Comments

• mcinsand

  2010-08-27 12:24:21

  The part about FOSS not having a counterpart, a superior counterpart, to outlook is ridiculous, and it makes a powerful statement about Mr. Müller. This is one of those statements that is simply only possible from either one or a combination of three positions: ignorance, stupidity, or dishonesty. Since Mr. Müller has been involved in software to a significant degree for some time, we can rule out ignorance, given that he has no doubt been exposed to the FOSS alternatives. There is stupidity, which could be a factor, and that would mean that he has seen the alternatives but just doesn't have the mental capacity to understand them or their significance. The problem is that, to be that stupid (and I mean the word as a term of incapacity to assimilate information, rather than as an insult) would no doubt interfere with his ability to handle his letters and communications. That leads to the third possibility, and maybe I'll stop there.
  
  Before I switched to FOSS OS's, I had already converted to Thunderbird simply because it was so far beyond Outlook that there simply was no comparison. When I went to Fedora, Evolution was great, but I switched back to Thunderbird when I spent some time with FreeBSD and PCBSD. Now, with Kubuntu, I'm between Thunderbird and Kmail. The new Thunderbird seems to be more distracting eye candy over functionality, but Outlook still doesn't compare. Probably the only good thing I can say about Outlook is that it isn't Lotus Notes :>)
  
  Regards, mc

• twitter

  2010-08-27 13:29:09

  As someone who's used Outlook as a mail client in the last year, I can say that it is one of the worst. Threading and search are bad jokes. This is why Outlook users end up with huge chains of forwarded mail for context. It's been this way for years, as you can see looking at Microsoft email from the Comes anti-trust case. Outlook users are unable to organize email in any way but by chronological order. Search speed is crippled by Microsoft's insane use of a single database file as storage, and this historically has created many size limitation problems. Outlook is famous for catastrophic failure at about 1.6 GB of mail size. With the basics so poorly covered and the Windows EULA promising you zero privacy, most people never bother with more advanced features like filtering or encryption. Microsoft's big innovations to Outlook have been things like the use of Word as an editor, a disaster that made an already weak client a carrier of Word macroviruses. I would not say that Outlook is better than Notes, but need neither because the free software world has Kontact, Evolution and other excellent choices right down to mutt and front ends like Balsa.

• mcinsand

  2010-08-28 12:41:35

  Over the past decade, I have used either Outlook or Notes at work (as required by employers), so, when I have no choice, I can use those, sort of. My biggest beef with Notes is its search dysfunctionality; there will be messages that you *know* contain certain keywords that the search (dys)functions will miss, and I have had to spend hours trying to find relevant messages because of this long-running shortcoming. Not only that, but the sorting filters for incoming messages are a joke. The only reason to tolerate Notes is that your employer mandates it and you have to eat, pay rent, and clothe the family. As much as I don't like Outlook, there would be no competition between Notes and Outlook, as far as mail clients go.
  
  HOWEVER, in 2003 or 2004, some friends nudged me to at least try Thunderbird, and I never looked back. Outlook just doesn't come close. Although I like Evolution, Thunderbird just felt more accessible. Well, it did until recent changes that seemed to focus more on eye candy at the expense of functionality. Don't get me wrong, it's still far better for mail/calendar management than Outlook. Lately, though, I have been taking a bit of time with Kmail, and that one is a nice jewel, too.
  
  Regards, mc