Shawn Walker wrote: > On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Sebastien Roy <Sebastien.Roy at sun.com> > wrote: > >> Shawn Walker wrote: >> > That has always flabbergasted me as well. >> > >> > Most users are going to be more familiar with Evolution (since it is >> > "like MS Outlook") than Thunderbird. >> > >> > Though I suppose that depends on whether you are talking about Linux >> > users or users from other platforms. >> >> Speaking for myself only, I used Evolution for years on Solaris, and I >> dropped it in favor Thunderbird due to stability issues. Evolution was >> at the time simply too slow (I have a huge number of nested IMAP folders >> with a huge number of messages), and had too many important bugs related >> to both stability and usability that no-one was willing to fix. I >> haven't used it since (it has been a few years), so maybe that has >> changed since then. I just did a quick tour again just now, and it >> doesn't look like much has changed. It took over 45 seconds to load a >> single small ascii-only message buried in a large IMAP folder, and four >> minutes for the frozen Evolution main window to disappear after I did >> File->Quit. >> > > Bugs should be fixed; not used as a reason to choose other software. > > Evolution is well-integrated into GNOME; Thunderbird is not. >
By that same argument then why aren't you choosing Epiphany over Firefox? Personally, I think Firefox and Thunderbird are far more accepted and used than Epiphany or Evolution on GNOME. Later, Darren > See my previous reply to Glen. > >
