Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market. - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market. - Linux ; Adam Albright wrote: >Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed >this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the >clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 221 to 240 of 257

Thread: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

  1. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    Adam Albright wrote:

    >Seems a lot of blockheads come from the UK. Interesting, I observed
    >this FACT in just about every newsgroup I ever visited. Most of the
    >clowns either are from the UK (can tell from their spelling of certain
    >common words like ass or color) or they still are there judging form
    >their email address or posting header.
    >
    >ROTFLMAO!


    Just be glad there's none of those lewd, crude Aussies in here!

    J/K


  2. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    chrisv wrote:

    >> I know that the "(insert OS here) makes you stupid" line is rather
    >> passe, but, in the case of MacOS, it may well be true.


    I never believed it, until I read cola: chrisv, flyer, 7, Liam Slider,
    Gordon, Mentohl, [H]omer....



  3. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

    George Graves wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote
    > (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):
    >
    >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article
    >>>>> ):
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> why so angry Jesus?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.
    >>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.
    >>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either
    >>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has
    >>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop
    >>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better
    >>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux
    >>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think
    >>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....
    >>>>> well, you know.
    >>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a
    >>>> professional level application.
    >>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything
    >>> whatsoever to do with my comment.

    >> Yada, yada, yada...
    >>
    >> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a
    >> non-pro-level app across the City.

    >
    > Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not
    > responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can
    > exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a
    > pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that
    > day.


    Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has
    adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the
    imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.

  4. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    Vigilante did eloquently scribble:
    > The Queen is a butt ho


    Yes... AND?

    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  5. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    Peter Hayes did eloquently scribble:
    > wrote:


    >> Adam Albright did eloquently scribble:
    >> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:58:27 +0100, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:


    >> > It seems a lot of Brits are preoccupied with Princess D. What's this,
    >> > the THIRD official inquiry?

    >>
    >> **** 'er. Only people who give a toss about that ex-slapper are the press
    >> and a few daily mail readers.


    > Err.... I think you mean the Daily Express, also known as the Daily
    > Diana, or the Daily Madeline in more recent times.


    See? I pay so little attention to the story I don't even know which paper's
    obsessed with her at the moment.


    At the moment of her death I merely disliked her, by the end of the week
    AFTER her death I loathed even the mention of her name, we had so much media
    saturation of the story. One whole week of "And now the news... diana is
    still dead", 24/7, all but one terrestrial channel.
    --
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
    | | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
    | in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
    | Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  6. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 07:00:22 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
    (in article ):

    > George Graves wrote:
    >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:04:57 -0700, Rick wrote
    >> (in article <13gogapr9084a5f@news.supernews.com>):
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 14:47:07 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:56:16 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>>> <13gmnigar37km54@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:19 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote (in article
    >>>>>> ):
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> why so angry Jesus?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I thought you loved everyone?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.
    >>>>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics.
    >>>>>> To them every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either
    >>>>>> follow the party line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has
    >>>>>> had years to achieve some sort of critical mass as a viable desktop
    >>>>>> system and it hasn't moved very far in spite of being so much better
    >>>>>> than Windows that it isn't even a contest. Yet if you tell these Linux
    >>>>>> fanatics that one little fact, they go ballistic. Basically, I think
    >>>>>> that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of clothes....
    >>>>>> well, you know.
    >>>>> Explain to use why the city of Largo uses OpenOffice if it is not a
    >>>>> professional level application.
    >>>> Please explain how your non sequitur remark, above, has anything
    >>>> whatsoever to do with my comment.
    >>> Yada, yada, yada...
    >>>
    >>> You said OO.o was not a pro-level app. Explain why Largo has deployed a
    >>> non-pro-level app across the City.

    >>
    >> Who knows? Who cares? maybe they're cheap or broke, or both. I'm not
    >> responsible for what Largo does (wherever Largo is). I'm sure you can
    >> exceptions to every "rule". That doesn't prove that OO is considered a
    >> pro-level application anywhere. It might be someday. but this is not that
    >> day.

    >
    > Largo is not the only group that has either considered OOo, or has
    > adopted OOo. AFAIK, the main reason companies don't move to OOo is the
    > imperfect compatibility between it and MS Office.


    That's certainly part of it (yet the fact that MS Office isn't particularly
    compatible with itself doesn't seem to bother these same companies). The
    other part is the perception that if it's free, it can't be worth very much
    (I've heard IT managers actually SAY this).


  7. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, spike1@freenet.co.uk

    wrote
    on Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:42:34 +0100
    :
    > Oxford did eloquently scribble:
    >> Kier wrote:


    [some things got lost in shipping and handling]

    >
    >>> >> Novell? MICROSOFT? That's CERTAINLY based mainly in seatle isn't it?
    >>> >
    >>> > Novell based in Seattle? what? they mainly came from Provo Utah, and now
    >>> > headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts. They never had any connection
    >>> > to Seattle.
    >>>
    >>> Last I heard, Utah was still in the United States.

    >
    >> learn how to read. the comment was...

    >
    >>> >> Novell? MICROSOFT? That's CERTAINLY based mainly in seatle isn't it?

    >
    >> and i simply corrected his error saying novell never had a connection to
    >> seattle. which is true. they came out of Provo Utah. fact.

    >
    > No, you just highlighted your inability to read.
    > Novell? MICROSOFT? That's certainly based in seattle.
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > That WAS difficult, wasn't it boys and girls?



    It may be worth noting that Bill Gates founded Microsoft
    in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1976; the company moved to
    Bellevue, Washington in 1979. The company then moved to
    Redmond in 1986.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft

    Provo, Utah is not even mentioned.

    For its part Novell started as part of the Eyring Research
    Institute in Provo, Utah; ERI lost four individuals who
    eventually went to found Novell Data Systems, who back
    then was an OEM for CP/M. Novell NetWare catapulted them
    to success, augmented by Ethernet card hardware, almost
    achieving a monopoly in the 1980's in its own right.
    After that, Novell diversified and its history is more
    mixed; the most notable acquisition might be that of
    Ximian, which gave it Evolution, Red Carpet, and Mono.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novell

    It is not clear whether Novell has ever moved, but their
    headquarters is now in Waltham, MA. I suspect an
    acquisition.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
    std::vector<...> v; for(int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  8. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    wrote:

    > Peter Hayes did eloquently scribble:
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> Adam Albright did eloquently scribble:
    > >> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:58:27 +0100, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

    >
    > >> > It seems a lot of Brits are preoccupied with Princess D. What's this,
    > >> > the THIRD official inquiry?
    > >>
    > >> **** 'er. Only people who give a toss about that ex-slapper are the press
    > >> and a few daily mail readers.

    >
    > > Err.... I think you mean the Daily Express, also known as the Daily
    > > Diana, or the Daily Madeline in more recent times.

    >
    > See? I pay so little attention to the story I don't even know which paper's
    > obsessed with her at the moment.


    The day Brown bottled the election every Sunday paper had a variation on
    "Bottler Brown" as their headline, except the Express which had "Henri
    Paul's MI6 connection" as their headline.

    Sheesh... :-)

    --

    Immunity is better than innoculation.

    Peter

  9. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    On Oct 10, 1:42 am, George Graves wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:55:17 -0700, Jesus wrote
    > (in article <1191974117.521674.271...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>):
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Oct 9, 3:05 am, George Graves wrote:
    > >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote
    > >> (in article
    > >> ):

    >
    > >>> why so angry Jesus?

    >
    > >>> I thought you loved everyone?

    >
    > >>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

    >
    > >> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics. To
    > >> them
    > >> every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow the party
    > >> line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has had years to achieve
    > >> some
    > >> sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very
    > >> far
    > >> in spite of being so much better than Windows that it isn't even a contest.
    > >> Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go
    > >> ballistic.
    > >> Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of
    > >> clothes.... well, you know.

    >
    > > HAHAHAHAHA! Did you just call me a Linux fanatic

    >
    > I was making a general comment. That you assumed that I was talking about you
    > is a matter between yourself and your own paranoia.
    >
    > > for calling BS on
    > > Oxford saying basic frameworks in Linux not being up to handling
    > > complicated apps? I support no one OS. I use all three major OSes.
    > > I just don't like seeing Oxford's lying ****. It degrades Mac users.


    Er... you wrote that in reply to Oxford replying to me. Must I be
    paranoid to think that was directed towards me?


  10. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

    On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:00 -0700, George Graves wrote:

    > On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:26:17 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    > <13go3gp68ng189e@news.supernews.com>):
    >
    >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:55:38 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:49:32 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>> <13gmn5sakag7n5d@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:58:58 -0600, Oxford wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> multiplan was slow too at one point. and excel isn't any speed
    >>>>>>> demon.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> But the more complicated the spreadsheet, the more Excel
    >>>>>> outperforms Numbers - on ANY hardware. Numbers has serious
    >>>>>> version 1.0 issues.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes, but for a 1.0 product it runs just fine more most tasks. Excel
    >>>>> is at version 9-10 (if you include all the year version numbers)
    >>>>
    >>>> .. thank you for agreeing Excel is better than Numbers.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> i just tell it like it is,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, you don't. You tell it like you want it to be.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes, and that is how it will "become". i don't care about what it is
    >>>>> "now", i only look at what it will be...
    >>>>
    >>>> .. you only care about what it will be? Why don;t you understand how
    >>>> stupid you sound?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> regardless of what apple does. sure, numbers is 1.0,
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yes, and it shows. Thank you for admitting this - your first bit
    >>>>>> of honesty!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> no, Numbers is fine for MOST people, you are probably digging around
    >>>>> in things it can't yet fully do then complain about it even though
    >>>>> you'll never use any of them. i know your type.
    >>>>
    >>>> OO.o is fine for MOST people. In fact it includes at least 90% of the
    >>>> "features" of MS Office.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> but keynote is far better than powerpoint and I think you'll
    >>>>>>> agree.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't use either so I can't really say. I have no use for slide
    >>>>>> show presentation software, but I know people who do. I'll ask
    >>>>>> them.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> good.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Pages is great if you want to make excellent documents, but sure,
    >>>>>>> if you are needing to publish tree killing abstracts, it's not the
    >>>>>>> best.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Wow, so you actually admit Word is better at some things than
    >>>>>> Pages! Thank you! There may be hope for you yet! :-)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> yes, i have strong knowledge of most mac based products, so word is
    >>>>> better for several types of tasks, i never said it wasn't.
    >>>>
    >>>> ... then by extension, OO Writer is better for several types of
    >>>> tasks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Look, iWork 08 is nice, but it's nowhere near an Office replacement
    >>>>>> yet. It will suffice for many who have relatively simple (compared
    >>>>>> to Office) needs, but it's nowhere near as feature-complete as
    >>>>>> Office. Don't pretend that it is. We'll know that it is when MS
    >>>>>> drops Office for Mac - just like they dropped IE (and no one misses
    >>>>>> it!).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> and again, i never said it was... i'm just pointing out that iWork
    >>>>> is better than anything on Linux, which is true and while MS Office
    >>>>> is a bit long in the tooth, it still works for some people.
    >>>>
    >>>> How is it better than OO.o?
    >>>
    >>> That is a tricky question to answer. I'd like to say that OO's major
    >>> drawback is that it's not totally compatible with MS Office -
    >>> especially Word.

    >>
    >> Name anything that is totally compatible with MS Office except another
    >> copy of Office of the same version.
    >>
    >>> Unfortunately, the actual truth is that MS Office isn't all that
    >>> compatible with other versions of MS Office or even the same version
    >>> on different versions of Windows, so complaining about compatibility
    >>> with MS Office is sort of moot (as in which version of Office? On
    >>> which version of Windows or Mac OS?). OO does have some serious
    >>> drawbacks that make it awkward, at best, to use in the enterprise
    >>> where, for instance, Word is the world-wide de-facto standard.

    >>
    >> .. except you just said the Word isn't compatible with Word.. so it
    >> isn't really a standard.

    >
    > When the entire corporate world depends upon it day-in and day-out, it's
    > a standard even if there's nothing standard about it.


    Yeah.. that makes sense. Something that isn't standardized within itself
    is a standard.

    >
    >
    >>> I run NeoOffice (OO ported to Mac) and while its a little behind the
    >>> current OO release (which Mac users can also run under X11), it's not
    >>> that far behind (2.2.2 Vs 2.3 for OO).
    >>>
    >>> Version 2.3 of OO, as far as I can tell, STILL doesn't support placed
    >>> PDFs in documents. That means if a colleague sends you a Word file
    >>> that has placed PDF images in it (very likely in this day and age) and
    >>> you are running OO, the images won't show. Not good in a work
    >>> environment.

    >>
    >> A pdf in a wp document.. interesting. Tell me.. how does Apple's WP do
    >> that?

    >
    > Select "Choose" from the 'Insert' menu, navigate in the file dialog box
    > to the PDF you want, hit "Choose" and then move the image on the page to
    > where you want it and then re-scale as necessary. How would you think
    > it's done?


    I didn't know, that's why I asked.

    > It's similar in Word too except that one does an "Insert
    > Picture - From File."
    >
    >>> I actually like NeoOffice much better than I like MS Office and I'd
    >>> use it more, if it were more MS Office (especially Word) compatible.
    >>> But then I submit a lot of articles to various magazines and some of
    >>> them require illustrations which are best saved as PDFs due to file
    >>> size. But OO won't let me place the PDFs so I find myself back in Word
    >>> again.

    >>
    >> Why don't you just ship them a PDF?

    >
    > Why don't you stop apologizing for the fact that OO lacks this ability?


    Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth? I asked a question and you
    ran away. And again, I'm not apologizing for anything. The list of
    graphics that OO.o will embed is quite long. And, apparently, PDF isn't
    one of them.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Frustrating. Are there workarounds? Sure. I can send the illustrations
    >>> in a separate file and give them numbers as file names. Then in the
    >>> text, I can denote an anchored space and put a note in it that
    >>> "Graphic #1 goes here". But why bother?

    >>
    >> Ah, well... if this is important to enough people, it will get added
    >> in.

    >
    > It should support ALL graphics formats.


    .... in your opinion. If enough people share your opinon, and let the OO.o
    developers know, it will probably get added in. Do you know if Star
    Office can embed PDFs?

    >>>>> Apple will drop MS Office like a hot potato when iWork is ready to
    >>>>> go, you can bank on it.
    >>>>>
    >>>> ... -when- it is ready to go. Thanks for admitting iWork isn't ready.
    >>>
    >>> It's ready for its intended purpose which is an easy to use page
    >>> layout program and an elegant presentation application that beats the
    >>> pants off of PowerPoint seven ways to sundown. Of course, that isn't
    >>> difficult. PowerPoint has been the stepchild of MS Office for years
    >>> now.
    >>>
    >>> But I think that what the previous poster means is that since Apple
    >>> added a spreadsheet application to iWorks '08, that they are trying to
    >>> make an office suite like MS Office.

    >>
    >> ... and according to Oxford, it isn't ready to go.

    >
    > I think he means that it's not "finished" as in it still lacks several
    > modules (like a database) to be a complete "replacement" for Office.


    .... which means it isn't ready to go. And if it missing whole modules, it
    is lot less ready to go than OO.o.





    --
    Rick

  11. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:58:18 -0700, Rick wrote
    (in article <13gqm8a6pnsvm5f@news.supernews.com>):

    > On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:00 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:26:17 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >> <13go3gp68ng189e@news.supernews.com>):
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:55:38 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:49:32 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>>> <13gmn5sakag7n5d@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:58:58 -0600, Oxford wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> multiplan was slow too at one point. and excel isn't any speed
    >>>>>>>> demon.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> But the more complicated the spreadsheet, the more Excel
    >>>>>>> outperforms Numbers - on ANY hardware. Numbers has serious
    >>>>>>> version 1.0 issues.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> yes, but for a 1.0 product it runs just fine more most tasks. Excel
    >>>>>> is at version 9-10 (if you include all the year version numbers)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> .. thank you for agreeing Excel is better than Numbers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> i just tell it like it is,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, you don't. You tell it like you want it to be.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> yes, and that is how it will "become". i don't care about what it is
    >>>>>> "now", i only look at what it will be...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> .. you only care about what it will be? Why don;t you understand how
    >>>>> stupid you sound?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> regardless of what apple does. sure, numbers is 1.0,
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Yes, and it shows. Thank you for admitting this - your first bit
    >>>>>>> of honesty!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> no, Numbers is fine for MOST people, you are probably digging around
    >>>>>> in things it can't yet fully do then complain about it even though
    >>>>>> you'll never use any of them. i know your type.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> OO.o is fine for MOST people. In fact it includes at least 90% of the
    >>>>> "features" of MS Office.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>> but keynote is far better than powerpoint and I think you'll
    >>>>>>>> agree.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I don't use either so I can't really say. I have no use for slide
    >>>>>>> show presentation software, but I know people who do. I'll ask
    >>>>>>> them.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> good.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Pages is great if you want to make excellent documents, but sure,
    >>>>>>>> if you are needing to publish tree killing abstracts, it's not the
    >>>>>>>> best.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Wow, so you actually admit Word is better at some things than
    >>>>>>> Pages! Thank you! There may be hope for you yet! :-)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> yes, i have strong knowledge of most mac based products, so word is
    >>>>>> better for several types of tasks, i never said it wasn't.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ... then by extension, OO Writer is better for several types of
    >>>>> tasks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Look, iWork 08 is nice, but it's nowhere near an Office replacement
    >>>>>>> yet. It will suffice for many who have relatively simple (compared
    >>>>>>> to Office) needs, but it's nowhere near as feature-complete as
    >>>>>>> Office. Don't pretend that it is. We'll know that it is when MS
    >>>>>>> drops Office for Mac - just like they dropped IE (and no one misses
    >>>>>>> it!).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> and again, i never said it was... i'm just pointing out that iWork
    >>>>>> is better than anything on Linux, which is true and while MS Office
    >>>>>> is a bit long in the tooth, it still works for some people.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> How is it better than OO.o?
    >>>>
    >>>> That is a tricky question to answer. I'd like to say that OO's major
    >>>> drawback is that it's not totally compatible with MS Office -
    >>>> especially Word.
    >>>
    >>> Name anything that is totally compatible with MS Office except another
    >>> copy of Office of the same version.
    >>>
    >>>> Unfortunately, the actual truth is that MS Office isn't all that
    >>>> compatible with other versions of MS Office or even the same version
    >>>> on different versions of Windows, so complaining about compatibility
    >>>> with MS Office is sort of moot (as in which version of Office? On
    >>>> which version of Windows or Mac OS?). OO does have some serious
    >>>> drawbacks that make it awkward, at best, to use in the enterprise
    >>>> where, for instance, Word is the world-wide de-facto standard.
    >>>
    >>> .. except you just said the Word isn't compatible with Word.. so it
    >>> isn't really a standard.

    >>
    >> When the entire corporate world depends upon it day-in and day-out, it's
    >> a standard even if there's nothing standard about it.

    >
    > Yeah.. that makes sense. Something that isn't standardized within itself
    > is a standard.


    It does make sense. If English is your primary or native language, then you
    know that the word "standard" has multiple meanings. In the case of using the
    word as a noun, MS Office being "a standard" simply means that it is almost
    universally used in business. In the case of "standard' being used as an
    adjective, as in "There is no such thing as a "standard" version of MS
    Office" simply refers to the fact that because there are compatibility
    problems between different versions and even between the same versions on
    different platforms, the app often doesn't display the same document the same
    way on different computers. Certainly you can understand the difference. Or
    am I giving you too much credit?

    >>>> I run NeoOffice (OO ported to Mac) and while its a little behind the
    >>>> current OO release (which Mac users can also run under X11), it's not
    >>>> that far behind (2.2.2 Vs 2.3 for OO).
    >>>>
    >>>> Version 2.3 of OO, as far as I can tell, STILL doesn't support placed
    >>>> PDFs in documents. That means if a colleague sends you a Word file
    >>>> that has placed PDF images in it (very likely in this day and age) and
    >>>> you are running OO, the images won't show. Not good in a work
    >>>> environment.
    >>>
    >>> A pdf in a wp document.. interesting. Tell me.. how does Apple's WP do
    >>> that?

    >>
    >> Select "Choose" from the 'Insert' menu, navigate in the file dialog box
    >> to the PDF you want, hit "Choose" and then move the image on the page to
    >> where you want it and then re-scale as necessary. How would you think
    >> it's done?

    >
    > I didn't know, that's why I asked.
    >
    >> It's similar in Word too except that one does an "Insert
    >> Picture - From File."
    >>
    >>>> I actually like NeoOffice much better than I like MS Office and I'd
    >>>> use it more, if it were more MS Office (especially Word) compatible.
    >>>> But then I submit a lot of articles to various magazines and some of
    >>>> them require illustrations which are best saved as PDFs due to file
    >>>> size. But OO won't let me place the PDFs so I find myself back in Word
    >>>> again.
    >>>
    >>> Why don't you just ship them a PDF?

    >>
    >> Why don't you stop apologizing for the fact that OO lacks this ability?

    >
    > Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth? I asked a question and you
    > ran away. And again, I'm not apologizing for anything. The list of
    > graphics that OO.o will embed is quite long. And, apparently, PDF isn't
    > one of them.


    Yet, PDF is one of the most important tools in business today. It;s used
    everywhere. Lack of support for it, is a grave omission and is more than
    enough to keep it out of the corporate office.

    >>>> Frustrating. Are there workarounds? Sure. I can send the illustrations
    >>>> in a separate file and give them numbers as file names. Then in the
    >>>> text, I can denote an anchored space and put a note in it that
    >>>> "Graphic #1 goes here". But why bother?
    >>>
    >>> Ah, well... if this is important to enough people, it will get added
    >>> in.

    >>
    >> It should support ALL graphics formats.

    >
    > ... in your opinion. If enough people share your opinon, and let the OO.o
    > developers know, it will probably get added in. Do you know if Star
    > Office can embed PDFs?


    I haven't seen Star Office in years. In fact. I didn't even know that it
    still existed. I thoght that Star Office had become Open Office!
    >
    >>>>>> Apple will drop MS Office like a hot potato when iWork is ready to
    >>>>>> go, you can bank on it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> ... -when- it is ready to go. Thanks for admitting iWork isn't ready.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's ready for its intended purpose which is an easy to use page
    >>>> layout program and an elegant presentation application that beats the
    >>>> pants off of PowerPoint seven ways to sundown. Of course, that isn't
    >>>> difficult. PowerPoint has been the stepchild of MS Office for years
    >>>> now.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I think that what the previous poster means is that since Apple
    >>>> added a spreadsheet application to iWorks '08, that they are trying to
    >>>> make an office suite like MS Office.
    >>>
    >>> ... and according to Oxford, it isn't ready to go.

    >>
    >> I think he means that it's not "finished" as in it still lacks several
    >> modules (like a database) to be a complete "replacement" for Office.

    >
    > ... which means it isn't ready to go. And if it missing whole modules, it
    > is lot less ready to go than OO.o.


    Except that the modules it DOES have work very well. And while iWorks output,
    like OO output can be formatted to be "compatible" with those MS Office
    modules where it does have equivalency, it too is not compatible enough to be
    used as a replacement for MS Office and likely never will be.


  12. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:16:23 -0700, Jesus wrote
    (in article <1192054583.573767.60110@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.c om>):

    > On Oct 10, 1:42 am, George Graves wrote:
    >> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:55:17 -0700, Jesus wrote
    >> (in article <1191974117.521674.271...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.c om>):
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> On Oct 9, 3:05 am, George Graves wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:57:41 -0700, Oxford wrote
    >>>> (in article
    >>>> ):

    >>
    >>>>> why so angry Jesus?

    >>
    >>>>> I thought you loved everyone?

    >>
    >>>>> It's sad that even you have turned on the human race.

    >>
    >>>> It's pointless trying to have a discussion with these linux fanatics. To
    >>>> them
    >>>> every comment is a challenge, a lie, or worse. You either follow the party
    >>>> line or you are damned. It's real simple. Linux has had years to achieve
    >>>> some
    >>>> sort of critical mass as a viable desktop system and it hasn't moved very
    >>>> far
    >>>> in spite of being so much better than Windows that it isn't even a
    >>>> contest.
    >>>> Yet if you tell these Linux fanatics that one little fact, they go
    >>>> ballistic.
    >>>> Basically, I think that they know its true, but the emperor's new suit of
    >>>> clothes.... well, you know.

    >>
    >>> HAHAHAHAHA! Did you just call me a Linux fanatic

    >>
    >> I was making a general comment. That you assumed that I was talking about
    >> you
    >> is a matter between yourself and your own paranoia.
    >>
    >>> for calling BS on
    >>> Oxford saying basic frameworks in Linux not being up to handling
    >>> complicated apps? I support no one OS. I use all three major OSes.
    >>> I just don't like seeing Oxford's lying ****. It degrades Mac users.

    >
    > Er... you wrote that in reply to Oxford replying to me. Must I be
    > paranoid to think that was directed towards me?
    >


    Yep. I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, just enlarging upon Oxford's
    comments.


  13. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > Translation: you don't have a clue as to what software is available for
    > Linux.
    >
    > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. *If
    > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    > major studios have done: write their own software.
    >


    Translation: They don't know linux and are too afraid to try it.

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

  14. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    In article <3905175.dTR5zjjPd0@netscape.net>,
    Gregory Shearman wrote:
    > > Translation: you don't have a clue as to what software is available for
    > > Linux.
    > >
    > > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    > > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. *If
    > > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    > > major studios have done: write their own software.
    > >

    >
    > Translation: They don't know linux and are too afraid to try it.


    Accurate translation: they don't want to suffer the big loss of
    productivity that using Linux would entail, due to lack of free software
    for the things they do.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  15. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:53:31 -0700,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <3905175.dTR5zjjPd0@netscape.net>,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> > Translation: you don't have a clue as to what software is available for
    >> > Linux.
    >> >
    >> > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    >> > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. *If
    >> > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    >> > major studios have done: write their own software.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Translation: They don't know linux and are too afraid to try it.

    >
    > Accurate translation: they don't want to suffer the big loss of
    > productivity that using Linux would entail, due to lack of free software
    > for the things they do.
    >



    Why do you keep assuming they must use OSS on their linux boxes? stuff
    like Maya isn't OSS. There's plenty of non-OSS software out there
    running on Linux. Including desktops.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHDZ5Qd90bcYOAWPYRAsMRAJ9BUCXN6yAJxWxuw9NK8M V1hDNr1ACffbDP
    DGydwFAqgYsbFw3QVrPEH94=
    =xEDI
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I feel much better, now that I've given up hope.

  16. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Jim Richardson belched out this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:53:31 -0700,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> >
    >>> > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    >>> > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. *If
    >>> > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    >>> > major studios have done: write their own software.
    >>> >

    >> Accurate translation: they don't want to suffer the big loss of
    >> productivity that using Linux would entail, due to lack of free software
    >> for the things they do.

    >
    > Why do you keep assuming they must use OSS on their linux boxes? stuff
    > like Maya isn't OSS. There's plenty of non-OSS software out there
    > running on Linux. Including desktops.


    And, in any case, as they say: No pain, no gain.

    --
    Cut the cord!

  17. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distrofor the general computer/device market.

    On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:17:10 -0700, George Graves wrote:

    > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:58:18 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    > <13gqm8a6pnsvm5f@news.supernews.com>):
    >
    >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 22:20:00 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:26:17 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>> <13go3gp68ng189e@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>
    >>>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:55:38 -0700, George Graves wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 03:49:32 -0700, Rick wrote (in article
    >>>>> <13gmn5sakag7n5d@news.supernews.com>):
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:58:58 -0600, Oxford wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Bob Campbell wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> multiplan was slow too at one point. and excel isn't any speed
    >>>>>>>>> demon.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> But the more complicated the spreadsheet, the more Excel
    >>>>>>>> outperforms Numbers - on ANY hardware. Numbers has serious
    >>>>>>>> version 1.0 issues.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> yes, but for a 1.0 product it runs just fine more most tasks.
    >>>>>>> Excel is at version 9-10 (if you include all the year version
    >>>>>>> numbers)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> .. thank you for agreeing Excel is better than Numbers.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> i just tell it like it is,
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> No, you don't. You tell it like you want it to be.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> yes, and that is how it will "become". i don't care about what it
    >>>>>>> is "now", i only look at what it will be...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> .. you only care about what it will be? Why don;t you understand
    >>>>>> how stupid you sound?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> regardless of what apple does. sure, numbers is 1.0,
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yes, and it shows. Thank you for admitting this - your first
    >>>>>>>> bit of honesty!
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> no, Numbers is fine for MOST people, you are probably digging
    >>>>>>> around in things it can't yet fully do then complain about it even
    >>>>>>> though you'll never use any of them. i know your type.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> OO.o is fine for MOST people. In fact it includes at least 90% of
    >>>>>> the "features" of MS Office.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> but keynote is far better than powerpoint and I think you'll
    >>>>>>>>> agree.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I don't use either so I can't really say. I have no use for
    >>>>>>>> slide show presentation software, but I know people who do.
    >>>>>>>> I'll ask them.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> good.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Pages is great if you want to make excellent documents, but
    >>>>>>>>> sure, if you are needing to publish tree killing abstracts, it's
    >>>>>>>>> not the best.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Wow, so you actually admit Word is better at some things than
    >>>>>>>> Pages! Thank you! There may be hope for you yet! :-)
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> yes, i have strong knowledge of most mac based products, so word
    >>>>>>> is better for several types of tasks, i never said it wasn't.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ... then by extension, OO Writer is better for several types of
    >>>>>> tasks.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Look, iWork 08 is nice, but it's nowhere near an Office
    >>>>>>>> replacement yet. It will suffice for many who have relatively
    >>>>>>>> simple (compared to Office) needs, but it's nowhere near as
    >>>>>>>> feature-complete as Office. Don't pretend that it is. We'll
    >>>>>>>> know that it is when MS drops Office for Mac - just like they
    >>>>>>>> dropped IE (and no one misses it!).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> and again, i never said it was... i'm just pointing out that iWork
    >>>>>>> is better than anything on Linux, which is true and while MS
    >>>>>>> Office is a bit long in the tooth, it still works for some people.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> How is it better than OO.o?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is a tricky question to answer. I'd like to say that OO's major
    >>>>> drawback is that it's not totally compatible with MS Office -
    >>>>> especially Word.
    >>>>
    >>>> Name anything that is totally compatible with MS Office except
    >>>> another copy of Office of the same version.
    >>>>
    >>>>> Unfortunately, the actual truth is that MS Office isn't all that
    >>>>> compatible with other versions of MS Office or even the same version
    >>>>> on different versions of Windows, so complaining about compatibility
    >>>>> with MS Office is sort of moot (as in which version of Office? On
    >>>>> which version of Windows or Mac OS?). OO does have some serious
    >>>>> drawbacks that make it awkward, at best, to use in the enterprise
    >>>>> where, for instance, Word is the world-wide de-facto standard.
    >>>>
    >>>> .. except you just said the Word isn't compatible with Word.. so it
    >>>> isn't really a standard.
    >>>
    >>> When the entire corporate world depends upon it day-in and day-out,
    >>> it's a standard even if there's nothing standard about it.

    >>
    >> Yeah.. that makes sense. Something that isn't standardized within
    >> itself is a standard.

    >
    > It does make sense. If English is your primary or native language, then
    > you know that the word "standard" has multiple meanings. In the case of
    > using the word as a noun, MS Office being "a standard" simply means that
    > it is almost universally used in business. In the case of "standard'
    > being used as an adjective, as in "There is no such thing as a
    > "standard" version of MS Office" simply refers to the fact that because
    > there are compatibility problems between different versions and even
    > between the same versions on different platforms, the app often doesn't
    > display the same document the same way on different computers. Certainly
    > you can understand the difference. Or am I giving you too much credit?


    So... using some version of Word is a standard. Big deal.

    >
    >>>>> I run NeoOffice (OO ported to Mac) and while its a little behind the
    >>>>> current OO release (which Mac users can also run under X11), it's
    >>>>> not that far behind (2.2.2 Vs 2.3 for OO).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Version 2.3 of OO, as far as I can tell, STILL doesn't support
    >>>>> placed PDFs in documents. That means if a colleague sends you a Word
    >>>>> file that has placed PDF images in it (very likely in this day and
    >>>>> age) and you are running OO, the images won't show. Not good in a
    >>>>> work environment.
    >>>>
    >>>> A pdf in a wp document.. interesting. Tell me.. how does Apple's WP
    >>>> do that?
    >>>
    >>> Select "Choose" from the 'Insert' menu, navigate in the file dialog
    >>> box to the PDF you want, hit "Choose" and then move the image on the
    >>> page to where you want it and then re-scale as necessary. How would
    >>> you think it's done?

    >>
    >> I didn't know, that's why I asked.
    >>
    >>> It's similar in Word too except that one does an "Insert Picture -
    >>> From File."
    >>>
    >>>>> I actually like NeoOffice much better than I like MS Office and I'd
    >>>>> use it more, if it were more MS Office (especially Word) compatible.
    >>>>> But then I submit a lot of articles to various magazines and some of
    >>>>> them require illustrations which are best saved as PDFs due to file
    >>>>> size. But OO won't let me place the PDFs so I find myself back in
    >>>>> Word again.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why don't you just ship them a PDF?
    >>>
    >>> Why don't you stop apologizing for the fact that OO lacks this
    >>> ability?

    >>
    >> Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth? I asked a question and
    >> you ran away. And again, I'm not apologizing for anything. The list of
    >> graphics that OO.o will embed is quite long. And, apparently, PDF isn't
    >> one of them.

    >
    > Yet, PDF is one of the most important tools in business today. It;s used
    > everywhere. Lack of support for it, is a grave omission and is more than
    > enough to keep it out of the corporate office.


    If it is that important, I am sure IBM or some other corporate developer
    will submit code that will allow embedding of PDFs.

    >
    >>>>> Frustrating. Are there workarounds? Sure. I can send the
    >>>>> illustrations in a separate file and give them numbers as file
    >>>>> names. Then in the text, I can denote an anchored space and put a
    >>>>> note in it that "Graphic #1 goes here". But why bother?
    >>>>
    >>>> Ah, well... if this is important to enough people, it will get added
    >>>> in.
    >>>
    >>> It should support ALL graphics formats.

    >>
    >> ... in your opinion. If enough people share your opinon, and let the
    >> OO.o developers know, it will probably get added in. Do you know if
    >> Star Office can embed PDFs?

    >
    > I haven't seen Star Office in years. In fact. I didn't even know that it
    > still existed. I thoght that Star Office had become Open Office!





    >>
    >>>>>>> Apple will drop MS Office like a hot potato when iWork is ready to
    >>>>>>> go, you can bank on it.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> ... -when- it is ready to go. Thanks for admitting iWork isn't
    >>>>>> ready.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's ready for its intended purpose which is an easy to use page
    >>>>> layout program and an elegant presentation application that beats
    >>>>> the pants off of PowerPoint seven ways to sundown. Of course, that
    >>>>> isn't difficult. PowerPoint has been the stepchild of MS Office for
    >>>>> years now.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> But I think that what the previous poster means is that since Apple
    >>>>> added a spreadsheet application to iWorks '08, that they are trying
    >>>>> to make an office suite like MS Office.
    >>>>
    >>>> ... and according to Oxford, it isn't ready to go.
    >>>
    >>> I think he means that it's not "finished" as in it still lacks several
    >>> modules (like a database) to be a complete "replacement" for Office.

    >>
    >> ... which means it isn't ready to go. And if it missing whole modules,
    >> it is lot less ready to go than OO.o.

    >
    > Except that the modules it DOES have work very well. And while iWorks
    > output, like OO output can be formatted to be "compatible" with those MS
    > Office modules where it does have equivalency, it too is not compatible
    > enough to be used as a replacement for MS Office and likely never will
    > be.


    ... which means it isn't ready to go. And if it missing whole modules,
    it is lot less ready to go than OO.o.

    --
    Rick

  18. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    On 2007-10-11, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <3905175.dTR5zjjPd0@netscape.net>,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> > Translation: you don't have a clue as to what software is available for
    >> > Linux.
    >> >
    >> > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    >> > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. If
    >> > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    >> > major studios have done: write their own software.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Translation: They don't know linux and are too afraid to try it.

    >
    > Accurate translation: they don't want to suffer the big loss of
    > productivity that using Linux would entail, due to lack of free software
    > for the things they do.


    A hollow claim if they don't mention what they do
    or the software they use to do it.

    It's a Mac, so the list can't be very long.

    The mundane "staples" isn't what causes problems for
    alternative platforms. It's the weird vertical/specialty apps
    that you've never heard of or the kilobuck desktop apps that
    tend to be a problem.

    --
    vi isn't easy to use. |||
    / | \
    vi is easy to REPLACE.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  19. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    Tim Smith did eloquently scribble:
    > In article <3905175.dTR5zjjPd0@netscape.net>,
    > Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >> > Translation: you don't have a clue as to what software is available for
    >> > Linux.
    >> >
    >> > They *can't* consider switching to Linux, because there is *no* open
    >> > source software that is comparable to what they are using on Mac. ?If
    >> > they switch to Linux, they either have to give up a lot, or do what the
    >> > major studios have done: write their own software.
    >> >

    >>
    >> Translation: They don't know linux and are too afraid to try it.


    > Accurate translation: they don't want to suffer the big loss of
    > productivity that using Linux would entail, due to lack of free software
    > for the things they do.


    Oh, I get it...
    It's ok to pay for software on windows to do something, but it's totally
    unheard of to pay for software on linux to do the same job.

    tsk.
    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
    | in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
    | Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  20. Re: Linux developers MUST consolidate and release a "master" distro for the general computer/device market.

    George Graves did eloquently scribble:
    >> Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth? I asked a question and you
    >> ran away. And again, I'm not apologizing for anything. The list of
    >> graphics that OO.o will embed is quite long. And, apparently, PDF isn't
    >> one of them.


    > Yet, PDF is one of the most important tools in business today. It;s used
    > everywhere. Lack of support for it, is a grave omission and is more than
    > enough to keep it out of the corporate office.


    And yet, openoffice has had "export to PDF" for donkey's years...
    Whereas microsoft...
    Another proprietory bit of software you need to buy is it?
    Or is it a PRINTER driver this time?

    >> ... in your opinion. If enough people share your opinon, and let the OO.o
    >> developers know, it will probably get added in. Do you know if Star
    >> Office can embed PDFs?


    > I haven't seen Star Office in years. In fact. I didn't even know that it
    > still existed. I thoght that Star Office had become Open Office!


    OpenOffice is to Staroffice what Firefox is to Netscape.
    Only difference is the netscape development seems to have stalled since AOL
    bought them out.


    --
    | |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
    | spike1@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
    | |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
    |Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
    | in |good to you so far... |
    | Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2 10 11 12 13 LastLast