addition, Red Hat has an update agent and the Red Hat Network. The internet services for upgrading, purchasing support and services is going to be extremely competitive, which is excellent. It'll be fun to watch how it plays out. My main point was that Nautilus (the file manager and its technologies) will be in Gnome 1.4, which Helix will ship. The Eazel Services I view as a business add-on akin to Helix's Red Carpet.
    ----
  • I'd just like to point out the obvious; that you can easily extract the source tarball from an SRPM. Use 'rpm2cpio foo.rpm | cpio -i'. rpm2cpio is included the rpm package, or there is a seperate version written in perl here [iagora.com].

    I don't disagree that helix is ignoring slackware, but it is a fairly small hurdle for anybody willing to build from source.
  • He already made the VC pitch, and a VC firm listened. Linux Global Partners [linuxglobalpartners.com]. They're really a great bunch of VCs, who are really with it.

    --dave
  • I believe Microsoft's looming .NET strategy [microsoft.com] is the influence behind the new web-centric philosophy of Helix Gnome - and their merging with Eazel's Nautilus" [eazel.com]. IMO, harddrive space will become less and less relevant as applications will be delivered on demand via the internet, instead of being permanantly commited to your operating environment. I use both Gnome Helix and Nautilus and I store my image files in Eazel's 25 mg storage space, and will happily upload my entire os when Eazel offers the service.

    Window managers and applications that are dynamically and effortlessly updated is a good thing, and believe its the future of home computing.

  • What are you advocating for? You want Evolution to be better than Outlook, why? You more users to use GNU/Linux from Windows, why?

    Why would you want users to switch to another operating system if its just another propietary OS that restricts the user from the software by its EULA?

    It is not just about being popular! There is the reason GNU/Linux is as nice as it is; there is a reason we have an entire community of contributors changing and sharing these changes across the internet or across the room---it all started long ago in this project called GNU. This kind of dynamic and helpful community only happens when the users have the freedom to do so.

    That is what freedom is about.

    Now I entirely sympathize with the fact that people often can't use free software because it isn't a viable alternative for them. But an alternative that isn't free is not alternative at all.

    That is what Miguel was talking about. Freedom first.

  • "Red Carpet is a universal package manager. It has a pluggable architecture for doing package management and to handle dependencies in them."

    It's like they say about standards, with so many to choose from...

  • Hate to say this since I'm a KDE guy myself... but I talked with the Helix guys at Comdex and they seem to be quite cool. Specifically, I mentioned the Slack problem to them and they kinda groaned, but Aaron came up to me and gave me the following URL:

    http://primates.helixcode.com/~aaron/slack.html [helixcode.com]

    If you want to go check it out, and if you REALLY want to try out that purty GUI installer, just follow his directions... and soon, you'll have Helix on Slackware. (I'm currently being tempted by the Dark Side - FreeBSD is awfully nice... ; )
  • If Evolutions is so great... Why arent they using it themselves?

    Good question. Maybe she read the "It's in development" [helixcode.com] warning.

    "Even though it has a non-zero version number, this is not a "stable" release. You will not be able to use it as your real mail client, calendar, or contact manager."

    Or the README, which says something like "This program may delete all your email if you aren't careful"... or something.

  • Exactly what is this "GNU-compliant" that everyone is talking about? What does that even mean?

    I think you're trying to say "if the source wasn't freely redistributable.." - please don't mix the terms up; free and open source code predates the GNU project and the FSF by years.

    Freely redistributable (in original and modified forms) source != GNU.

  • The most generous interpretation of the above is that freedom should be clearly secondary to functionality. A less generous interpretation is that freedom is not important at all.

    Yes. Is this a bad thing? Many of us choose the best tool for the job, and simply want the solution that's going to work best. We don't use Linux because of the fact that its free, but because it is reliable and the particular featureset we neeed for a particular task. We know that Linux being Open Source contributer to its reliability, but when comparing, say, LInux 2.2 NFS and NIS to Solaris, we will benchmark and buy Solaris if the benchmark and other factors prompt us to do so.

    You might find the concept unusual, but best tool for the job is actually more popular the OSS, though I'd like to think there's an overlap between the two. If closed source software produces good software, then I'll use it. Though being Open Source often acts as a feature in itself, and may even be necessary depending on the circumstances [eg, embedded devices]. But there's more to ther suitability of software to a particular task than licensing.

  • What non-free software has taken off on Linux that had even one half-as-good--or even just promising--free competitor? This is a major
    hurdle to overcome.

    Games. Right now, closed source games are vastly mmore popular to Linux users than Open Source games.

  • That the binary packages are compiled with palm-utils support in is their problem (unless you think it's important 'nuff to break off subpackages to deal with the problem)

    Actually, I think most of us package managment types would much rather go for the latter option, not because the palm pilot support is `important' [it may or may ot be] but that's optional extra functionality. In fact, seperating evolutions libraries from the actual app [for use by other apps] would be good.
  • Take the sixth item in particular. It ties into your "best free mail client" jibe. In fact, creating the "best free mail client" is a pragmatic strategy, even if it means ignoring Outlook-ish features, because most free software developers use free mail clients. If you make the best free client, you get lots of enthusiastic developers interested, which gives you lots of momentum. So creating the "best free mail client" is a valid goal

    I don't udnerstand your logic [and I think you're being rather rude to the original poster]. Developers make tools to atract developers who make tools to attract developers?

    In the world I live in, developers, Open or closed, are attracted by platforms with large user bases. Good developer tools helps, but are a definite second [or lower on the list].

    The free email clients that most Open Source developers use are fairly stagnant in their development. Actually, quite a few Open Source developers I know use Netscape Messenger. The rest use PINE/mutt and hate it.
  • I should have said this earlier, but my preference is to change the architeture of the application to be more componentized, or replace the application with something better designed. The design of most Unix text editors is generally acknowledge to be un-Unixlike [in philosophy] and quite bloated by their users.

    Gradually, the lessons are being learnt. Look at Netscape 4, with Netscape-common, Netscape-communicator, and netscape-navigator packages. Mozilla and Netscape 6 comes as various library packages and neat plugin modules.
  • VMWare, Win4Lin, StarOffice and Netscape 4.x are also popular closed source apps, vastly more so than their Open Source counterparts.

    I think your vision of the Linux market is limited to yourself.
  • Netscape, as you cite it, is really no better than vim

    Well, yes, Netscape 4 isn't. That's the point I was trying to make. I was using Netscape 4s architecture and packaging methods as another example of how things shouldn't be done, and Netscape 6 / Mozilla's architecure as the improved newer version, which is capable of being packaged into many smaller packages which can add functionality without modifying binaries.
  • I guess `half as good' is fairly difficult to define. I think Plex86 currently falls in to the category of being half as good as vmware. I think Linux users will use VmWare over Plex86 for at least another two years.

    There are many Open Source first person shooters which easily fall in to the category of `half as good as quake 3'. There are stacksa of OpenGL 3D games being produced by under Open Source licenses, most of which [same as their closed brethren] are crap, and a few of which are good.

    But Quake 3 is, in my own observations, much more preferable to Crystal Space, or the Open Source Quake 1, or any of the other OS 3D FPSs. Its closest competition is Unreal Tournament, followed by Soldiuer of Furtune....get the picture?

    Generally, Civilisation's genre isn't as popular due to the turn based nature of gameplay [most modern strategy games are real-time based]. Nevertheless, I'm quite sure the Open Source users that plays lots of Civilisation use Call to Power over Freeciv.
  • As i've said, I love evolution, but one thing that I can't stand is the fact that it wants me to have palmpilot utilities installed or else it givss me a dependency error. I don't want pilot stuff, I'd rather have evolution not load any of it and be quicker. Possibly even choose not to do a calendar too!

    Although evolution works with --nodeps (for pilot), I'd rather just have it be more modular.

    Mike Roberto
    - GAIM: MicroBerto

  • I think that the poster's intent is, sure let us create free software, but instead of trying to make the best free mail client (which from the perspective of say, an Outlook user, would still seem like a shoddy piece of crap), the goal should be the best mail client period, and have it be free software. He never said anything about ignoring freedom.
  • Let's do a little thinking on the difference between the Windows and Linux markets before we post, eh?

    What non-free software has taken off on Linux that had even one half-as-good--or even just promising--free competitor? This is a major hurdle to overcome.

  • instead of trying to make the best free mail client ... the goal should be the best mail client period

    Your approach works great in an imaginary world with no trade-offs. Do you think Miguel ever says, "No, let's leave out that functionality. We don't need it, because we're Free!"? Of course not! But he does know that, to be successful in the long-run, GNOME and Evolution need to have the support of the hacker community. That means doing some things that you wouldn't do if you were a typical proprietary vendor aiming at Joe User:

    • convenient source distribution
    • smooth build process
    • portability
    • merging contributed patches
    • establishing, maintaining, and participating in community fora
    • building features that will attract developers, including features from the software that developers currently use
    • including "hackability" features like ultra-configurability and an extension framework
    • using (and enhancing) standard free libraries and components
    • modularizing your code, so that other developers can use parts of it
    • releasing early and often (with sufficient documentation for others to get started)
    • addressing licensing concerns
    Not every effort does all of these things in the same way; but no matter how you do it, there is a lot of overhead that goes into a good free software project. It's all worth it, in the end. But you don't get the benefits if freedom is an afterthought.

    Take the sixth item in particular. It ties into your "best free mail client" jibe. In fact, creating the "best free mail client" is a pragmatic strategy, even if it means ignoring Outlook-ish features, because most free software developers use free mail clients. If you make the best free client, you get lots of enthusiastic developers interested, which gives you lots of momentum. So creating the "best free mail client" is a valid goal.

    In short, a person, and especially a company, are limited in the number of things they can focus on. If Helix were focused primarily on functionality and usability, they would be less focused on freedom, and would have less support from the community, and would have a lower chance of success.

  • P.S.:

    He never said anything about ignoring freedom.

    Not quite, but nearly:

    However, I think that a focus on how GNU-compliant the software is doesn't help anyone: let's work to make this the best mail client available anywhere, period!
    The most generous interpretation of the above is that freedom should be clearly secondary to functionality. A less generous interpretation is that freedom is not important at all.

    "doesn't help anyone"--those are pretty strong words.

  • One last post for me: I do believe that a focus on freedom is best for GNOME, Evolution, and Helix. But that isn't the main point. The main point is that (IMO) we should respect Miguel's personal focus on freedom. If this focus inspires him, or keeps him sane, or just makes him happy, he should continue it. If this isn't compatible with your values, you can ignore him, or argue the point; but don't criticize him or propose to change the direction of his project.

    I also think everyone should consider hard why Miguel--who could probably code more functionality in a week than many of us could in a year--values freedom over functionality.

  • Read again what I said about "half-as-good" free alternatives. That was an important part of the claim.

    VMWare had no free competition in sight when it became popular. I gather that Win4Lin is similar to VMWare, so the same applies. We will see whether this changes as Plex86 becomes usable, although head-starts carry some weight.

    StarOffice, in my impression, is not that popular. I doubt it would have lasted long as proprietary software (and it may not last long even now that it's free). Most people in my experience use it grudgingly for MS compatibility. Again, no free program offered decent MS compatibility until recently (even now, many Excel and Word documents are not read properly by any free software I know of).

    Netscape is an obvious case: there were no decent free graphical browsers until recently. Netscape had a long reign as the only reasonable option, which gives it lots of momentum. If Netscape 4 and mozilla were both new today, Netscape 4 wouldn't have a chance (on Linux).

    Games are harder for me because I'm not much of a gamer, and because there are so many genres of game (not to mention that individual games periodically create their own genre). What proprietary games are you thinking of that have taken off on Linux? Shooters, and action games in general, had no free competition (Doom and Quake were eventually freed, but under unusual circumstances; I don't know how this has affected the popularity of newer proprietary shooters, do you?). The best case I can think of for your side is the Civilization genre. Freeciv qualifies as "half-as-good", and is quite popular, but I don't much about the popularity of the Loki Civ ports. You may score a point on this one, but I didn't doubt you'd find some example.

    Here's the central argument: the free software community has two desktop/office projects that, while immature, clearly have basic functionality, strong developer support, and "long-term credibilty" (to use a term from the Halloween Document). Under these circumstances, I claim that no proprietary product that significantly overlaps with them will be successful on Linux.

  • Judging from other GNOME software 0.9 isn't necesarily the latest release before 1.0., it might very well be followed by 0.10 and so on.
    But in any case version numbers don't mean a shit, often get the feeling that people actually believe that these numbers actually symbolises some objective measurement of a project's current status.
  • Sometimes, when installing Linux on a "newbie's" computer, I wish the answer to "What's the difference between KDE and GNOME? Why is there two?" could be a lot easier to answer.

    It is easy. Just say, "A group of people went and made KDE. Another group of people looked at KDE, didn't like it and made GNOME. They're slightly different, but for an end-user they're largely equivalent."

    And don't go about licensing this and Qt that and GPL blahblah until the "newbie" has gathered some speed.

    Now, I know I'm getting a little bit offtopic, but I think any distribution's ease-of-use factor for non-geeks (ie. people that don't have the time to fiddle and experiment, they just want to use a computer) if it included only one desktop environment.

    And for that matter, install only one (or maybe two, but no more) word processor, one calender application, one way to dial out to the internet. It would make things a lot less confusing...

    I think the problem is elsewhere. More newbie-compliant installers would do wonders. Yes, there has been great progress, but we're not quite "there".

    ...most people don't think application centric on their computers, they think task-centric. Of course, this kind of thing would only happen bump-free with a universal file format.

    Like XML, you say? I agree. Actually, it seems the GNU crowd is ahead of M$ on that one. Of course, such an approach is anathema to M$'s monopoly-through-file-format-obfuscation modus operandi.

  • You know what kills me about Helix? My LUG got an email from them a while back, take a look at the header. Thats right, they use WINDOWS. I realize she is just some marketing puke, but wouldn't you think a company formed around the idea of *nix software would atleast eat their own? If Evolutions is so great... Why arent they using it themselves?

    Received: by mercury.shreve.net (mbox rrowell)
    (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Mon Dec 11 16:44:07 2000)
    X-From_: sblug-list-admin@sblug.org Mon Dec 11 15:42:39 2000
    Return-Path: <sblug-list-admin@sblug.org>
    Received: from server.sblug.org (IDENT:root@server.sblug.org [207.78.169.10])
    by mercury.shreve.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14391;
    Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:42:37 -0600
    Received: from server.sblug.org (IDENT:mailman@localhost [127.0.0.1])
    by server.sblug.org (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02739;
    Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:42:03 -0600
    Received: from trna.helixcode.com (IDENT:root@trna.helixcode.com [140.239.238.2])
    by server.sblug.org (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA02725
    for <sblug-list@sblug.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:41:13 -0600
    Received: from Default (michelle.helixcode.com [140.239.238.51])
    by trna.helixcode.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA03420
    for <sblug-list@sblug.org>; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:41:00 -0500
    From: "Michelle Scappace" <michelle@helixcode.com>
    To: <sblug-list@sblug.org>
    Message-ID: <NEBBLLHEALBBOAFKKNMFEEAKCCAA.michelle@helixcod e.com>
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
    boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005D_01C06391.6EBA886 0"
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
    Importance: Normal
    X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: <NEBBLLHEALBBOAFKKNMFEEAKCCAA.michelle@helixcod e.com>
    Subject: [Sblug-list] LUG
  • As so many other Slashdot readers pointed out, Miguel is focusing on Free-speech, not free-beer.

    Here's a quote from the article that bothered me:

    Porting Evolution to Windows is a possibility, but not an immediate priority. Evolution has a number of features that are not available in other mail clients,
    the most important (Hello Richard!) is that Evolution is free software. That means that people get the software and they get a number of rights on the software that they do not usually get with proprietary software, they can:
    Copy the code, and redistribute it. They can modify the code, to make adjustments, tune it, expand it or to make it smaller, or to reuse pieces of it. They can redistribute their modifications. All of this, within the licensing terms of the GNU GPL.
    I am a big fan of free-speech software, but unfortunatly, to 99% of corporate America, free-speech is not an important feature for software. The goal of Helix Gnome and Evolution are to make Gnome a viable alternative to Windows. I understand that to mean that Evolution should strive to be absolutely better than Outlook (since it can't continually play 'catch-up'). 'Better than outlook' would be it's most important feature, since as I have previously mentioned, corporate culture doesn't care about 'free-speech'.
  • A high learning curve doesn't mean that the systems are "hard" to extend or modify, it means that it's hard to learn to extend and modify.

    Well, I think it's both for Gnome, KDE, or other large C/C++ systems.

    Aren't MS using some big virtual machine for their common runtime? I'm concerned about performance, mostly ) I'm also suspicious of GC.

    Well, the short answer is: your suspicions and concerns are unfounded. The long answer is that as long as people don't start using this stuff, it will continue to appear slow. The only reason why C/C++ seems "fast" is because many programmers are familiar with it and code to its performance limitations, and because operating systems preload dozens of megabytes of shared libraries.

    I didn't really get what you were trying to say about GNOME. Are you trying to say that CORBA doesn't have exceptions, or an object model or type information anything like that ? IIRC, GNOME has all the things you claimed it didn't have (though I don't program in GNOME that much -- I prefer KDE). QT certainly has its own rtti system, its own object model, and a CORBA-like system (DCOP) which acts as a cross-language object system.

    Whatever Gnome and Qt call it, those systems simply don't provide the functionality and guarantees that Microsoft's common runtime or the JVM provide. And they require a lot more work on the part of the programmer.

  • Well, while I fully agree that Microsoft's .NET strategy also includes what you state, that doesn't mean that everything they do is bogus.

    The fact remains that Linux and Gnome are based on a language and runtime that is processor and architecture dependent, provides no support for runtime safety and fault isolation, and provides no dynamic type information. And those things matter if you want "delivering software as service on-demand".

    So far, Microsoft has delivered stuff roughly the same as Linux: a lot of messy C/C++ code and a flaky scripting language called VisualBasic. If they follow through with .NET, they'll have something genuinely better.

  • COM was a complete mess. Microsoft realized that. That's why they copied Java and created .NET. The common runtime that's part of .NET provides efficient, very fine-grained interoperability between objects written in different languages (gosh, I'm beginning to sound like a Microsoft commercial). .NET also provides for garbage collection, makes languages that compile to it to provide runtime type information, and it isolates different objects from one another.

    Bonobo doesn't even come close. It doesn't provide a common runtime, fault isolation, or garbage collection. Compilers don't generate type information for it. In fact, as far as I can tell, even if it were implemented fully and perfectly, Bonobo would basically just give you the same functionality COM/DCOM give you, with all the problems that that entails.

    It's depressing to me to see how much projects like Mozilla, KDE, and Gnome have followed in the Microsoft footsteps and are repeating the same mistakes. To me, Microsoft is bad because they are using 20-30 year old technology for their GUIs and object systems. Cloning their implementations of outdated technology isn't going to propel Linux into the 21st century.

  • I for one think Outlook is horrible. Besides its numerous security holes, I find its user interface cumbersome. Yet, many Outlook users would defend their mail client religiously.

    The fact is that there isn't a single piece of software that makes everybody happy. The problem with Windows is not that it's universally bad, but that it wants to be the one platform everybody uses. And I think it's not all that desirable that Helix/Gnome and KDE are trying to give us more of the same stuff. Using KDE2 is almost like using Windows now, down to the senseless editor bindings, and Gnome seems poised to follow suit.

  • .NET emphasizes safe, portable runtimes (very similar to Java), as well as extensive runtime and language support for components. Maybe that's all marketing hype, or maybe Microsoft will fail at that and revert to their old ways, but at least on paper, that's very different from Gnome and the environments built on top of it.

    Gnome is still a C-based system with a variety of language bindings on top of it (Perl, Python, C++, etc.). There is no unifying runtime or unifying object model underlying Gnome.

    If open source efforts want to compete with .NET, they'd have to adopt similar technologies. A Java runtime is the most obvious choice, though not necessarily with Sun's Java libraries.

    (Intel's ORP [intel.com] sounds interesting in this regard.)

  • Again, subtle M$ bullshit propaganda. [...] Happy New Year q000921 Make it your new years resolution to leave the dark side!

    Given that I've used Linux since pre-1.0 releases and GNU software since the 80's, and introduced GNU/Linux at half a dozen organizations, that's a pretty silly suggestion.

    However, I don't let my long involvement with Linux blind me to when Microsoft is doing something right. If they follow through with using the common runtime as the basis for most of their software, they will have a huge advantage over Linux and its C/C++-based systems.

    I don't intend to start using Microsoft because of .NET. But I expect that the open source software I will be using instead will not be Gnome or KDE either. While those are excellent short term solutions, in my opinion, they just won't remain useful in the long run, for pretty much the same reasons Microsoft is looking for a new approach now.

    Mozilla 6 couldn't have been constructed any [more] differently than IE, and Gnome has always been radically different than anything M$ has ever conceived.

    Gnome, KDE, and Mozilla are large C/C++ systems, and they both try to force a dynamic object system on top of those languages. It's a testament to human persistence in the face of great odds that those systems are as nice as they are. But it's also pretty clear that those systems are neither easy to extend nor easy to modify--the learning curve is pretty high.

    I suggest you make it your New Year's resolution to learn a bit more about systems other than Linux, Windows, and C/C++. In fact, in the 70's and 80's, there were a lot of good ideas and developments GUI systems, object systems, languages, and kernels, compared to which Gnome and the Linux kernel look primitive.

  • Worries about underpowered graphic tools (Score:3)

    by Morgaine ( 4316 ) on Saturday January 01, 2000 @01:52AM (#1426731)
    The thing that worries me Miguel is that a lot of functionality is going into graphic apps directly, instead of going into utilities that are managed through graphic apps. Since graphic apps are almost entirely non-integratable using linguistic glue, we're in severe danger of losing touch with the key element that made Linux/BSD/Unix the powerhouse that it is, namely programmable integration through non-graphic scripting.

    Your comments about Red Carpet brought this to mind vividly, and raised other spectres as well. We all hope that Red Carpet will become a great generic package manager, but alas it seems that the power user that is doing remote or scripted non-graphic installations is not going to be able to make use of your good work.

    Frankly, graphic-only apps suck, or more technically, are not as powerful as graphic apps that interface to underlying non-graphic utilities. Why is Helix going down this non-optimal road towards Microsoft-style systems of low intrinsic power? Why not have your cake and eat it too by using graphics for interfacing only, not for implementing new functionality?

  • Re:open source acknowledging open source? (Score:3)

    by miguel ( 7116 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @03:18PM (#1426732) Homepage
    Well, I originally heard of query-based folders in the Paquiderm mailer (Jim Gettys showed this to us a long time ago). Paquiderm, and the help of Nyao Nguyen (who was a VM author). Jamie Zawinski later pushed for the current setup which is: work the way people expect using files-as-folders and add vfolders, and let people migrate.

    Now, I did not claim it was a new invention, just that we hope that Evolution will help popularize this way of handling e-mail.

    Miguel.

  • Helix Setup Tools screenshots. (Score:3)

    by miguel ( 7116 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @03:55PM (#1426733) Homepage
    As I said on the interview (but it seems the url got lost somewhere), we have been working on a cross-platform set of tools to configure and customize your Linux system.

    You can see Arturo's screenshots here:

    http://primates.helixcode.com/~arturo/hst [helixcode.com]

    Miguel.

  • Re:HelixCode Unfriendly to SlackWare... (Score:3)

    by TrentC ( 11023 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @12:07PM (#1426734) Homepage
    An Intereing note, As much as they spout 'Free! Free! Free! Source Code!!', HelixCode's site does not have Any packages in either the SlackWare .tgz format (big deal, most slack users like to compile from source), or Source Packages other than in SRPM format...

    I can't speak for Slack users, but I can tell you that you're dead wrong about source packages for Debian.

    This directory [helixcode.com] is full of tarballs and diffs; using "apt-get source [Helix package of choice]" with the appropriate lines in your sources.list file will get you a source tree.

    Jay (=

  • Re:Gnome Basic in Evolution? (Score:3)

    by Skeezix ( 14602 ) <jamin@pubcrawler.org> on Sunday December 31, 2000 @12:07PM (#1426735) Homepage
    It will be very interesting to see just how far Helix takes the whole "let's copy windows" thing.

    It's not about "copying windows." It's about using the good ideas from a variety of platforms and paradigms, supporting and implementing existing languages, and providing freedom. If you don't like Visual Basic (I'm not fond of it, myself), there is no reason why you have to use it. However, if you want to read an Excel spreadsheet in Gnumeric that uses VB scripting, the gnome basic support that's integrated with Gnumeric comes in handy. And if you're a windows programmer familiar with Visual Basic, this allows easy migration to the GNU/Linux/Gnome platform. Once there, hopefully you'll see the merits of other languages such as Perl and Python.
    ----

  • Linux Orbit: Do you have any stats available on the total number of Helix GNOME downloads and sales? Evolution as well?

    Miguel de Icaza: We have counted around 450,000 installations of the full Helix GNOME desktop from our main site. We have also distributed around ten thousand CDS. So we figure we have over half a million people using Helix Code GNOME now.

    I realize that "total number of Helix GNOME downloads" and "users" is difficult to estimate, but does anyone else think that 500,000 is an overestimate?

    450,000 installations & 10,000 CD != 500,000 users (No, I'm not arguing that the simple math is wrong).

    Many of those installations are probably reinstallations. I've completely reinstalled Helix-Gnome onto this desktop right here 4-5 times.

    I did the newbie http://go-gnome.com thing once, I downloaded & installed the RPM's manualy (After accidently deleting/overwriting something or trying to satisfy a mysterious dependancies for some some nifty-sounding-but-experimental package), and I completely reinstalled the entire thing from the source on Saturday. So that's 4-5 installations, yet I am One user. (And I did the same thing to my work Computer, but I imagine that counts as a second user in their stats).

    Many of my Helix Gnome friends do this thing (But less often then Crazy-agressive-maybe-reinstalling-will-make-pilot link-and-esound-work! me).

  • Gnome Basic in Evolution? (Score:3)

    by Ukab the Great ( 87152 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @11:00AM (#1426737)

    Miguel I:"You could say that Evolution is targeted to replace Outlook, but Evolution is just part of the puzzle to provide a complete solution from people migrating from the Windows platform."


    If Miguel's goal is to make Evolution very "windowsy", is Miguel going to add in Gnome Basic VBA scripting abilities? It will be very interesting to see just how far Helix takes the whole "let's copy windows" thing.

  • HelixCode Unfriendly to SlackWare... (Score:3)

    by eyez ( 119632 ) <eyez.babblica@net> on Sunday December 31, 2000 @10:24AM (#1426738) Homepage
    An Intereing note, As much as they spout 'Free! Free! Free! Source Code!!', HelixCode's site does not have Any packages in either the SlackWare .tgz format (big deal, most slack users like to compile from source), or Source Packages other than in SRPM format...

    Given, Slackware isn't the #1 distribution, or anything, but if they've gone through the effort to port to Solaris and HPUX and package for them, they ought to make source .tar.gz's available... After all,the Helix gnome is a lot prettier than the normal GNOME one... And Slackware users shouldn't be left in the dust here just because .rpm (and to a lesser extent .deb) is overrated...

  • open source acknowledging open source? (Score:3)

    by q000921 ( 235076 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @09:42AM (#1426739)
    On top of that, Evolution has a number of features that are pretty interesting like vFolders (which are virtual folders that are created dynamically as the result of a query on your mail). We believe that vFolders will create a new way of dealing with your information in better, smarter ways.

    Virtual folders have been around for a while, among other places, in the Emacs VM mail reader. It would be nice if open source projects would acknowledge other open source projects.

    (Gee, Miguel is beginning to sound like he's making a venture capital pitch.)

  • I have always used pine in my day to day mail operations, I am a member of several email lists and recieve about 150-200 emails per day, plus the one or two personal emails i actually get addressed to me =)

    For many years i used pine and/or emacs as my mail reader. I tried kmail and it was not too bad for a while, but I don't run the K Desktop exclusivley (I run blackbox...roar) and K apps aometimes suffer negative effects from being run outside of the entire K environment. So it was back to pine

    I tried Balsa for a while, it was pretty, but at the time, it was not threaded and died, alot. Once again back to pine.

    A month ago or so, I decided to give Evolution a try. I must say, it is one hell of a good mail client , yes it crashes once in a while, but I just start it up again and there are no corruptions or anything. The mail filtering system works really well. The user interface is dead simple to set-up, and *heck* it's pretty.

    I couldn't begin to compare it to MS Outlook (or Outlook Express), since I haven't used that mail client in many years.

    But from a guy that has used alot of the new email clients kicking around, and has always reverted back to good ol' pine, Evolution is my mail client now.

    Of course there is a soft spot in my heart for pine, it's still configured to read my Evolution mail box (easier for remote mail checking). And the uh *calendar* I dunno, it looks pretty, but I'm not a big calendar user...I prefer mass disorganization in that dept. *grin*

  • PLEASE focus on functionality! (Score:5)

    by mdb31 ( 132237 ) on Sunday December 31, 2000 @08:38AM (#1426741)
    OK, now that the link topic has been beaten to death, perhaps a good time to discuss some of the article's content. What really annoyed me was the focus on the free availability of the software over actual functionality, as in:

    From a pure free software perspective, Evolution is designed to be the best mail and personal information manager free software product

    I'm pretty sure that most users, and especially those coming from the Windows platform, couldn't care less. Software like Outlook Express has been free for ages, so that's pretty much the norm (not the exception) for this kind of software

    Having used Evolution for a while, I'm really, really happy with this product - it's the first viable replacement for the POS Netscape mail client I've ever seen. However, I think that a focus on how GNU-compliant the software is doesn't help anyone: let's work to make this the best mail client available anywhere, period!

    I know of a lot of Solaris users who wouldn't mind paying a sizable client license fee for a working GUI mail client equivalent to Outlook Express but without the enormous overhead of the Microsoft product (or even the Netscape client, for that matter...)

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close