Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft .NET: A Platform for the Next Generation Internet ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux? (nick@-)
Re: Network Unreachable (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is junk (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft .NET: A Platform for the Next Generation Internet
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:24:44 GMT
"...press and analysts gathered at the company's Redmond headquarters
for the launch were having trouble with the .Net concept, despite
several hours of presentations and demos."
http://www.vnunet.com/Analysis/1104894
Looks like another load of FUD and vapour from the untrustworthy MSFT.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux?
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:29:04 GMT
In article <8jb1js$dkj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> roger@news wrote:
> > any one knows where I can download C# for Linux?
> > thanks.
> > /roger
> >
>
> Same place where you can download it for Windows :-)
>
That of course would be ftp://fud.vaporware.microsoft.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: nick@-
Subject: Re: where to download C# compiler for Linux?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:52:22 -0700
In article <FI965.236540$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH" says...
>There are already compilers for all kinds of programming
>languages (with the curious exception of Java),
huh?
where have you been hiding all this time? There are now JDK 1.3 for
Linux from Sun, and 1.2.2 from blackdown, and one from IBM 1.1.8,
and probably more, and all for linux.
linux now is a first class development env. for Java. I am using now
BOrland Jbuilder 3.5 IDE on Linux, a powerfull Java development env. All
GUI, Visual debugger, etc...
Please get your facts right next time before making a fool of yourself
again.
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Network Unreachable
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 01:54:58 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:03:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i ping other computers on the network and it says unknown host.
Check that you have a valid nameserver entry in /etc/resolv.conf
>I check the routing table and about 20 nodes say connected,
Rounting table has nothing to do with nodes being connected. What did
you _really_ do?
>I did ifconfig and it gave a loada info, including RX packets:14090, TX
>packets 12, txqueulen:100 Interrupt:15, Base address:0x200 MTU:1500,
>Metric:1 with other values at zero.
Ok, the interface is sending and receiving packets.
>i looked at the previous replies to network unreacable and tried
>ifconfig up and down, and it did nothing.
"Network unreachable" and unknown host" are two different errors. Which
do you actually have? What did you type to get the error?
You really want to post to comp.os.linux.networking rather than an
advocach group.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:04:28 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:16:08 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>B*}...<rabid loony mode cancel>, er, a limit of 10 seems not
>unreasonable. But what about daemons like httpd - they would presumably
>need a much higher limit...
I have it set to 48 processes/user on the machine the wife and kids
use. There are apps that start a lot of threads, which look like
processes on Linux. There are also limits on memory (64 MB) open files
(128) and cpu time on that machine to prevent other kinds of runaway
processes. The cpu limit is handy for reaping those invisible-but-
still-chewing dead Netscape processes.
You can set limits per-user (I do it via PAM), plus you can set limits
per-daemon by adding the commands to the script that starts the daemon.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:03:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yum, Yum, delicious little troll. Rex likes to eat Microsoft Trolls.
> Linux is a stinkin', steamin' pile of shit as far as I am concerned.
I can't tell you how much I admire your poetic and articulate style.
I had no Idea that Microsoft was recruiting from Trailer Parks now.
> I wasted $40 on Corel Office and wish I
> could get my hard earned money back!
I'm actually willing to make that offer, but there are some
preconditions. First, you need to install Mandrake 7.0 Linux
or SuSE 6.4 Linux, use it for 90 days, for at least 20 hours a
week, learning something new each hour (not just cruising the web
using Netscrape).
> I also wasted another $60 on Partition Magic, like Corel suggested.
Good suggestion, helps you clean up after making really stupid
mistakes.
> First off the piece of shit destroyed my
> hard drive and erased 2 years worth
> of data I had saved.
You did back things up. That's good. Did you defrag the disk
before installing partition magic (like they suggested)?
Did you let each shrink operation progress to completion?
(I've corrupted a hard drive by interrupting a move or resize
in the middle of an operation (kicked the plug loose by accident).
Did you try to shrink too much?
Windows does nasting things when you fill the partition completely.
It realizes that it has written beyond the size of the partition
AFTER it's clobbered your Linux partition (leave a cylinder of
blank space between the Windows partition and the Linux partition.
Things work better.
> Lucky for me I have a backup on CD but it is
> a couple of days old.
Give the man a cigar! I have heard from more than one person
who "didn't need no backup" - even when you're just running
Windows, you need back-up.
> The install kept failing over and over
> again dying on my SCSI controller
> but finally, and mysteriously it
> worked despite my not changing
> anything.
Let's see, SCSI can be really fun, especially when your trying to
install using an IDE modular kernel without loading the modules.
Mandrake, SuSE, and RedHat have some very explicit instructions
regarding the installation to SCSI drives. It does require a second
floppy if your booting from floppies, and a menu choice (you actually
have to read the prompts).
Did you ever call for help?
Did you get support from the OEM?
Did you check to make sure you were using Compatible hardware?
Did you attempt to find out if you knew anyone who had used
Linux?
> My sound card didn't work.
Which card? Your sound card worked with Windows because the OEM
made sure that the correct drivers were provided. Microsoft probably
made the OEM sign a nondiclosure that effectively prevented them from
porting to Linux and disclosing enough technical information to create
Linux drivers.
On the other hand, there are 20 sound chips that are supported by
Linux, and there are ways of finding out which chip your machine
is using and which driver to select from the installation menu.
> My video card ran slow as a snail.
You probably didn't know which video chip you were using, and it
assumed you were using SVGA with no accellerators. This is the
safest configuration, especially when you have carefully shopped
for the most incompatible card available. As a good WinTroll,
you would have carefully chosen hardware NOT listed in the
compatibility list, this would allow you to make claims that
Linux Users would find hard to believe, and if someone called you
a Liar, you could THEN divulge the kludge-works nightmere you
specially configured to make Linux look ugly.
I'm not a big fan of the Corel Install, but at you're having too
many problems to be using any conventional hardware.
> My network card didn't work.
Let's see, you tried to pick the most incompatible card you could.
Obviously any NE-2000 would be right out. Did you try to use a
Card-BUS card on a PCMCIA laptop? How about one of those old
3Com cards with their built-in 80186 microprocessor. If you really
look, you can find a network card that doesn't work with Linux.
> My printer didn't work
Didn't work at all? Or didn't work the way you expected them
to work. I have a BJC-240, which works in black-and-white using
the BJ200 driver. Other deskjets work quite well - again,
there are lists of really nice printers.
I suppose your printer is one of those USB specials with a
nondisclosure clause that gives Microsoft 20% of the company
if Linux ever gets a working driver.
> My scanner didn't work.
I've had some problems with Scanners. The HP and the Astra worked
pretty good. Again, if you really shop, you can find a Microsoft-only
USB scanner guaranteed not to work. Which one did you find.
> My modem worked but kept disconnecting.Something about a PPP demon
> dying?
Let me guess, you were using a winmodem which is marginally supported
by Linux, at speeds that are known not to be supported. PPP made
the connection, negotiated to 56kb, and then timed out the minute
Linux got busy (like when you started downloading those animated GIFS).
> All of these devices worked out right away with Windows 98 SE and
> also with Win2k.
Yes, Windows 98 SE has wonderful USB support, they should, Microsoft
practically threatened to slit the throats of any USB vendor who
published the high level specifications to complex interfaces like
Modems, Scanners, and Multi-color printers.
Linux supports USB protocol, but that's like supporting TCP/IP without
knowing the nature of HTML protocol, and having a hard time getting
information because anyone who knows about HTML knows that if they
are caught talking with you, they will suffer horrible consequences.
> Linux has been around longer than Win2k, so why the shitty hardware
> support?
Just curious, have you tried installing Windows 98 on a VLB machine?
How about an MCA machine, or an EISA machine? Microsoft used a rather
complex web of Nondisclosure agreements to keep Linux "Plug-and-Play"
from getting access to Microsoft's "Plug-n-Play" PCI protocols.
It took about 18 months for Adaptec to break ranks and provide
the information to Red Hat.
> Shitpile Linux didn't even recognize my USB ports.
Well, of course, you put 5 peripherals on a port exdender hub and
use peripherals that use the most closely guarded exchange protocols
(sufficiently complex to be nonintuitive, to assure no
reverse-engineering or "Clean-Room" implementations.
Give us about 6 months.
By the way, the SANE (Scanner Access Now Easy) utility solves many of
the USB problems. Several USB devices are supported, it's just not
part of the "Standard Install" (since probing for USB devices that
aren't there can take a while).
> Is this Linux stuff some kind of a joke or something?
> I'd like to be let in on the joke please because I have
> lost data and wasted the better part
> of the weekend trying to make this smelly piece of trash work.
WOW! You spent a WHOLE WEEKEND learning to be a Linux GURU with
absolutely no help from anyone at all?
And you've been using Windows 98 for two years, Windows 95 for three
years before that, and Windows 3.1 for 4 years before that. I would
guess you spent more time, and got more help sorting out the Windows
2000 release BEFORE you installed it, than you spent doing the actual
Linux installation on your carefully configured "Linux Proof" box.
You picked a distribution designed primarily for installation on
your "Economy home machines" (IDE, Parallel ports, ISA modem, S3 or
I128 video, and Celeron or AMD processor) and tried to install it
on something that appears from your description to be a cross between
a server and a video game machine (SCSI, USB, and a Voodoo Video card?)
Obviously, if you really wanted more help, you would have provided
some details about your system (like which of the 18 Linux compatible
video cards DIDN'T you use, which of the 100 Linux compatible video
cards DIDN'T you use, and which of the 50 Linux compatible scanners
didn't you use...).
Of course, we'd really LOVE to know EXACTLY what you were running
so that we can provide you with SOLUTIONS to your PROBLEMS. But
you might have to get a waiver of your nondisclosure agreement
from Billy before you tell us anything really significant.
> I played around with the various applications
> included with Corel and
> quite frankly, it looks like Linux is
> some 1980's throw back. Reminds
> me of Pong and Visicalc.
Wow! You spent MOST OF YOUR WEEKEND trying to get the wrong hardware
together to blow away the Linux installation (blowing away most of your
personal information as well) ended up accidentally getting the safest
possible working configuration (SCSI in safe, linear mode, SVGA in
256 color mode, and no accellerators) and then you actually found time
to play with the GNOME spreadsheet? I'm really impressed!
You know, I couldn't even run most of the modern Windows applications
in 256 color mode? And forget trying to run Windows 98 on a REAL
SVGA card.
> I can see no way in hell that this piece of sewerage can be given to
> people who are happily running Windows.
Well, I certainly hope that we wouldn't just throw a piece of dead
beef into a room full of Hindi. You are the perfect example of how
Linux SHOULDN'T be marketed:
Tell your most rabid "Softee" that he's an idiot unless he loads
Linux this weekend,
you really want to make sure that he completly
upset with you and totally determined to prove you wrong.
Then don't make any suggestions as to which distribution to use, let
him figure it out for himself.
Better yet, make a reccommendation that completely ignores
the fact that his entire system depends on SCSI, USB, and
Voodoo cards that are not supported by the Debian
distribution (Corel) for political reasons.
Next, make sure that he has no way of reaching you and asking
for help (a weekend sailing in the rockies might do it).
Give him a self-burned CD-ROM so that there is no way he can
call a telephone help-desk to get installation and configuration
support. And tell him exactly how much the full distribution
with 90 day installation and configuration support will cost,
so that he will know how much he would have "blown" if he didn't
use your "cheap-bytes" copy.
Set his expections as high as possible. Tell him all he has to
do is put in the CD-ROM, turn on the machine, and everything
will install itself, all he has do to is close his eyes and hit
the return key a few times.
Finally, when he comes back from a weekend that didn't go as
smoothly as you described, tell him he's a liar and an idiot.
> No way.
>
> Linux just plain stinks.
Actually, given the way you were introduced to Linux, I can certainly
understand your feelings. I was lucky, and like most Linux users, I
had a friend who helped me get my first Linux machine going. We each
downloaded two floppies a night and by the end of a month, we had the
whole distribution loaded and running it all of it's glory.
This was back in 1983, when Soft Landing Systems gave you the
option of "Free Download", "$200 Ammo Box", or "$100 CD". I
quickly paid the $100 for the CD (I really didn't want to
play "floppy fumble" through another 100 floppies. These days,
a complete Linux distribution would fill over 1500 floppies.
> It is like a full lower bowel that needs to be purged.
You certainly got a "Linux enema". I don't know if you really
intended to be a troll, or if you were just that badly informed.
I'm going to trust that it was the latter.
The reality is that learning Linux is like learning any other new
technology. It's actually a bit like learning to drive a stick-shift.
When you first get started, you need to start out in a safe environment
(a machine configured to be "Linux Receptive" at least). There are
a wide variety of PCs, Video cards, peripherals, and drives that
will give you a reasonably good first experience of Linux. If you
really are running a "Linux-proof" machine, you might want to consider
buying or salvaging a used machine. You'll probably want at least
a 486/50 with at least 16 meg of RAM and an S3 video card. If you
want a really nice machine, a K5, Celeron, or Pentium machine with
anything over 100 megahertz, an I128 card with 4 meg, and 32 meg of
RAM will be "deluxe". You will want some storage - A gig for the
first experience is usually good enough for an introduction. A simple
IDE drive is reccommended.
As for the modem, get an ISA modem. And a classic Soundblaster
or compatible is perfect for a first Linux multimedia experience.
Try and find some friends who have installed Linux successfully.
Usually, they can do in an hour or two what might take you several
days to sort out. With luck, they'll pass on some of the "Tricks".
Ideally, you should push the keyboard and buttons as they tell you
what choices to make (this helps you learn to install it yourself).
My dad tried Corel and was having problems. He finally picked up
a copy of Mandrake got on the phone with me, and I talked him through
the installation in two 20 minute calls. Today, he likes Linux, and
he still likes Windows too. My brother Loves Linux and pretty much
only boots Windows when he needs to convert a fussy Office document to
RTF.
> The only plus i got from my short lived
You will have to admit, 10-15 hours, with no tech support, on a machine
that was obviously not designed to be friendly to the novice Linux
installer, is not a legitimate basis for a comparison with a system
that it's pretty obvious that you have been using for several years
now.
Let's face it, unless you're about 6 years old, and living in the
poorest part of a rural area, you've probably been interacting with
Windows, or watching others interact with Windows for at least 2-3
years. And your language is far too adult to be that of a 6 year-old.
> experience with Linux is that
You got a shock treatment. Someone told you to try Linux, you went
to CompUSA, figured you'd save a few bucks by buying the WordPerfect
Office package that came with a complimentary version of Linux (no
phone support), and figured you'd have it up in an hour or two on
a machine that is clearly not a novice machine (You don't see many
home PCs running SCSI hard drives).
There's a good chance that with the right telephone or friend support,
that you could be up and running on Linux is a few hours on your
existing hardware.
> I will surely let all my enemies know
> about it so they can have their
> systems destroyed like I have.
Actually, it sounds like someone did this to you. I'd much
rather that you didn't try to promote yourself as a anyone
who had any actual experience with Linux, since it's clear
that you haven't had any actual experience of Linux.
At best, you've managed to achieve the remarkable accomplishment
of installing Linux on a very sophisticated machine designed based
on Microsoft's most proprietary and closely guarded technology.
This is a bit like shooting a 65 the first time you ever play
golf on a par-5 course. And we're talking all 18 holes.
> How you tell it is stable?
Somehow, in spite of your worst efforts, you actually managed
to get the core system into a minimally functional state.
There's a pretty good chance that if you had a friend who
could walk you through the configuration process, you could
get a nice, fast, stable system configured in a few hours.
> First you have to get it running.
True. Most of us in the Linux community would love to see the day
when you can get your computer from CompUSA or Circuit City, or
ordered off the Web, or however you order it, and when you boot
it up, you get a nice friendly display asking if you'd like to boot
Linux or Windows. If you boot Linux, you would then be offered the
option of running either VMWare or Wine. Everything would be
completely configured so that you lose nothing by running Linux,
and at the same time, have a whole new set of possibilities that
weren't there before.
> Sorry, I drained one toner cartridge printing out how to papers.
Actually, there are some very fine books that cover most of these
topic at your local Barne's & Knoble's, Borders, or Walden bookstore.
In fact, at last count, a suburban New Jersey bookstore had over
300 titles related to Linux. The Borders at WTC had over 500 titles.
Some of them were about UNIX (but applied to Linux), others were
about languages, utilities, and specific configuration tools. And
several were actually commercial applications disguised as books.
> Not to mention when the damn printer went beserk trying to print using
> Lie-nux and it spit out page after page with one ascee charactor on
> each and no means other than shutting it off to stop it.
I know what you did. Congratulations, you had applications trying to
print to your printer, but you just didn't have the "raw" filter set
up. Again, ask for help, you may find that there are many who are
eager to help out.
> Who writes these things anyway?
Californians and Bostonians (Greater Boston Area). The BSD
documentation wreaks of the San Francisco Bay area, and the
MIT documentation (how-tos, InfoTex, emacs,...) are very
New-England.
> They seem to have a language all their
> own and it is not english, french
> or german which I am fluent in.
Well, I don't know about your french or your german, but
your english is certainly colorful and rustic, a touch of
that texas-arkansas-oklahoma redneck that you wouldn't
say to your mother, but you'd publish to 20,000 people.
> Never even looked at a readme for windows.
You didn't need to. The OEM did all of the work for you. They
engineered the hardware and drivers to Microsoft's strict
(nondisclosure protected) specifications, they delivered their
drivers (source code and all in many cases) to Microsoft for
certification, they paid a premium (advanced sales, minimum
guarantees, exclusion of competitors, service guarantees,...)
to have their drivers included on the Microsoft Windows 98
release, and the OEMs who didn't make it on the first release
made it on the SE release.
And Microsoft very carefully included about 20 very specific
clauses that contracturally prevented the OEMs from installing
both Linux and Windows on the same box, that prevented OEMs from
publishing device drivers for Linux, that prevented them from
providing information to the Open Source community that would enable
ports to Linux, and prevented them from loading applications that
could also be run on Linux (such as Corel products, StarOffice, or
Netscape).
In August of 1998, Microsoft was appealing for the "Right to Innovate"
(including the right to create contracts that blocked the innovations
of others). In August of 1999, the biggest OEMs like Dell and IBM
refused to accept terms that prevented them from selling Linux
powered machines including Servers, Workstations, and Laptops.
In August of 2000, Microsoft's contractural activities will be
watched through telescopes and microscopes. Microsoft will do
everything it can to flaunt the attitude that it is above the law
without actually risking a retroactive judgement that could involve
criminal charges for Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and "Mr Windows"
Alchin. Microsoft will bluster and threaten, but when CEOs ask
for a digitally signed e-mail, followed confirmation by fax from
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer themselves, Microsoft will probably
be letting quite a few OEMs start calling their own shots, like
dual-boot systems that run both Windows AND Linux.
> Windows has no equal...
I would say that Windows 2000 is ALMOST as nice as Linux was last
year, but then again, I'm qualified to make that assessment, since
I have experience with both systems. Linux is still missing some
applications (LIKE LOTUS NOTES!!!). But these days, Wine, VMWare,
and improved emulation have been handling many of those problems.
> At least not yet....
Nope, maybe by Windows 2002, they will actually have a system
that's almost as reliable, flexible, and functional as UNIX or
Linux.
> Linux is a bomb..........
You had a really rotten 10-15 hours. Do you really believe that this
qualifies you to come to an international forum and make an
authoritative statement of any kind that has any credibility?
I'd really love to see you impress me. Come back in 3 months,
tell me how you used Linux every day for 8-10 hours/day learned
to use PERL and Apache to create and manage you own web enabled
document archive populated with documents you created using a Linux
Office Suite, and found ways to communicate via IRC-II using voice,
text, video, and that you've tried 100 of the best commercial
applications available for Linux for several hours each. Tell me
how you generated 5000 pages for your website using filters that
generated web pages from your e-mail and news posts. And tell me
how you organized them using scripts that let you scan all 5000
in a matter of minutes, gave you an indexed search engine, and
generated a table of contents which users use to navigate through
all of those documents in a matter of seconds.
Then tell me how you got this for under $200 and how it ran on
a PC you purchased at a pawn shop for $200.
And AFTER you've said all that, if you really want to tell me
how much BETTER Windows is in terms of overall value, performance,
flexibility, features, and capabilities, I'll want to hear your
basis for that assumption.
I'll concede that Windows is easier to LEARN! That is, if there are
still 5,000 rednecks in some cactus town west of waco and south of
Santa Fe who have never used a PC before, they could probably walk
up to Windows 2000, loaded with $2000 worth of software, and actually
get to the point where they could create a ransom note to mom on word,
a pretty picture on powerpoint, and might even be able to use excel
to graph the growth of 5 cows. That's believable. Heck, they might
even get all that done before they crashed the system. With Windows
2000.
The fact is that my son was running computers since he was 6 years old,
and my daughter was "keyboarding" in first grade. Not only can they
work the internet, but they have more than enough innate skill to
learn a $60 operating system like Linux.
Does this mean that either of them will take Linux apart, introduce
a new quantum algorythm, and push it back up to Linus in their first
30 days? Absolutely not! But my son has already created a little
web site on his Linux box. Yes, he got some help from one of his
school buddies, and yes, he had a little help from me getting it
installed. Which is exactly my point.
> Jerry Butler
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 02:20:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
> God, even a professed newbie sees how damaging Corel's attempt at
Linux
> is. I think they seriously had the best ideas in mind when they
> started, but a corporation built on the ideals of closed source
software
> just can't figure out how to "make Linux thiers" the way they want to.
>
> It's too bad. I would have liked to have seen Corel really build up
on
> Linux properly (like an actual Unix/Linux based Word Perfect Suite,
not
> a Windows based port), but they seem bound and determined to kill
> themselves. Selling Netwinder was another bad idea in my opinion.
The
> Netwinder was a great product, and it would have made a killing given
> the proper attention. Rebel.com has some good ideas, but they don't
> have the marketing force that Corel has. Overall, Corel is adding
> credibility to the people that say Linux is a cheap knockoff of
> Windows. They are trying very hard to make it appear as if that is
> exactly what it is. Too bad, a lot of people are buying Corel's Linux
> packages. If this is thier first experience, a lot of them will
assume
> that is just the way Linux is and give up on it.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
I own a personal copy of Corel's WPO2K and I am extremely satisfied with
it. I use the MS flavour of WPO at work, and I found switching between
that and WP8 at home extremely annoying because of all the WP8 Motif
baggage; the WP8 widget set sucked. Now I have exactly the same
interface at home that I do at work, and I can just get on with whatever
project I'm working on and not have to try and remember each and every
subtle difference between the two. Kudos to Corel for that decision.
Except for the initial load time, WPO2K outperforms MS Office on my
underpowered home system. I'm not so much of a purist that I care what
libraries Corel uses as long as they load and don't crash. And I
certainly prefer Corel's approach to Sun's bloated StarOffice.
Corel put a lot of development effort (spelled $$$$) into further
developing the Wine environment for this project. And they gave that
work back to the open source community. I don't understand how you can
see this as a negative, or an attempt by Corel to "own" Linux. Wine is
a free ticket for many of us out of our involuntary MSFT bondage.
I also have a half dozen other "proprietary" Linux applications, from
drivers to graphics apps. I don't have, and have never had, a problem
with paying for something if it offers the best value for my money.
Sorry you feel the way you do about Corel. If they go under, we'll all
have less choice, and I thought Linux was all about choice.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
