2012/1/11 Shrinivasan T
>
> please don't take any opinion personal. everyone can have their own
> thoughts and can express it here.
>
Please let the thread continue if people have value to add :) Nobody is
going to take things personal..
--
Y
___
ILU
2012/1/11 Parthan
> To answer the OP, have you looked at CrossOver
> (http://www.codeweavers.com/)? I know of people who run licensed MS
> Office using CrossOver in CentOS and it works pretty well.
>
I am aware of that. And there is also 'playonlinux' which is more popular
when running MS Office
I think there won't be any ending conclusion in this thread.
shall we stop here?
please don't take any opinion personal. everyone can have their own
thoughts and can express it here.
please contribute to other threads too.
the request for list of Foss contributors is still with only one reply.
On 01/11/2012 02:38 PM, Parthan wrote:
> To answer the OP, have you looked at CrossOver
> (http://www.codeweavers.com/)? I know of people who run licensed MS
> Office using CrossOver in CentOS and it works pretty well.
Mshit word runs with Wine, but no one needs its LibreOffice is great.
Swapnil
To answer the OP, have you looked at CrossOver
(http://www.codeweavers.com/)? I know of people who run licensed MS
Office using CrossOver in CentOS and it works pretty well.
--
With Regards,
Parthan
(http://technofreak.in)
___
ILUGC Mailing List:
htt
10 ஜனவரி, 2012 10:10 பிற்பகல் அன்று, விக்னேஷ் நந்த குமார் (Vignesh Nandha
Kumar) எழுதியது:
>
> Now we are in a sorry state that even a "FOSS enthusiast" in a LUG has
> forgotten the whole point of Free software and is advocating for using M$
> product on "Linux".
>
LMAO :) Damn aliens :)
--
Y
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 12:42 AM, 0 <0...@0throot.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think *freedom* means anti-proprietary.
Yes, if you are not talking about *software* freedom.
Even though it might
> advocate the use of free software over proprietary software, I don't
> think it intends to ban the usage
>
> That's why RMS has been insisting on giving importance to *freedom* than
> the other technical aspects. Now we are in a sorry state that even a "FOSS
> enthusiast" in a LUG has forgotten the whole point of Free software and is
> advocating for using M$ product on "Linux".
>
I don't think *fre
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Swapnil Bhartiya <
swapnil.bhart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. Don't you think it would help enterprises to have MS Office work on
> > Linux ? They might all migrate to Linux to reduce operational
> expenditure.
> > Windows licenses will expire in a few mont
>
> Yes. Don't you think it would help enterprises to have MS Office work on
> Linux ? They might all migrate to Linux to reduce operational expenditure.
> Windows licenses will expire in a few months anyway. So would they not
> consider switching to Linux? And if they do, would that not be a goo
>
> People have choices, you know? They can basically do what they want to do.
> I do not know of many 'idiots' that you speak of. Last time I wanted
> someone to switch to Linux, he wanted to know if 3D games like Crysis, Half
> Life, etc. Some one else had problems with his G-Force graphics card.
2012/1/10 Swapnil Bhartiya
> On 01/10/2012 07:10 AM, kenneth gonsalves wrote:
>
> They are stuck with M$ Widows because they don't want to look at
> options, because they don't want to change anything around them. Linux
> won't do anything to such 'idiot' users. [..] Linux users are like organic
2012/1/10 kenneth gonsalves
>
> I am afraid you have not understood the issue. A few points:
>
> 1. Most users do not own the computers they work on. They operate
> computers owned by their employers. So they do not have a choice over
> the software. If they are lucky to work with TNEB, they get
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 14:24 +0530, Yogesh wrote:
> > Meaning : We are not interested who pirates propitiatory software
>
> Neither am I. But no one can do anything about it. I'm just saying
> that's what happens. Current state of affairs. I'm not giving software
> piracy my approval. I'm merely st
On 01/10/2012 07:10 AM, kenneth gonsalves wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:33 +0530, Yogesh wrote:
>>> we do not want such people to use linux
>>
>> Ouch ! Sharp fangs :) My English sucks big time.. Ok, what I really
>> meant was people who are stuck with Windows because they can run MS
>> office
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 13:33 +0530, Yogesh wrote:
> > we do not want such people to use linux
>
> Ouch ! Sharp fangs :) My English sucks big time.. Ok, what I really
> meant was people who are stuck with Windows because they can run MS
> office only on Windows and they are stuck with MS office for
On Monday 09 January 2012 01:37 PM, JAGANADH G wrote:
>> And I don't know what you mean by 'we'. And why you 'do not want' such
>> people to use Linux.
>
>
>
> Meaning : We are not interested who pirates propitiatory software
Neither am I. But no one can do anything about it. I'm just saying
th
Friends.
Please note the following things.
Microsoft may or may not give MS office linux version
People may buy it or not.
It is up to the company and the users.
We can not conclude anything on this.
Only thing we can do is to promote the use of LibreOffice.
Unless we contribute to LibreOffi
> And I don't know what you mean by 'we'. And why you 'do not want' such
> people to use Linux.
Meaning : We are not interested who pirates propitiatory software
> That opinion is yours and everyone else seems to be
> OK with anyone who wants to use Linux for any reason to use Linux for
> any
On Monday 09 January 2012 10:10 AM, kenneth gonsalves wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 10:04 +0530, Yogesh wrote:
>>> simple question - how much does that fancy office cost? is it still
>>> appealing when you dip into your pocket to pay for it (especially
>> the
>>> professional version that you love
On Sun, 2012-01-08 at 10:04 +0530, Yogesh wrote:
> > simple question - how much does that fancy office cost? is it still
> > appealing when you dip into your pocket to pay for it (especially
> the
> > professional version that you love?)
>
> Ok, wrong terminology, 'normal user' is not the word tha
> Now it's degenerating into insults.
Thats kind of sad. Isn't it ? I would have preferred a flame war on
Vim or Emacs, Ubuntu or Fedora, Erlang or Scala ...
> Please stop this thread.
But its okay. Alteast there is a thread running. There are many lists
that had a silent death.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Akilan R wrote:
> LOL. :D This is getting hilarious.
No, it's getting pointless and increasingly tiresome.
Now it's degenerating into insults.
Please stop this thread.
- Raja
___
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Krishnan Sethuraman
wrote:
>> akila...@gmail.com
>
>> Define 'Linux'
>
> WTF was that. What do you mean by asking me 'Define Linux' this is a forum
Never shoot a mail in haste. Now this is recorded for ever than
you replied in a hurry without understand
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Define 'Linux'
>
> WTF was that. What do you mean by asking me 'Define Linux' this is a forum
> where we exchange views. Not to satisfy ones ego. I am afraid that you are
> subscribed to the mailing list a
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > akila...@gmail.com
>
> > Define 'Linux'
>
> WTF was that. What do you mean by asking me 'Define Linux' this is a forum
> where we exchange views. Not to satisfy ones ego. I am afraid that you are
> subscri
> akila...@gmail.com
> Define 'Linux'
WTF was that. What do you mean by asking me 'Define Linux' this is a forum
where we exchange views. Not to satisfy ones ego. I am afraid that you are
subscribed to the mailing list and do not have any knowledge about the
legality associated with Linux. Check
On Saturday 07 January 2012 05:05 PM, kenneth gonsalves wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 13:11 +0530, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
>> 2012/1/6 JAGANADH G :
>
> simple question - how much does that fancy office cost? is it still
> appealing when you dip into your pocket to pay for it (especially the
> pro
On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 13:31 +0530, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> > I am using GNU/Linux (fedora) for more than 7 years . Now I am
> working as
> > a Senior Staff to a Multinational Company. Handles lots of document
> than
> > code . Still I am using OpenOffice.org / LibreOffice and Lotus
> Symphony fo
On Sat, 2012-01-07 at 13:11 +0530, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> 2012/1/6 JAGANADH G :
>
> > So there is no point in your "four points"
>
>
> Prove it, sir !! You and me being Linux/FOSS enthusiasts does not mean
> everyone would find LibreOffice appealing/easy to use. Please see my
> reply to Mr. B
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That is not required.
> > See the case of Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, VMPlayer etc ...
>
> They do not come with Linux. They can be installed later on. (Flash, Skype,
> etc).
>
Suppose in a suicide decis
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They do not come with Linux. They can be installed later on. (Flash, Skype,
> etc).
>
Define 'Linux'
--
அகிலன் (Akilan R)
[ blog.akilan.in ]
*I should have no use for a paradise in which I should be depriv
> That is not required.
> See the case of Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, VMPlayer etc ...
They do not come with Linux. They can be installed later on. (Flash, Skype,
etc).
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 2:29 PM, JAGANADH G wrote:
> Thats the way it is. To release your software with Linux you need to
>
>
Thats the way it is. To release your software with Linux you need to
> release the source code.
That is not required.
See the case of Adobe Acrobat Reader, Skype, VMPlayer etc ...
--
**
JAGANADH G
http://jaganadhg.in
*ILUGCBE*
http://ilugcbe.org.in
_
> things from the perspective of a long time MS office user and you'll
> understand what I mean.
> This reason is quite simple. Things purchased by paying or stolen for
personal us
Thats the way it is. To release your software with Linux you need to
release the source code. That is how the agree
Try and look at
> things from the perspective of a long time MS office user and you'll
> understand what I mean.
This reason is quite simple. Things purchased by paying or stolen for
personal use are always sweet for the user. That siw hy ardent M$ product
users hate Free/Libre things.
It is hu
2012/1/7 JAGANADH G :
> Prove it, sir !! You and me being Linux/FOSS enthusiasts does not mean
>
> I am using GNU/Linux (fedora) for more than 7 years . Now I am working as
> a Senior Staff to a Multinational Company. Handles lots of document than
> code . Still I am using OpenOffice.org / LibreOf
Prove it, sir !! You and me being Linux/FOSS enthusiasts does not mean
> everyone would find LibreOffice appealing/easy to use. Please see my
> reply to Mr. Balachandran Sivakumar.
>
I am using GNU/Linux (fedora) for more than 7 years . Now I am working as
a Senior Staff to a Multinational Comp
2012/1/6 JAGANADH G :
> So there is no point in your "four points"
Prove it, sir !! You and me being Linux/FOSS enthusiasts does not mean
everyone would find LibreOffice appealing/easy to use. Please see my
reply to Mr. Balachandran Sivakumar.
--
Y
__
> All the posters missed a few words about M$ excel
>
> http://www.burns-stat.com/pages/Tutor/spreadsheet_addiction.html
>
I have heard pivot tables where fine inventions in computing
technology. And got its first application in spreadsheets.
___
ILUGC M
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:42 PM, JAGANADH G wrote:
> I'll give you four 'points':
>
>>
>> 1. Ease of use (read very visually appealing)
>> 2. Excel Macros
>> 3. Powerpoint
>> 4. Outlook + MS Exchange
>>
> So there is no point in your "four points"
All the posters missed a few words about M$ excel
I'll give you four 'points':
>
> 1. Ease of use (read very visually appealing)
> 2. Excel Macros
> 3. Powerpoint
> 4. Outlook + MS Exchange
>
>
All these facilities are available in OpenOffice.org/ LibreOffice.
If you want some thing more than that you can try Lotus Symphey from IBM
too .
The vi
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Manokaran K wrote:
>
> So, who knows, Now that MS Office is no longer shackled, maybe it'll earn
> them more money now.
I guess, in the course of many mails people didn't realise/forgot that the
original article linked to by OP is an April fools day joke. :-)
--
A few years back I read an article that said MS Office is the biggest money
spinner for Microsoft and every other product (including Windows) were
being subsidized by it to create the lock in. The article claimed that was
the reason MS only publishes consolidated revenues and never product wise
bre
2012/1/6 Balachandran Sivakumar :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Yogesh Girikumar
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Ease of use (read very visually appealing)
>
> It is more a case of having got used to MS Office. I find LibreOffice
> to be quite easy to use and visually appealing as well.
I find it
I don't know whether I am alone here. I left M$ office or similar
tools five years back and never found a need for one.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Balachandran Sivakumar
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Yogesh Girikumar
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. Ease of use (read very visually appe
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
>
> 1. Ease of use (read very visually appealing)
It is more a case of having got used to MS Office. I find LibreOffice
to be quite easy to use and visually appealing as well.
> 2. Excel Macros
> 3. Powerpoint
You have far be
2012/1/5 Swapnil Bhartiya :
> I don't see point of pushing
> M$ office on Linux.
I'll give you four 'points':
1. Ease of use (read very visually appealing)
2. Excel Macros
3. Powerpoint
4. Outlook + MS Exchange
--
Y
___
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.
On 01/05/2012 08:38 AM, kenneth gonsalves wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 13:03 +0530, sag kavin wrote:
>>>
I don't think they will. Because to build a Linux version and offer
>> it to
people, they need to release the source code as well. Which they
>> will not
do.
>>>
>>
>> Is that r
On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 13:03 +0530, sag kavin wrote:
> >
> > >I don't think they will. Because to build a Linux version and offer
> it to
> > >people, they need to release the source code as well. Which they
> will not
> > >do.
> >
>
> Is that really necessary to release source code? If so how skyp
>
> >I don't think they will. Because to build a Linux version and offer it to
> >people, they need to release the source code as well. Which they will not
> >do.
>
Is that really necessary to release source code? If so how skype messenger,
some propitiatory games like Penumbra Black plague, Braid
On 5 January 2012 10:25, Arun Venkataswamy wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
> krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Why Not? Apple's app signing is a good example for piracy proof way of
>> >using a AppStore to distribute software. If Ubuntu goes the same
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Krishnan Sethuraman <
krishnan.ubu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Why Not? Apple's app signing is a good example for piracy proof way of
> >using a AppStore to distribute software. If Ubuntu goes the same way with
> >its paid apps, why can't MS get a piracy proof m
>
>
>Why Not? Apple's app signing is a good example for piracy proof way of
>using a AppStore to distribute software. If Ubuntu goes the same way with
>its paid apps, why can't MS get a piracy proof method?
I don't think they will. Because to build a Linux version and offer it to
people, they need
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> 2012/1/2 Ashok Gautham :
>
> > How is this piracy-proof?
>
> It is not. But atleast more people will be willing to pay for it.
>
>
Why Not? Apple's app signing is a good example for piracy proof way of
using a AppStore to distribute softwar
On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 13:06 +0530, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> > How is this piracy-proof?
>
> It is not. But atleast more people will be willing to pay for it.
>
> @Kenneth,
>
> I find it surprising because, there are lots of people ( who would
> otherwise switch to linux) stuck with Windows jus
2012/1/2 Ashok Gautham :
> How is this piracy-proof?
It is not. But atleast more people will be willing to pay for it.
@Kenneth,
I find it surprising because, there are lots of people ( who would
otherwise switch to linux) stuck with Windows just because they can't
run office on Linux. Mac is
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:25:18AM +0530, arunthe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Exactly. Whatever be the reason, Microsoft has a really good office suit.
> Or in other terms, most people have grown accustomed to it. If they make a
> linux version and make it a Pay App at the Ubuntu Software Centre, I think
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 11:15 AM, kenneth gonsalves
wrote:
>
> what is your objection?
>
>
Exactly. Whatever be the reason, Microsoft has a really good office suit.
Or in other terms, most people have grown accustomed to it. If they make a
linux version and make it a Pay App at the Ubuntu Software
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 20:56 +0530, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> Real shocker, I don't want to believe it.. :) The page says Microsoft
> is planning to release a version of it's office suite for Linux. Can
> anyone verify this story?
what is your objection?
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Yogesh Girikumar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://www.nosolounix.com/2011/12/microsoft-anuncia-office-para-linux.html
> (Page in spanish)
>
> Real shocker, I don't want to believe it.. :) The page says Microsoft
> is planning to release a version of it's office suite f
Hi,
http://www.nosolounix.com/2011/12/microsoft-anuncia-office-para-linux.html
(Page in spanish)
Real shocker, I don't want to believe it.. :) The page says Microsoft
is planning to release a version of it's office suite for Linux. Can
anyone verify this story?
--
Y
_
62 matches
Mail list logo
