For many year now, my place of employment has used the Lotus Notes Database for their email and calendar functions. As all the world knows, Notes is a wonderful idea gone terribly and expensively awry. A couple years ago they started looking at other solutions, and decided on Microsoft Exchange.
Since I run Linux on my desktop, my only real option for running the native Lotus client was in VMware. This worked well, I just had to fire up the emulator and then fire up windows and then fire up Notes to find out what was for lunch.
Moving to Exchange/Outlook may seem no better in that regard except for one thing: Evolution works as an Exchange client.
I got it to work for the most part on Fedora Core 4 with Evo 2.4, but FC3 only has 2.0, which won’t make the connection. 🙁 There’s a bit of irony in the fact that Outlook won’t connect from off campus, and those stuck in windows must use the "web" interface.
Speaking of which, the Outlook "web" interface is far far cooler than Lotus’ was. Since it’s half a web app and half a windows app, it works far better in IE than in Other, but it does work in Firefox.
So at the end of the day, I’m better off than I was regarding my Cornerstone email address. My other 65 email addresses all go safely to Pine however.
Update: My friend Dan made some comments that I think should be addressed out here where everyone can see them.
To say "There's a bit of irony in the fact that Outlook won't connect
from off campus, and those stuck in windows must use the "web"
interface" is not sharing with the world the entire picture. It is not
an Outlook flaw, it is an implementation flaw we are working on
That’s quite true, and I should have pointed out that we’re still in the roll-out process on this, and there will obviously be many things to tweak. My comment was more in surprise that of the clients to just "figure it out", I expected Outlook to have more success that Evolution.
No knocks in the decision to move this way. I may have picked something different, but this is far far better than where we were.