Linux-Advocacy Digest #111, Volume #26 Thu, 13 Apr 00 16:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Itchy)
Re: How does WINE work? (Ulrich Weigand)
Linux Magazines.. Giving credit where it is due. (Itchy)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (matts)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (matts)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Bob Lyday)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (abraxas)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (abraxas)
Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux? (abraxas)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best? (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 18:53:24 GMT
On 13 Apr 2000 17:55:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>That is Steve-Heather, posting under another fake identity,
>in violation of AT&T Worldnet TOS, as well as the promise he
>made here not to do it anymore.
Too much porn spam on the kids computer. Not trying to decieve anyone.
>There are two components in his post. One is factual: Steve-
>Heather says that Corel WordPerfect for Linux, which is essen-
>tially the Windows version plus components of the Wine win32
>emulator for Linux, is buggy, and that the problems are in
>Wine.
I know the bugs are in Corel, not Linux. Where they are I have no
idea.
StarOffice runs fine.
Applix runs fine.
Linux is the same, so Corel must be at fault here.
>This is probably true.
>
>However, since the Corel developers have access to the WP
>source code, and thus know what win32 calls it's making when
>it crashes, it will be possible to localize and correct the
>bugs in Wine that are causing the problem.
Assuming things (Windows) stay static which is unlikely.
Toady's fixed version will be tomorrows broken version.
>As Wine is perfected, not only will the Corel Office Suite be
>able to run under Linux, but many other Windows programs will
>too. The list of Wine capabilities that have been or are
>being implemented is here: http://www.winehq.com/about.html
I agree with this, but I also know they will always be behind.
>Steve-Heather also notes that WP will only print in Corel
>Linux.
Petretley pointed that out in his column.
>However, since Corel wants to make money by selling WP to
>as many Linux users as possible, including those using other
>Linux distros, they will certainly fix this problem, too.
I certainly hope so :)
>The second component of Steve-Heather's article is a large
>quantity of lies, hate, and FUD, which, as a Microsoft anti-
>Linux propagandist (paid or not), he always includes, with
>the hope of frightening people away from Linux, so they will
>keep on giving their money to Microsoft.
I don't hate anyone. Not even you :)
>That material is quoted here, with only a few comments:
>
>>It's contaminated with WINE which SUCKS BIG TIME. I have YET to get a
>>version of Agent that runs reasonably well, despite a 3 or 4 rating on
>>the Wine website. And others I have spoke to say the same.
This is a fact. Freezing, not painting icon bars correctly is not a
running program to me.
>No one should take Steve-Heather's word on anything, since
>he lies very frequently. Anyone who's interested in running
>Windows software under Wine/Linux, can check the Wine appli-
>cations database for the current status of the particular app
>they want to use. http://www.winehq.com
But you are better off trying it yourself and seeing.
>>Hell Mark, if you really want to run all those "nasty sucky win
>>programs" why the hell don't you run them natively instead of under
>>some abortion like Wine?
>>You and your like are always complaining how Windows applications suck
>>anyway, so why Wine?
>>Wine is a joke... It is always and will always be behind Windows and
>>no matter how hard the programmers work it will still be behind.
>>Run Windows for Windows software and Linux for Linux software. Emulate
>>is a nasty word in the computer jargon dictionary.
>
>Of course, this is absurd; emulation in various forms is one
>of the most widely used methods in all areas of computer tech-
>nology -- language interpreters, virtual hardware machines
>(like VMWare), bytecode execution environments (like the Java
>Virtual Machine), systems that run pentium programs on the
>PowerPC or Alpha, etc.
Emulate more often than not equates to "doesn't run as well as".
Meaning the native version will be faster and more stable.
>>Maybe but based upon their SBLive track record I wouldn't hold my
>>breath.
>>Corel is a company in serious trouble and they are trying to niche out
>>a market in Linux, thus the "I won't work with anyone else" concept of
>>their programs.
>>Try and get some to run under Redhat for example and see what happens.
>>Try Wordperfect for example and see. It's a *.deb file. Kpackage dies
>>on it.
>>Doesn't require any fiddling under Windows. Why should Linux folks
>>have to fiddle?
>>Oh I forgot, Linvocates like playing with os's instead of
>>applications. No surprise here seeing as they have so few commercial
>>strength applications to play with.
>>Stop playing jedi and attempting to take the focus off the real point
>>which is Corel Linux Office 2k sucks. Linvocates in the group have
>>fairly reviewed it and now a mainstream of the industry has repeated
>>such. Why can't you admit that it is true?
>>Assine......at best.....
>>In this case I don't even have to try. The honcho at InfoWorld, a
>>Linux supporter BTW did all the work for me.....
>
>Steve-Heather is admitting that he lied when he said he tried
>to install WP under Red Hat and it failed.
No I am not and in fact another person just posted that they had the
same trouble, although with difficulty made it work.
>>Stop twisting it... Corel is doing a damm shitty job of eliminating
>>Windows by running parts of their LINUX office suite UNDER WINDOWS....
>
>Steve-Heather is very confused.
But this is essentially what they are doing is it not?
>>What a freaking joke... This is the great MS Office killer we have all
>>been awaiting?
>>I'm howling with laughter over this
>>one..................................................................
>>..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>Steve
>
>Steve-Heather is having an orgasm over what he hopes to be
>other people's unhappiness. We'll leave him before something
>greasy and putrid spurts out.
>
I love it when you talk dirty to me Mark :)
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ulrich Weigand)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 20:59:30 +0200
"Shumway, Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>So to clarify this, the Win32 call is a library call and not a system
>call, and WINE is subsitute for the Win32 library.
Correct. (In addition, Wine contains various other parts, e.g. a
PE excutable loader/dynamic linker, support for loading and running
Win16 apps, DOS interrupts ...)
>So if an Windows application statically linked with the Win32 library
>(assuming that is possible under Windows) or bypassed the Win32 library
>entirely and made direct Windows system calls, the application would
>fail running under WINE.
There is no 'Windows system call' as such. The only documented interface
for application programs is the Win32 API, which is implemented only by
the dynamic libraries KERNEL32.DLL, USER32.DLL, GDI32.DLL etc. You cannot
link statically to those libraries.
Of course, those libraries do need to switch to kernel mode at some
point (which is usually considered the 'system call' in the Unix world),
but the methods they use are (nearly) completely undocumented, completely
different between the various Windows versions, and normally not especially
useful for apps in any case ...
While there is a theoretical possibility that apps might use those
'system calls' (the int 2e call under NT, or VxDCalls to VWin32 under
Win95/98), this isn't much of a problem in practice. Some of those
calls are even supported under Wine ...
In general, if the same app runs both under Win95 and WinNT, you can
be quite confident that it doesn't use dirty tricks ;-)
--
Ulrich Weigand,
IMMD 1, Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg,
Martensstr. 3, D-91058 Erlangen, Phone: +49 9131 85-27688
------------------------------
From: Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Magazines.. Giving credit where it is due.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 19:00:52 GMT
I just picked up 3 different Linux magazines at Borders today and I
have to say I am pretty impressed with the articles in them.
1. Linux Journal
2. Maximum Linux
3. Linux Magazine (which included Mandrake and Storm Linux CD's)
Very high quality mags with in depth articles that don't seem biased
or anti-Windows at all.
I especially enjoyed the step by step cookbook approach to the How-To
articles like Samba and DHCP.
Very highly recommended reading, even if you are only interested in
learning a little networking like I am.
I had no idea these magazines existed but I intend to buy more in the
future.
This is what Windows magazines used to be, but alas they have become
total crap.
Steve
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: 13 Apr 2000 19:04:05 GMT
>
> Thought:
> Maybe the reason most people turn their computer on and off all the time
> is that they are running M$ Windows?
Or maybe they don't feel like butching their hardware for no purpose??????? Using
it all day to do work is a useful thing, keeping it on to do nothing is not. Just
my (Canadian)$0.02.
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: 13 Apr 2000 19:09:35 GMT
>
> Wine implements the win32 API under Linux. When it is per-
> fected, any win32 application that runs under Windows should
> also run well under Wine and Linux without modification (if
> the app itself is bug-free). Wine will be, in effect, a
> win32 subsystem for Linux.
>
Any programmer knows bug-free software is near impossible. The day that
happens, we're God.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:08:58 -0600
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> But since your definition doesn't agree with whatever definition the
> person you're discussing the matter with has in mind, that doesn't
> matter.
>
> Thus when the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
> computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
> with that, and "win" the argument.
Sure you can. Simply give a *SINGLE* instance of an interaction with a
computer that is *NOT* programming.
In short, there is a way to disprove the assertion . . . and somebody
smarter than you, me or Jim supplied it to me in an email.
It goes thusly:
Since the assertion did not require that the interaction be guided by or
established by a plan or "program", then somebody who looks at a
computer screen, then executes a *RANDOM* instruction based on the
change, then looks again, then executes another *RANDOM* change, is not
programming.
Thanks goes to "The Lone Ringer" for that . . . and a big Oops from me,
for failing to recognize that the definition of the word "interation",
does not require planning. Sigh . . .
Of course, the person is *EXECUTING* a program:
Loop:
Look at computer screen.
Choose random instruction
input random instruction
But they are not, per se, programming.
> When the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
> computer is programming", you can't provide statements that disagree
> with that, and "win" the argument.
Correct. You win by providing a single counter example.
As "The Lone Ringer" did.
> If a particular definition is useful *within a particular context,*
> that may be good enough.
Correct. So even though the assertion has been proven false, it still
stands as a useful definition, and therefore as a good philosophical
basis for a next-gen UI. . .
'Course, you won't get this message, 'cause you plonked me . . . so I
can say anything I want! YEAAHhhhhhh!
> You're assuming that you have the ability to influence someone else's
> position. I suspect you're wrong about that...
;-)
You are, of course, wrong.
> When the definition is deemed to be: "Every interaction with a
> computer is programming", the action of smacking your head into the
> keyboard, which _is_ an interaction with the computer, is thereby
> defined to be "programming."
Wrong. You somehow seem to believe that truth can be established by
repetition.
Every interaction with a computer is *NOT* programming!
(See above)
However, for the vast majority of real world situtations, my assertion
makes a workable heuristic.
> - Putting a floppy disk in the drive is an "interaction," and thus is
> defined to be "programming."
Not if you do it at random.
> Play along; you may be able to stretch the definition far enough to
> display that it is, indeed, entirely ridiculous.
>
> [Personally, I like the option of _Dropping your computer off the top
> of a 20 story building_ is an "interaction," and thus is defined to be
> "programming."]
Yep. Here's the program:
If frustration level with computer interaction exceeds tolerance:
then
Detach computer from all peripherals
Detach computer from all power supplies.
Rip out anything still tying the computer down.
Move computer to roof top.
Throw computer over edge of roof top.
If, of course, you happened to be carrying your computer along the edge
of the roof, with the computer held out over the edge, and then
accidentally stumbled and dropped the darn thing, you wouldn't be
programming.
> I don't think you'll get him to shut up about his silly definition
> this easily, but this is an appropriate tack to take...
Sigh. It is appropriate, only if redefining the word "interaction" is
appropriate.
On a more fun note:
Rule number one of hiring a lawyer:
"Never, never underestimate the cupidity of a lawyer".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:11:00 -0600
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
> > I'm a computer scientist.
> me too
>
> > I know more about this than you[*], so it
> > seems.
> Its your job to declare definitions without any proof?
That was not a definition: it was an assertion that I threw into the
shark pool to see whether or not it could survive.
In short, it was a working theory that has stood up pretty well, not
with standing the fact that the assertion is provably false.
I still makes for a good heuristic, but it is not a statement of truth.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:13:39 -0600
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm a computer scientist.
> > me too
>
> Really? Which field?
>
> >> I know more about this than you[*], so it seems.
> > Its your job to declare definitions without any proof?
>
> You can't prove a definition. You can show its consistency with other
> definitions/axioms, and you can take a bunch of these and show some
> notion of completeness, but definitions are a priori unprovable. They
> are not concepts that admit proof.
Yep. And a mistake in my assertion ("interaction" does not constrain
that interaction enough to constitute programming) makes my assertion
false.
I still think it makes a good philosophical basis for a next-gen UI,
though.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 13:15:57 -0600
Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>
> > >> I'm a computer scientist.
> > > me too
> > Really? Which field?
> developing high-performance image-processing solutions
> for medical diagnosis systems.
Which makes you a software engineer . . . not a computer scientist.
> > > Its your job to declare definitions without any proof?
> > You can't prove a definition.
> Well you could say 'Its an accepted definition acording to
> ISO-xxx' or something like that.
That doesn't prove a definition.
But this thread got started with an assertion, not a definition.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:25:39 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:19:06 -0700, Bob Lyday wrote:
>
> >It will be the best thing that ever happened to any altOS. It's
> >not an emulator. It'll be just like running a native app. Over
>
> No, it won't be. It will be like "Windows on Linux".
i have heard that it will not look like Windows; it will look
like Linux.
Porting Windows to Linux is
> hardly the most elegant answer to porting problems.
> > >>
> > This will end that argument
> >forever, or at least till M$ breaks it somehow...
>
> No, it won't. RUnning a windows app on Linux will never be an adequate
> substitute for just running the native Windows app.
Depends on how good they get it. I hear that Lotus Notes runs
better on Wine than on Windows.
The people who want
> to run WIndows applications really are better off using Windows, and this
> will not alter that fact.
If they can get Wine apps running better than on Windows, why
would they be better off running Windows?
A friend who works at IBM claims they have got OS/2 to where it
runs all Win32 stuff immaculately. So it can be done, assuming
that is true.
You make some interesting points but I am not sure...I don't
know a whole lot about Wine.
--
Bob
"We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while]
other component prices have come down and continue to come
down," Joachim Kempin, Senior Vice President, Microsoft Corp.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 19:32:02 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote in <8d4hoh$u7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> One reason that has kept me away from Linux is the lack of GUI
>>> development tools for it. This may change this year as Borland are
>>> going to release Kylix, a version of Delphi for Linux.
>>
>>> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not
>>> impress me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on
>>> it (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't
>>> think much of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
>>
>>I see. What you appear to want is Windows.
> No, I want a reasonable desktop. What was there before wasn't usable
> compared to RISC-OS standards. RISC-OS isn't Windows BTW.
You want something which is subjectively 'reasonable' and is usable
compared to RISC-OS standards. You know, a clone of the plan-9
interface is available for linux. Sounds like thats just what youre
looking for. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 19:34:13 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2000 15:41:55 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>>> Hmmm.. keep in mind that Gnome is essentially a KDE clone and a bad one at
>>> that
>>
>>Actually it isnt.
> Actually, that's not far from the truth. There was a case where one guy
> got his perl parser and converted one of the Qt APIs to a GNOME API
> ( I can't remember which one it was, maybe the html widget ). If you'd
> programmed with either API and looked at the other, you'd know this.
It may be not far from the truth, but it also *isnt* the truth.
> It's not entirely fair to call GNOME a "KDE clone" though because IIRC,
> GTK either preceded QT or at least was written independently ( as a
> drop in replacement for Motif )
Exactly.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: What GUI development tools are there for Linux?
Date: 13 Apr 2000 19:37:06 GMT
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 13 Apr 2000 13:23:29 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>>
>> >>> Another reason has been the desktop. What I saw a while ago did not impress
>> >>> me - however, I had a spare PC at home so I installed Linux on it
>> >>> (something I try out every so often). I tried Gnome but didn't think much
>> >>> of it - then I tried KDE - ah yes, MUCH better.
>> >>
>> >>I see. What you appear to want is Windows.
>>
>> > I use KDE and I certainly don't "want windows". Where do you draw
>> > the connection ?
>>
>> As an X right on top of the start button. :)
>>
>> > Actually, GNOME resembles KDE much more closely than KDE resembles windows.
>>
>> And FVWM95 resembles it even more closely. The point is that they both follow
>> the windows GUI method exceedingly closely.
> You seem to thing this is a very bad thing. Do you
> have a better idea? Now FVWM, THAT's ugly!
You know, every single time I install linux on a new machine (or upgrade an
exsisting install) I end up dropping into init 5 (redhat, mandrake) and seeing
what what gnome and KDE have done lately. KDE continually impresses the hell
out of me and gnome just seems to crash less.
I keep going back to windowmaker though. Every time. I use gnome for a couple
of days, then KDE for a month or so, then I'm right back with windowmaker for
the longterm. IMHO, windowmaker + GTK is the most asthetically pleasing,
customizable, useful environment thats been created.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 15:37:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Browne from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 10 Apr 2000
00:35:15 GMT
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bloody Viking would say:
>>In alt.destroy.microsoft Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>: The reason to move to linux are mainly to save money in the long
>>: run.
>>: Get off the upgrade treadmill. This in itself is huge. the
>>: upgrade treamill is an enormous lie that very few people even
>>: question. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>
>>The savings to business would be enormous. You could keep using the same
>>old hardware seemingly forever. But the upgrade-go-round is fuelled by the
>>file formats that are rendered incompatible with old versions of the
>>office app.
>
>Um. This can be nonsense as easily as not.
>
>StarOffice is bloated, requiring a goodly 32MB (hardly "using the same
>old hardware seemingly forever"), and as for file format, there's little
>guarantee that it won't change. Ditto for WordPerfect, ApplixWare,
>KDE Office, and GNOME's "office" software.
>
>The notion that "going Linux" inherently eliminates the "upgrade-go-round"
>is nonsense. Just watch the every-six-months new versions of SuSE and
>Red Hat Linux, and the move from LIBC5 to LIBC6.
>
>You can live in a dreamworld where there's no change; that's not the one
>we live in...
Yes, but the one you live in, from which you are deriving your examples, is
the one that is caught trying to battle a monopoly. You may be right that it
is simply an article of faith that a nicely populated, truly competitive
marketplace will provide much better interchange or compatibility. It seems
like a reasonable assumption, however, that when the rules for 'being
competitive' are changed from "do things well" instead of "support the
monopoly because your livelihood depends on it" things will become much
better.
And as for your particular example of word processing files (WordPerfect,
ApplixWare, KDE Office, StarOffice), the fact that wordprocessors use private
(not necessarily proprietary) formats is hardly support for your contention
that the upgrade merry-go-round is not being fueled by MS's defense of its
monopoly. There was such a thing as "upgrades" before MS captured the
pre-load monopoly. There will be things afterwards. The question is exactly
how and why the "force" is placed on the individual user to upgrade. File
formats will still change. But why does that means software does, and vice
versa? WordPerfect 5.1 *could read and write!* WordPerfect 5.2 files,
including codes not even understood by 5.1. Now that's compatibility. And as
for interchange, I think WordPerfect 5.1 is probably one of the most well
known file formats amongst word processors, after accounting for all the
dozens of varieties and flavors of the far less stable Word formats.
There's really not much reason for word processor file format dependencies as
we know them today, anyway, other than to keep Word in MS's price list so they
can pretend people are paying for their apps software instead of simply being
ripped off by their monopoly on OSes. In an ideal world, all wordprocessors
would simply read and write HTML (nice, normal, non-proprietized, non-dynamic,
non-channelized/mystified/serverized web-page-not-site-connection HTML) and if
that wasn't good enough, we would improve HTML. The value of the software
should be in its processing capabilities (functions) and interface (features),
not in its file format lock-in. This is the great fraud which those who rail
against the "upgrade merry-go-round" truly regard.
I would also suspect from the descriptions I've heard of StarOffice's
"integrated" approach, that you are loading the equivalent of the entire MS
Office Suite all at once (something I would hesitate to do on a WinPC with
even 128 Meg of RAM).
"Could be nonsense?" Yes, thanks. Is it? Highly doubtful. Files created by
me and stored by me should be accessible by me regardless of which program I
used to create them or which operating system I used to store them.
Do we have the beginnings of a "User's Bill of Rights?" I think so, and I've
got some time that I really shouldn't kill, but its bleeding all over the
place and wheezing as it is...
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 dubious at best?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Apr 2000 13:36:38 -0600
Itchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12 Apr 2000 21:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 19:21:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>Then, incredibly he goes on to state that one of the first things the
> >>suite did was crash, and of course he finds a way to blame it on
> >>Windows because apparently parts of Corel Linux Office 2000 runs under
> >>a customized version of Wine.
> >
> >I don't really think it's the fault of either OS. It's a bad design
> >decision on part of Corel -- trying to port Windows to Linux instead
> >of writing a native Linux version.
>
> But the fact remains that the "holy grail" of office suites for Linux
> has a few leaks in the cup, ir-regardless of who is to blame. The net
> result is the same.
Who said Corel Office was the holy grail?
I've been using Applixware for about 4 years now. They have supported
Linux for a *long* time, and they have a bullet-proof product.
So Corel's first Linux application wasn't spectacular. What a news
flash... You probably never used WordPerfect 6 for Windows (their
first Windows application) -- it sucked. 6.1 barely fixed all the
major bugs, and it didn't really work well until 7 and 8.
> This is classic fragmentation.
> Corel WP installs ONLy on Corel Linux.
> Corel WP Office 2k installs ONLY on Corel Linux...
Hmm, I have it running on RedHat 6.2 right now. It comes with both
.rpm and .deb files.
> I see a chink in the Linux "let's love everybody" support philosophy
> here.
Yeah, whatever.
[snip more drivel]
If you want a good, stable office suite -- get Applixware.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
