Linux-Advocacy Digest #680, Volume #29 Sun, 15 Oct 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (jazz)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (jazz)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Richard M. Denney")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Ms employees begging for food ("Thomas Lee [MVP]")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Jan Schaumann")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:48:07 GMT
Why not?
I used to hand all of my PL/1 programs on punched cards to a priest
who fed them into a 3505 IBM card reader.
That's more than most of the yo-yo's in this group can claim.
claire
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:29:24 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:02:18 -0500, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >You really are a silly person. I'd wager that 99% of the people
>reading
>> >this newsgroup have more experience with Dos/Windows than you. It
>really
>> >is kind of dumb for you to blather on about how great "Windows" is to
>> >them.
>>
>> I doubt it. I go back well before DOS was a dollar sign in BG's eyes.
>
>Hey, being a card puncher hardly qualifys.
>
>
>>
>> >They have also learned to use Unix/Linux and find that it
>> >meets their needs better than the afore mentioned operating system.
>>
>> If I were running a server I would agree.
>> >You however, cannot make an intelligent assessment of what the pros
>and
>> >cons of each are because you know nothing of Unix/Linux.
>>
>> I know plenty about Linux. Having used Corel, Caldera, RedHat,
>> Mandrake TurboLinux and Slackware, All current versions I feel I am
>> qualified to comment.
>>
>> >I wonder where you got the idea that Linux is for everyone. It isn't.
>If
>> >you cannot or will not read, Linux is most definately not for you.
>>
>> Where did I get that idea?
>>
>> Check the COLA archives for that info. You have some nuts here that
>> think Linux IS for everyone.
>>
>> >If you can read and don't mind doing so, you might find even with its
>> >shortcomings, Linux is far preferable to Dos/Windows.
>>
>> If you look from an applications point of view you will see otherwise.
>>
>> >Windows has its place and has enabled the lowest comon denominator in
>our
>> >society to run powerful applications run on sophisticated computers.
>Does
>> >that mean it is a superior operating system? No.
>>
>> The fact that 90 percent or more of the desktop world is running it
>> says something.
>> Where is Linux on the desktop?
>>
>> >Learn to use Linux and use it exclusively for a year or two.
>>
>> I don't like torture.
>>
>> I couldn't even if I wanted to. It doesn't have the applications I
>> need to run my business. No surprise.
>>
>> claire
>> >Then your judgements, opinions, and comparisons between Windows and
>Linux
>> >will have more weight.
>>
>> I have been dual booting for years and still Linux sucks.
>> >Until then you go into the killfile with the rest of the kooks.
>>
>> Whatever.
>> claire
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:50:07 -0500
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >There was never a requirement to sign a per processor license
agreement.
> Get
> > >your facts straight. [...]
> >
> > Perhaps you misread the facts presented, which was that there was a
> > requirement to agree to ppl, or MS would make Win/DOS too expensive for
> > the OEM to remain competitive for those large number of customers that
> > currently use Windows (not realizing how crappy a system it is, and
> > believing MS's hype-machine/marketing).
>
> Name the price difference and I'll explain to you the significance of your
> ignorance.
> Ohh...whats that? You don't have a clue what the prices were, let alone
the
> differences?
"Opus agreement has finally been signed by Redmond. Another DRI prospect
bites the dust with a per processor DOS agreement."
-- Microsoft OEM Status Report, October 1990
Just to set the tone, JS. There has never been any question as to what the
per processor agreements were all about. It was to destroy competition.
As for prices...
In a contract Microsoft got Commodore Business Machines to sign in 1990, the
price structure for a per processor license was as follows:
8086 - $6
80286 - $10
80386 - $16
80486 - $16
This came out to a weighted average of $8.22. At the time, Commodore was
paying $11, so this was a nice break for them. However, Microsoft then
informed them that without the per processor agreement, they would be
charged a flat $30 per copy, regardless of processor.
Naturally, Commodore signed.
This scenario was repeated over and over with the large OEMs of the time.
It's all there in publically available court documents. A lot of it is
online.
> If there ever were a "requirement" to purchase the per processor license,
> wouldn't MS have been selling it to ALL (100%) OEM's instead of 0-40% over
a
> three year period?
The didn't target the little guys back then. It wasn't worth it. They went
after the big accounts, and most especially the big accounts that had begun
selling DR DOS systems.
> Proof shall set you free, liar.
>
How do you find the energy to go on in the face of all this evidence? I
hope someone is paying you well.
On the other hand, your behavior tends to paint Windows advocates with an
ugly brush, so you're actually doing a tiny amount of harm to Microsoft in
terms of PR.
If you really are one of the handful of people Microsoft pays to anonymously
advocate for them, I expect you'll be getting a pink slip pretty soon.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:50:13 GMT
The truth sometimes hurts.
Get used to it, because it isn't going away.
And neither am I.
I intend to be Linux's worst enemy.
and judging by the responses here I am succeeding quite well.
claire
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:28:08 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Don't flater your self deerie. Your a joke here. No one respects you so
>the are not polite in what they say. Get it?
>
>
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
>> from the Linux world?
>>
>> Because you fear me that's why.
>>
>> Unlike the typical WinTroll, I actually use current versions of the
>> software I am exposing. I have used every single distribution up to
>> and including Mandrake 7.1 and with the exception of Slackware they
>> all suck in one way or another.
>> Sorry but it is true.
>>
>> Why doesn't Slackware suck? Because it is not trying to be a half
>> assed clone of Windows that's why. It is Linux, does not try to claim
>> otherwise and stands on it's own for better or worse.
>> I respect that. Slackware is Linux at it's best, like it or not, it is
>> an honest attempt at the Linux philosophy and I like that.
>>
>> You yo-yo's are so caught up in your own pile of bullshit that you
>> have not a clue as to what the rest of the world wants, needs or is
>> asking for.
>>
>> You think desktop users want Linux?
>>
>> Think again. You can't even give it away.
>>
>> You think we want (taking Terry Porters list) Compilers, editors,
>> schematic diagram thingies, flowchart programs? Think again.
>>
>> Again you are a collective bunch of idiots with blinders on.
>>
>> Linux is free. Yet you can't even give it away.
>> Linux has had a LOT of positive press in the last year.
>>
>> Why is it not taking over the desktop?
>>
>> Seems to me, we Windows users invest a lot of money in software and a
>> free system would be a plus for us?
>>
>> So what's the deal?
>>
>> The deal is Linux sucks at 99 percent of what the average person wants
>> or needs a computer to do.
>>
>> You have half assed Windows clones that neither perfom as well nor
>> have the features of the equivilant Windows programs. In some cases
>> you don't have any equivilant at all (a decent browser).
>>
>> You fear me, because I have the facts, have used Linux and have come
>> to the same conclusion that legions of others have come to. Linux is
>> nice, but Windows is better. I just choose to expose this Linux scam
>> for what it is. A scam.
>>
>> So, unlike Terry Porter who got pissed off back in 1997 at Windows, I
>> will continue to try current versions of Linux and Windows and maybe,
>> just maybe, someday I will switch to Linux.
>>
>> claire
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:52:55 GMT
If you knew anything about Linsux, you would know that offline news
reading is about as scarce as a do-do bird.
Of course you can use nightmares like Leafnode and Slrnpull to do the
job, but PAN traps on me daily.
Agent is probobly the number one newsreader on the net.
Linux has nothing like it, although maybe in 2 years or so Pan may
come close.
claire
On 16 Oct 2000 00:02:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have never said anything against the stability of Linux. Only times
>> it crashed on me was running Agent under Wine,
>
>And right here is where we see the exact amount of value of "claire"'s
>opinions about linux.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 16 Oct 2000 00:15:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> But what is this "object orientation" it's breaking?
>> Classes might not be the ideal way but to say that they
>> break object orientaion simply because they don't meet
>> certain consistency standards you externally impose on
>> models that others find perfectly fine is logically
>> indefensible.
>> Self is a great language, but it doesn't need idiots
>> to promote it.
>There speaks someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable
>for a term (OO) to be spin-doctored into oblivion. Oh, also
>someone who confuses the architecture of a paradigm with
>its low-level design. But hey, if a term (architecture and
>OO) has meaning only in a camp (Smalltalk users) foreign
>to your own then it's perfectly sensible to deny it has
>any meaning, and/or distort & abuse that meaning.
Of course if it has meaning, why are you completely unable
articulate that meaning? Perhaps you don't know what that
is? You're like one of those people who argue that the
essence of democracy lies in the goodness of government and
contend, when faced with "bad" examples of democracy, that
those are not democracies at all, since they are not good.
A computational paradigm is a notion for viewing and
sometimes describing a computational process. A language
doesn't force a particular paradigm upon its users and can
only support a paradigm by providing necessary mechanisms
and a consistent model. C++ is multi-paradigmatic, so it of
course doesn't provide a single consistent model for OO.
But then again, OO as a paradigm, isn't complete, (in its
present state, it merely facilitates slight reorganization
of the underlying paradigm, be it imperative, functional,
etc) so a language supporting OO will have to support
multiple paradigms, in some sense (whether they merge to
appear as one single new paradigm to the user is a
metaphysical question).
>I just LOVE your implicit arguments by redefinition:
>C++ is good because it is OO and OO means whatever the
>fuck C++ has.
This is pretty ridiculous. A huge portion of my articles
in comp.* newsgroups are dedicated to C++ bashing. Just
look it up, if you don't believe me. I don't think C++ is
good, nor do I think it's clear that OO is good. None of
this is meaningful since the term "good" has no clear
meaning. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth
are mildly amusing, but they only lower your own
credibility (as though that was possible). Heck, I'd take
most of the languages you advocate over C++ any time.
What's really funny is that you continue bashing C++
while acknowledging that you don't even know the language.
If you don't even know what your opposition's argument is
(or something even remotely close to that), trying to
argue against it is a futile exercise. I don't think you
ever in this entire thread addressed a single argument that
I made, whereas you addressed dozens of points that you
somehow deluded yourself to believe that I made, that I
never did.
>Of course now you'll deny that you ever implied any
>such thing since you "only" argued the second half of
>that statement. Conveniently forgetting that the first
>half needs no arguing.
I didn't even argue the latter half. I repeatedly asked
what definition of OO you had and all you ever seem to
be able to come up with is that it's something good and
ideal. Between your prejudices and inability to read
simple English sentences, lost is the essence of my
arguments and born are your profoundly absurd delusions
regarding it.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:01:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
> from the Linux world?
Because they are content-free marketing drivel, anti-advocacy posted
in an advocacy group.
> Because you fear me that's why.
Hardly.
> Linux is free. Yet you can't even give it away.
If that were the case you wouldn't need to bother
trying to discourage it's use, now would you. You
seem to be the one with something to fear.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:02:46 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
> from the Linux world?
>
blah blah blah
My, you sure do have a big opinion of yourself. No one here fears you.
We laugh at you.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:05:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:02:18 -0500, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >You really are a silly person. I'd wager that 99% of the people reading
> >this newsgroup have more experience with Dos/Windows than you. It really
> >is kind of dumb for you to blather on about how great "Windows" is to
> >them.
>
> I doubt it. I go back well before DOS was a dollar sign in BG's eyes.
Then you should realize that if you had spent a week back then learning
to use unix productively it would have served you well from then on
without having to deal with any of BG's nonsense, taking at most a
recompile as you switched among processors over the years.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:10:48 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Linux world that will 100 percent
> emulate MSOffice. Nothing at all.
Including, of course, any other version of MSOffice besides the exact one
that you are using. Incompatibility and obsolescence by design.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jazz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:13:25 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:44:43 -0400, jazz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >All I ask for is the ability to import Star Office files into Word. Possible?
>
> Yes, it is possible. However, be aware that there are a few conversion issues.
> In general, documents will be imported/exported properly, but I've found that
> sometimes tables and other odds-and-ends don't come out 100% correct.
>
> You should run StarOffice and create a few test documents that use the
features
> you will be using. Swap between SO and Word and see what happens. Make sure
> that you create the original test documents in both SO and Word and do two
> separate test.
>
> Another possibility is to use HTML for true portability, but most publishing
> houses will not support that.
Well, the problem is that everyone I work with uses word, so I have to
give them documents in word. Even professional journals in my field prefer
to receive articles in word attachments, though some still accept Latex.
Thanks for your help.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jazz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:10:20 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've found that a good solution is to use Word under VMWare.
Thanks, what's that?
I just started looking at prices for Pentium III systems. Boy, cheap,
compared to the Macs I'd need to buy to run OSX.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:32:05 -0500
From: "Richard M. Denney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
jazz wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I've found that a good solution is to use Word under VMWare.
>
> Thanks, what's that?
>
> I just started looking at prices for Pentium III systems. Boy, cheap,
> compared to the Macs I'd need to buy to run OSX.
>
> Jim
I think VMWare is the best solution. See www.vmware.com. I also run
Linux in a Microsoft-dependent medical school. In Linux I have Windows
NT4 loaded with MS Office and Adobe photoshop and they work fine. For
goodness sake, use whatever tool is easiest for your job. VMware permits
one to have the best of both worlds.
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 20:37:55 -0500
James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Weevil wrote:
> >
> > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indMicrosoft.asp
> > >
> > > Also see the related analysis links at the bottom of that page.
> > >
> > > That being read, it seems that the boss is winning points for giving
> > people
> > > their choice of operating systems at work. As it should be. They
made
> > that
> > > choice at home.
> >
> > People use whatever comes on their computer. They don't "choose" one
> > operating system over another, especially when they're not even aware of
a
> > choice.
>
> Sure they do. I know I made such an explicit choice back in the late
> 80's when I decided to replace my Apple IIe. I initially wanted to buy
> a Mac, as I was predisposed to stay with Apple. However, after looking
> at prices (in the neighborhood of $3K for the feature set I wanted in a
> pc, as opposed to $5K for what I wanted in a Mac), I decided to tolerate
> DOS even though I would rather have used MacOS.
I bought an Amiga in 1985. That was in the days when Microsoft advocates,
stuck as they were with DOS 3.3 or some such, scoffed at the touchy-feely
GUI of Amigas, Macs, and Atari STs. No real productivity could ever be
achieved with those mouse things, they said. And who needed multitasking?
Why would anybody ever need to run more than one program at a time, for
god's sakes? And of course, 640k ram was enough for anybody.
You're right -- I did have a choice back then, sort of. But still, 90% of
the software was written for DOS, in spite of its vast inferiority. I chose
then to go with a better system (at home), even though I knew software would
be hard to come by. My Amiga was stolen 3 years later. I still miss it.
> There was a very clear choice to be made then - Apple was getting very
> good press, but had explicitly chosen to go for margin over volume. Had
> they gone the other way, things might well be very different now.
Yup. Apple miscalculated badly.
> > Microsoft has for years required PC manufacturer to pay for DOS and
> > Windows on every PC they sell, whether they include Win/DOS on the
computer
> > or not. It's that so-called "per-processor license" you've heard tell
of.
> > How did they require OEMs to do this? By refusing to allow them to sell
> > Win/DOS at all unless they signed the contract. Now, OEMs are in a
highly
> > competitive market. They can't afford to charge their customers twice
for
> > an OS (once for Microsoft's per processor license and once for, say,
OS/2),
> > because their competitor across town will just undercut their prices by
> > selling MS-only machines. So...the result is exactly what you'd expect:
> > home users have been locked in to Win/DOS for years. They didn't "make
that
> > choice at home," as you claim.
>
> Would MS have been able to do this if Apple had tried to make the space
> competitive in the late 80's? I really doubt it. But Apple misplayed
> their hand badly.
Yeah, they did. But the deck was stacked against them since Microsoft had
the IBM market sewn up. As the saying went, "Nobody ever got fired for
buying an IBM." DOS was obviously a pitiful alternative to Mac, Amiga, and
even Atari ST operating systems, but DOS ran on IBM systems. The others
didn't.
> > The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of
the
> > machine. Everybody he knows uses Windows It was on there when he
unpacked
> > it and plugged it in. He thinks it's part of it. It wasn't a "choice"
he
> > made -- it was just there, like the carburetor on his car.
> >
>
> Now, perhaps. But this is a consequence of Apple's stupidity in the
> years 1985-1990, and MS's marketing intelligence filling the breach.
And now we're getting into opinion. Quite a few people believe that
Microsoft fell into their good fortune by being at the right place at the
right time. In the early days, IBM is what captured the market for
Microsoft, not DOS.
What happened after that is what has been thrashed around the court system
for so many years. Microsoft has parted with hundreds of millions, maybe
billions of dollars in fines and out of court settlements for their actions.
But their payoff so overwhelms their penalties that the courts are wasting
their time in levying any penalty short of a breakup. Fines are useless.
Jail time for Bill, Steve, and a few others might help some. :)
> > > Just face it folks.
> > > Windows is where it's at today because it's better at what people want
to
> > do
> > > with their computers.
> >
> > Well, no, it's not. It's where it's at today because Microsoft forces
it on
> > people.
> >
>
> No, because MS did a far, far better job at market penetration in the
> early days when it mattered. Now they just have to sit back and enjoy
> it.
>
They penetrated the market, all right. *Boy* did they penetrate the market.
Not to mention their competitors and consumers.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:43:44 GMT
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:46:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Linux world that will 100 percent
>emulate MSOffice. Nothing at all.
There is nothing in the _Windows_ world that will 100 percent emulate
MS Office either. I guess this means that choice is dead in word
processors and nobody is allowed to use anything different. Somehow
this does not sound like good news to me. YMMV.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Thomas Lee [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:53:47 +0100
In article <39ea184b$0$14033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>After reading this:
>
>http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/stripper.html
>
>I have decided I really DO want to work there!
Sadly - I sure never saw any of it...
Tomas
--
Thomas Lee
Windows 2000 MVP
This message posted at news:msnews.microsfot.com - come on over
Want to learn more about Windows 2000 TCP/IP? See http://www.kapoho.com/tcpip
------------------------------
From: "Jan Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:48:16 +0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <qEqG5.3541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan
> Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Well, then you probably want to take a look at
>> -abiword
>> -StarOffice (BLOATware)
>> -ApplixWare (payware)
>>
>> Or you can just distribute your documents as pdf's...
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jan
>
>
>
> Please tell me more. For example, I just wrote a paper with someone in
> LA. I'm in New Jersey. I wrote a draft, emailed it to them, they revised
> it, resent it to me, I revised and made additions, sent it back, he
> revised, and I sent some additional parts, he put it all together, and
> sent it out to all the other authors, as a word attachment they all can
> read and make changes to.
Well, not having used any M$-product in over two years I don't know about
the specific features of Word.
Also, I do not have any experience with having multiple people edit *one*
file. But what I *do* know is that ms-word (or rtf for that matter) is
NOT intended to be a portable document format (meaning being readable
independant of the platform, looking the same on all). That'd be pdf.
Anypdf generated on any platform will always look the same on all other
platforms, that's what pdf is for. If you want to have other people edit
*your* document and then see what changes they made - well, it may well
be that Word can do that better than LaTeX for example.
All I'm saying is that I'm sure that with a little bit of practice you
will find yourself to be working much more efficiently using LaTeX than
using word - you don't have to worry about what they document looks like
while you're writing it.
No more "highligth this, choose style, don't like it, choose another
style, hit return 5 times, hit spacce 20 times, change font size
blahblahblah".
But I'm rambling...
use whatever you think does the job best for you. If you nedd 100%
MS-Word conformance, you will need MS-WORD, that's the sad truth. But if
you need 100% efficiency, well, that's a completely different story.
Cheers,
-Jan
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
Please add smileys where appropriate.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
