If you're looking for something CAD OpenOffice comes with Draw which is very similar to Corel in many ways. I use it to make PC Boards and drawings/etc. It works very well!! You might not have a link to it, so at the text prompt, type oodraw -Fernando
---------- Original Message ----------- From: Doriano Blengino <doriano.bleng...@fastwebnet.it> To: mailing list for gambas users <gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Sat, 23 May 2009 20:13:05 +0200 Subject: Re: [Gambas-user] C Code character manipulation - alternatives > Benoît Minisini ha scritto: > >> In some message some day ago, KhurramM proposed a single package of > >> gambas for linux, and someone else replied that a source distribution is > >> the more practical one. It is true - sadly. I think this situation is > >> bad - remember, Unix means "unique, one for all". As long as the > >> architecture does not change, it would be very practical to have binary > >> packages for all the distributions - instead, linux on PC is a mess. I > >> used to compile my kernel every time, on every new machine. Then, I > >> discovered that there was nothing to gain for my average desktop machine > >> - it was exactly the same to compile my customized kernel or to use the > >> full bloated one which came with the distibution. If it works for the > >> kernel, it could work any other application. But every distribution > >> creator think he is doing better than the other, and the more it does > >> different, better it is. Simply wrong. The author of the message than > >> spoke about windows '98, XP, 2000. Well, they are different operating > >> system. But 99% of applications developed by me with delphi run smoothly > >> on every windows machine I tried; the remaining 1% were secondary quirks > >> easily solved. I think this is the target of Unix/Linux world. This is > >> freedom, without having to mess around with makefiles and configure > >> scripts that get bigger than the original source itself. I suspect that > >> Benoit spends a lot of time to adapt the sources to all the different > >> distributions, which all share the same kernel, same libraries, and all > >> have a packaging system that keeps track of dependencies... > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > > > > Nowadays, distributions mainly differ by their packaging system, the way > > they > > run services only. The file system organization and many other things that > > were different in the past seem to converge. > > > > I had a bug once in SuSE that I solved by implementing the shared library > > preloading feature, but I guess that this feature is not needed anymore. > > > > As for the way program are packaged, you have to let a distribution manage > > the > > packages, because: > > > > - They sign them: nobody can easily insert some trojan inside without > > notice. > > > > - They update them. > > > > - They manage dependencies. If a security hole is found in a library, all > > programs using that library will be fixed. > > > > On the contrary, for me, Windows is a nightmare: each program must take > > care > > of being updated itself, by going to the network, checking that an update > > is > > available, downloading it, and so on. What about all the programs installed > > by > > your OEM? Do they have holes? Are they updated? And when you have to > > reinstall > > your Windows? > > > There are few persons on The Earth who hate windows like I do. That > said, we must admit that windows has some pros too, and linux some cons > either. If the average windows user had the average linux user maturity, > even windows would have less problems. From DOS 2.11 onward, through > windows 95, 98, 2000, and now XP, I never used an antivirus on my > machine, and I never reinstalled my operating system. Why? Because I am > not the average windows user - I always look critically at windows, and > I am careful about everything happens to my computers. I repeat - I hate > windows. But windows has automatic updates like linux, windows has an > installer like linux, and so on. There are very few things linux can do > that can not be made on windows - the problem is elsewhere, in the > background philosophy: closed sources, the idea that computer > technologies must bring money. Everything that must bring money, that > becomes a businness, suffers from dark sides. > > But we should take a look at some linux problems. First of all, the > quality of applications; average windows apps are better than average > linux ones. It is true that linux software is normally free but, apart > from few exceptions, there is a lot to do. I am very satisfied of Open > Office, The Gimp, Gambas, KiCad, Firefox and companions, Synaptic. But > try to find something like Dreamweaver, Corel draw, Delphi, Orcad (an > electronics CAD like KiCAD), Cakewalk and others I can't remember now. > Think this: I still have to find a text editor which does not annoy me. > I even poked Gambas to add some feature in the editor. > The other problems of linux are the same of windows - sometimes you > install something, and it screws up something else. No news here. Last > time I upgraded xorg, I spent about half a day to correct the problems. > > I dream a Linux world where things are more unified, like windows, but > keeping the open source basis, the underlaying community and the freedom > of choice. But freedom does not mean that everything must be compiled > from sources. Freedom means that if I find something I don't like, I can > change it. Or, if I want to see how things are made, I can take a look > at the sources. This also spreads knowledge in the strategic field of > software. > > > On Linux everything is centralized and you can manage your system in a few > > clicks. > > > Are you really really sure you never used "you favorite text editor" in > /etc/...? > You are true about the package system, which does not exist in windows > (who knows why? perhaps because you have to pay...). > This is an important point, ok, but you will not find in your packages > everything you need. In fact, in this thread we are discussing about > distribuiting software by sources... > > On the contrary, the work is more difficult for the packager. I tried in > > the > > Gambas IDE to make a packager easy to use, and it was not easy to do! I had > > to > > deal with the difference between rpm, deb, tgz, and the little details > > between > > distributions using the same package format. > > > > Having a common package format need to know all the differences in the > > organization of all distributions. You cannot force that, because you will > > destroy the diversity. Just wait, things are slowly converging. > > > > As for the GNU autoconf/automake system, I admit it was a nightmare for me > > too. I think now that all distributions have the concept of "development > > packages", a configure script should be able to tell the system the > > libraries > > it needs, and the system should install them automagically. That's all. No > > thousands of long tests to run before starting compiling. > > > > Regards, > > > > > You are right, things are slowly converging - a little too slowly I > think. A superior commission (GNU perhaps?) dictating some good > standard, and much more good behaviour of the whole community would > help. You talk about development packages where the package tells the > system what it needs, and the system provides it. Well, this is > fantastic for cross-platform but, for a single architecture (say, > i386?), why use this complication? The final result of such a > compilation would not differ so much from a computer to another. Several > times I compiled a program on a computer and ran the executable on > another, even crossing from debian to slackware to fedora. As long as > the right libraries are in place, it works. If the right libraries are > not there, even the compilation normally fails (gtk > 2.0.25 required, > signature libc xxx not found, libqt3-mt blah blah blah) and the process > of compiling introduces even more difficulties (this source expects a > gcc prior than 4.0, this one instead wants gcc > 4.1, not tested with > 4.02 but should work... and so on). > > Where are those big differences from a distribution to another? RPM vs > APT, KDE vs GNOME (and hence QT vs GTK), latest kernel instead of the > pre-latest. Full stop. So in my machine I have both RPM and APT, both > GTK and QT, and so do many many users like me. I use KDE but, to install > certain programs, I should install almost the whole gnome system. If all > the distributions could take an eye on each other compatibility, having > "libc6.0.rpm" instead of "libc-6.0mdk.rpm" for example, all we users had > an easier life. > > Sorry for this long email, best regards. > > -- > Doriano Blengino > > "Listen twice before you speak. > This is why we have two ears, but only one mouth." > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT > is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet > the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & > iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian > Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com > _______________________________________________ > Gambas-user mailing list > Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user ------- End of Original Message ------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Register Now for Creativity and Technology (CaT), June 3rd, NYC. CaT is a gathering of tech-side developers & brand creativity professionals. Meet the minds behind Google Creative Lab, Visual Complexity, Processing, & iPhoneDevCamp asthey present alongside digital heavyweights like Barbarian Group, R/GA, & Big Spaceship. http://www.creativitycat.com _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user