On 21/05/2001 at 14:15 +0100, Mike Wyer wrote:
>On Mon, 21 May 2001, Robert Shiels wrote:
>>I use Outlook Express, I like it a lot. It works for me.
>
>Much badness. We are withdrawing Outlook and associates from all our
>Windows machines as soon as we have weaned the secretaries off it. It is
>an administrative nightmare, and the source of more viri than any other
>component on our systems (NT and Linux).
>
>In a networked environment, it is the Devil incarnate.
>
>Standalone, you might be ok. The interface may be nice, but the code has
>more design flaws and vulnerabilities than a very buggy thing.
Isn't there a lot of difference between Outlook- big, bloaty, part of
Office, designed for Exchange- and Outlook Express- biggish, bloatish,
but doesn't talk so many non-standard protocols, and can even do IMAP
over SSH?
There definitely is a difference on the Mac, because you can't get
Outlook, only something quite like it called Entourage, and OE doesn't
talk to Exchange servers.
As to the security holes, well, if you're conenecting to decent SMTP
and IMAP/POP servers, rather than Exchange, and you don't go around
randomly doubleclicking stuff, and switch off the autoexecute options,
surely there's not that much difference between OE and Netscape? Hmm,
that seems like a bit of work, really.
Mind you, I'm still using Eudora 3 Light for the Mac, so I wouldn't
trust my opinion. Maybe part of the problem Eudora has on Windows is,
like Photoshop, it's sacrificed too much to the Windows interface
guidelines, whereas it just looks (and works) right on Mac OS, where
you can scatter windows about with much more abandon under an
all-embracing menu bar. (Sorry, getting all flowery.)
--
:: paul
:: sigs take time
