Re: Balsa vs. Evolution

[Carlos Morgado <chbm chbm nu>]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:25:38AM +0100, Martin Leopold wrote:
> Hi all.
> In order to try out a more advanced calendar than gnome-calendar I had a
> look at Evolution. While doing that I tried out the mail client, and there
> were a few plesant surprises:
>    * Uses it's own mailbox format making opening of larges mailboxes fast

actually, no. evo uses standard mbox and can use maildir/mh afaik. it does
in fact keep binary indexes of the mbox files but those are kept in separate
files and don't interfere with message spool portability. 
this is borrowed from netscape3 (hi jwz), it has been discussed for balsa
as a 1.5 thing

[...]
> 
> On the other hand:
>    * Not using mbox makes it harder to switch MTA and harder to edit the
> mailboxes by hand..

see above (you mean MUA btw)

[...]
>    * Has much slower startup

well, it does start tons of crap and registers the component controls and
stuff like that. i believe the general idea is not to ever close it ;)

[...]
> 
> So my question is this: What are the major differences? And advantages of
> Balsa?
> 

in a nutshell balsa is not outlook. balsa is a MUA, that's it. evolution is
an integrated office sinergic productivity enhanced messaging cooperation
tool :)
afaik evo's mail backend is more complete than balsa's. if one hand that
means evo can deal with the most esoteric mime crap and buggiest imap
servers, it also means it's 10 times the size of balsa's.

it's mostly a question of personal taste :)

-- 
Carlos Morgado - chbm(at)chbm(dot)nu - http://chbm.nu/ -- gpgkey: 0x1FC57F0A 
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
Q: Why do computers have a reset button ?
A: Windows