Evolution (was: Re: [plug] operating multiple e-mail clients)

[Harry McNally]

On 23 May 2002 22:09:33 +0800 Alan Graham <alan.graham at infonetsystems.com.au>
wrote:

> Probably iffy...  Evolution depends on a lot of ximian stuff, bonobo... 
> None of this is particularly lightweight.  I've just checked the list of
> dependencies, and it's as long as several arms.  Having said that, I'm
> running it on a PII 500, and it's lightning fast, unlike Nautilus, which
> has similar dependencies but runs like a dog.  I suppose you've got to
> try it, but I wouldn't hold out much hope.  The other issue may be disk
> space.  You need all of the gnome installs, as well as bonobo, etc... 
> It's gotta be big.

Cheers Alan

I'll have a look probably for me since it's getting attention. For now, I'm
using Sylpheed at my office on the basis that, if I find it painful to use, I
shouldn't inflict it on CA recipients. Thanks for the good summary.

The only downer (and it relates to the earlier discussion about a common
mailbox) is that it stores the mail in MH mailfile format. It can import/export
mbox files but that's not "transparent operation between mail clients". At this
stage tho' Sylpheed ease of use outweighs this foible for someone who wants to
stick with Sylpheed for mail.

All the best
Harry

> 
> Alan
> 
> On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 21:46, Harry McNally wrote:
> > On 23 May 2002 21:21:57 +0800 Alan Graham
> > <alan.graham at infonetsystems.com.au> wrote:
> > 
> > > As an aside, use evolution.  I've tried Balsa, kmail and evolution
> > > recently, and evolution is streets ahead.  Balsa's imap support is
> > > ...flakey...  kmail is klunky, evolution just works.
> > 
> > Hi Alan
> > 
> > I've been setting up Sylpheed for inclusion in the new Computer Angels
> > (debian) distro because it is fast for lightweight machines. I've seen
> > people using evolution on mail I've received but haven't tried it. How do
> > you thing evolution would go for a 90MHz 16MB P1 machine ?
> > 
> > All the best
> > Harry
> > 
> > 
> 
>