Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software... - Linux

This is a discussion on Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software... - Linux ; - Adobe Creative Suite 3 sales 'on fire' - "This shows that the CS3 launch was an absolute success and Adobe hit one out of the park," said Chris Swenson, an analyst at NPD Data. http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9804379-7.html I wonder how Microsoft's ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

  1. Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    - Adobe Creative Suite 3 sales 'on fire'

    - "This shows that the CS3 launch was an absolute success and Adobe
    hit one out of the park," said Chris Swenson, an analyst at NPD Data.

    http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9804379-7.html

    I wonder how Microsoft's "Acrobat Killer" is doing. Anybody using that
    crap?

    Adobe Acrobat is the most widely used application in the world.

    -Ramon


  2. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    Geppetto Olivio wrote:

    >Yet another software package


    Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there's some proprietory apps out
    there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and
    therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.

    *plonk*


  3. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...


    "chrisv" wrote in message
    news5t1i3dkj116o72v9vf6qntc93bd8sno70@4ax.com...
    > Geppetto Olivio wrote:
    >
    >>Yet another software package

    >
    > Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there's some proprietory apps out
    > there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and
    > therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.
    >
    > *plonk*
    >



    I guess that answers my question with a resounding YES. It bothers the hell
    out of the 'linux boys' that people would rather spend hundreds, even
    thousands of dollars on proprietary closed source software then to even try
    linux for free.

    But I thought that gnu-cash was so damn good... so why does everyone use
    Quicken?
    But I thought that gimp was so damn good... so why does everyone pay $600
    for a single Adobe app?
    But I thought that open-office is so damn good... yet everyone buys $$$$ for
    MS-Office.


    Now I see why you're so pissed off all the time. It must really suck to be a
    'linux advocate' and constantly plead to give your software away for free.
    Only to have 99% of the world vote with their check-book and give you the
    finger.






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


  4. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellentsoftware...

    On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:15:13 -0400, Geppetto Olivio wrote:

    > "chrisv" wrote in message
    > news5t1i3dkj116o72v9vf6qntc93bd8sno70@4ax.com...
    >> Geppetto Olivio wrote:
    >>
    >>>Yet another software package

    >>
    >> Fsck off, twat. No one denies that there's some proprietory apps out
    >> there which are very good and which do not run natively on Linux and
    >> therefore are a reason why many people use Windows or Macs. DUH.
    >>
    >> *plonk*
    >>
    >>

    >
    > I guess that answers my question with a resounding YES. It bothers the
    > hell out of the 'linux boys' that people would rather spend hundreds,
    > even thousands of dollars on proprietary closed source software then to
    > even try linux for free.
    >
    > But I thought that gnu-cash was so damn good... so why does everyone use
    > Quicken?
    > But I thought that gimp was so damn good... so why does everyone pay
    > $600 for a single Adobe app?
    > But I thought that open-office is so damn good... yet everyone buys $$$$
    > for MS-Office.
    >
    >
    > Now I see why you're so pissed off all the time. It must really suck to
    > be a 'linux advocate' and constantly plead to give your software away
    > for free. Only to have 99% of the world vote with their check-book and
    > give you the finger.


    Change your nym to Pinocchio. Your nose is growing.



    --
    ´╗┐This message is brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department.

  5. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    >nameless troll:
    >>
    >> But I thought that open-office is so damn good... yet everyone buys $$$$
    >> for MS-Office.
    >>
    >> Now I see why you're so pissed off all the time.


    I don't understand why I'd be "pissed off" of someone else wants to
    waste $$$$ buying M$ Office when there's no need to. I think it's you
    M$ shills who are the "pissed off" ones, because Linux and OO allows
    so many to legally avoid overpriced crapware.


  6. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    Geppetto Olivio wrote:


    > why does everyone use
    > Quicken?


    I don't.

    > why does everyone pay $600
    > for a single Adobe app?


    I don't.

    > yet everyone buys $$$$ for
    > MS-Office.


    Yet I don't.

  7. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many
    of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to display
    the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they've
    somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.


  8. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    chicks writes:

    > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > now.


    Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  9. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellentsoftware...

    On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:16:09 +0000, chicks wrote:

    > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding, many
    > of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to display
    > the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice they've
    > somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them now.


    Well, it's possible they've redeveloped their own, but yeah, it is amusing
    to see this sort of thing when it happens.

  10. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    On Oct 29, 11:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    > chicks writes:
    > > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > > now.

    >
    > Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    > GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?
    >
    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


    The "Patent and Legal Notices" for AR8.1.1, obtained using
    the "About" menu item, are indeed shorter than those for AR7.0.9 .
    But there is no attempt to deceive. The version for AR8.1.1
    (dated 8/20/2007) ends with:

    Portions (c) 1997-2005 1999 2001 2002 Free Software Foundation,
    Inc.
    Portions are licensed under the GNU Library General Public License,
    a
    copy of which is included with this software.

    and the LGPL license is given by the files:

    Acrobat8.1.1/Adobe/Reader8/Reader/Legal/en_US/LGPL.{txt,html}

    which end with:

    Under the terms of the GNU LIbrary General Public License,
    you are permitted to make changes to the libgnomespeech.so,
    libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
    liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries for your own use, and
    Adobe delivers with the installed Adobe software
    the object code that links with the libgnomespeech.so,
    libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
    liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries, as required by the GNU LGPL.
    You are also permitted to reverse engineer only those portions
    of the Adobe software that link with and utilize the
    libgnomespeech.so, libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so,
    libORBit-2.so, liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries, and only to
    the extent necessary to debug your changes to the libgnomespeech.so,
    libbonobo-2.so, libbonobo-activation.so, libORBit-2.so,
    liblinc.so, libcups.co libraries. Any other reverse engineering,
    decompiling or use of utilities or tools to trace, probe,
    or reveal Adobe software and trade secrets embodied therein,
    is expressly prohibited. Adobe software contains valuable
    trade secrets and employs methods protected by patents
    of Adobe Software Incorporated.


    James Quirk


  11. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    > chicks writes:
    > > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > > now.

    >
    > Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    > GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?
    >
    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


    Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    well as many third-party commercial companies.


  12. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    chicks writes:

    > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> chicks writes:
    >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    >> > now.

    >>
    >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?
    >>

    >
    > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    > http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/
    >
    > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    > well as many third-party commercial companies.


    The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    claiming that it does?

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  13. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    David,

    On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > chicks writes:
    > > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    > >> chicks writes:
    > >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > >> > now.

    >
    > >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    > >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    >
    > > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    > >http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    >
    > > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    > > well as many third-party commercial companies.

    >
    > The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    > claiming that it does?
    >

    The list I gave does include GPL'ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd CUPS).
    Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I'd expect to see,
    but didn't, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.

    James

    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum




  14. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    jjq@amrita-ebook.org writes:

    > On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> chicks writes:
    >> > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> >> chicks writes:
    >> >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    >> >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    >> >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    >> >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    >> >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    >> >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    >> >> > now.

    >>
    >> >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    >> >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    >>
    >> > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    >> >http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    >>
    >> > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    >> > well as many third-party commercial companies.

    >>
    >> The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    >> claiming that it does?
    >>

    > The list I gave does include GPL'ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd
    > CUPS).


    Both of which are licensed under the LGPL. Are you spreading
    misinformation on purpose?

    > Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I'd expect to see,
    > but didn't, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.


    Again, LGPL.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  15. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    On Oct 29, 1:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > chicks writes:
    > > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    > >> chicks writes:
    > >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > >> > now.

    >
    > >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    > >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    >
    > > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    > >http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    >
    > > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    > > well as many third-party commercial companies.

    >
    > The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    > claiming that it does?
    >
    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    LGPL Libraries

    LIBMCRYPT version 2.5.7 is licensed under the GNU Library General
    Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the
    LIBMCRYPT library is available here.

    ICONV version 1.9.2 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public
    License, a copy of which along with the source code for the ICONV
    library is available here.



  16. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    chicks writes:

    > On Oct 29, 1:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> chicks writes:
    >> > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    >> >> chicks writes:
    >> >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    >> >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    >> >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    >> >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    >> >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    >> >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    >> >> > now.

    >>
    >> >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    >> >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    >>
    >> > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    >> >http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    >>
    >> > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    >> > well as many third-party commercial companies.

    >>
    >> The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    >> claiming that it does?

    >
    > LGPL Libraries
    >
    > LIBMCRYPT version 2.5.7 is licensed under the GNU Library General
    > Public License, a copy of which along with the source code for the
    > LIBMCRYPT library is available here.
    >
    > ICONV version 1.9.2 is licensed under the GNU Library General Public
    > License, a copy of which along with the source code for the ICONV
    > library is available here.


    Are you really this clueless? The LGPL is not the same as the GPL.

    --
    David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

  17. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    In article <1193673734.873452.283380@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
    chicks wrote:
    > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    > http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/
    >
    > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    > well as many third-party commercial companies.


    I saw a few LGPL in there, but no GPL. Did I just miss it?

  18. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    On Oct 29, 7:10 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > j...@amrita-ebook.org writes:
    > > On Oct 29, 5:31 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    > >> chicks writes:
    > >> > On Oct 29, 7:24 am, David Kastrup wrote:
    > >> >> chicks writes:
    > >> >> > Ironic, isn't it, that Adobe's (and many other companies') products
    > >> >> > couldn't exist without a large number of open-source libraries for
    > >> >> > things like compression, encryption and image encoding/decoding,
    > >> >> > many of them written by those 'linux boys'. Adobe Reader used to
    > >> >> > display the licenses for those libraries under Help/About. I notice
    > >> >> > they've somehow gotten around the GPL requirement to display them
    > >> >> > now.

    >
    > >> >> Which "GPL requirement to display"? And are those libraries under the
    > >> >> GPL to start with? Which libraries are you actually talking about?

    >
    > >> > Here's the complete list for the Acrobat family:
    > >> >http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/third_party/acrobat/

    >
    > >> > Some GPL, some UC Regents, MIT, and other open source projects, as
    > >> > well as many third-party commercial companies.

    >
    > >> The list contains no GPL licensed code at all. So why are you
    > >> claiming that it does?

    >
    > > The list I gave does include GPL'ed code (e.g. gnomespeech amd
    > > CUPS).

    >
    > Both of which are licensed under the LGPL. Are you spreading
    > misinformation on purpose?

    Sorry, I meant to say LGPL'ed, which of course, as you point
    out it, is quite different from GPL'ed. In fact, the text in
    my earlier posting made it clear that Adobe are using the
    GNU Library General Public License, which as I understand
    it has now been superceded by the Lesser General Public License.

    James

    >
    > > Interestingly, however, the one acknowledgment I'd expect to see,
    > > but didn't, was for GTK, which is used for the Linux-AR GUI.

    >
    > Again, LGPL.
    >
    > --
    > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum




  19. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    >
    > Sorry, I meant to say LGPL'ed, which of course, as you point
    > out it, is quite different from GPL'ed. In fact, the text in
    > my earlier posting made it clear that Adobe are using the
    > GNU Library General Public License, which as I understand

    Before I get chewed out again, I meant: Adobe are making use
    of software that employs LGPL, and I did not mean to imply
    that they use LGPL for their own work.

    James




  20. Re: Speaking of companies that know how to write excellent software...

    On Oct 29, 3:25 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
    >
    > Are you really this clueless? The LGPL is not the same as the GPL.
    >


    Are you really this clueless, that you have missed the entire point of
    the thread?

    Some idiot was claiming that open source software is garbage, I merely
    pointed out that commercial software, in many cases, depends on open
    source software, whether LGPL, GPL, other otherwise.

    Get a life, a**hole.


+ Reply to Thread