[News] IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

Free IBM Software Is Bid to Challenge Microsoft Office

,----[ Quote ]
| The IBM package, called Symphony, can be downloaded free of charge. The home
| edition of Microsoft's Office lists for $120 on Internet retail sites. IBM
| will also give away the Symphony software to customers who buy the latest
| version of its Notes collaboration software, which costs $145 per user.
`----

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119007597680930576.html[/url]


Related:

IBM to lift lid on its OpenOffice plans next week

,----[ Quote ]
| It’s not in the plan for OpenOffice 3.0 or future versions of the open source
| desktop, said John McCreesh, Marketing Project Lead of OpenOffice.org, in an
| e-mail exchange. Â*
|
| “There’s nothing about that in the IBM statement,� McCreesh said, referring
| to the possibility of contributing Notes colaboartion code to the open source
| projects. “It’s not in the roadmap. It’s much more likely that we would do
| co-operative work with one or more open-source email client projects to
| integrate OpenOffice.org more closely with their software.â€� Â* Â*
`----

[url]http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1406[/url]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:39:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[color=blue]
> Free IBM Software Is Bid to Challenge Microsoft Office[/color]

There is a history behind this.

[url]http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm[/url]

IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.

On Sep 18, 8:39 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
wrote:

Symphony with the Devil--or was that Sympathy?

If you read the WSJ article you posted, Toy Screwowitz, you'll see an
IBM employee saying that Office has more features than Symphony, and
many IBMers will not switch to Symphony since they like the extra
features Office has.

Does anybody know if Office and Symphony can coexist on the same HD?
I hate to see one program take over the extensions of the other. I've
posted this question in a more competent forum as well.

RL

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.[/color]
>
> That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
> not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
> Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
> or Win3.1.
>[/color]
IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and OS/2,
trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners. For all the
whining about Microsoft, I think it would be a much sadder world if
Microsoft had not held onto the rights for DOS and kept the cloners alive
after IBM slammed the door on the open hardware architecture and tried to
control the future. They failed because MS and Windows gave the world an
out.

amicus_curious wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>
>>> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.[/color]
>>
>> That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
>> not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
>> Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
>> or Win3.1.
>>[/color]
> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and
> OS/2, trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners.[/color]

Except, they did not
There where *two* versions of OS/2 around at that time.
One running only on MicroChannel machines (which were not at all available
only from IBM, other manufacturers for those existed) and one version for
standard PCs

Bill Weisgerber tends to "forget" such unfortunate little facts

< snip more billwg garbage >
--
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fcpdmg$kns$02$3@news.t-online.com...[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message news:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=darkred]
>>>>
>>>> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.
>>>
>>> That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
>>> not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
>>> Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
>>> or Win3.1.
>>>[/color]
>> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and
>> OS/2, trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners.[/color]
>
> Except, they did not
> There where *two* versions of OS/2 around at that time.
> One running only on MicroChannel machines (which were not at all available
> only from IBM, other manufacturers for those existed) and one version for
> standard PCs
>[/color]
You are ignoring the attempt by IBM to proprietize the hardware itself with
microChannel and the extensive patents that prevented anyone other than an
IBM licensee from building interface adapters that worked with it or
mainboards that used it. Microsoft saved us all from that fate and kept PCs
competitive. They made IBM drop the price of OS/2 from $1195 to $200, too.

On 18 Sep, 21:33, "amicus_curious" <A...@sti.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
> > not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
> > Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
> > or Win3.1.[/color]
>
> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and OS/2,
> trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners. For all the
> whining about Microsoft, I think it would be a much sadder world if
> Microsoft had not held onto the rights for DOS and kept the cloners alive
> after IBM slammed the door on the open hardware architecture and tried to
> control the future. They failed because MS and Windows gave the world an
> out.[/color]

So you think MS held onto the right to license its OS to third parties
to "give the world an out"?

IBM's failure to insist on no third party licensing was a mistake on
IBM's fault, not a cunningly altruistic move by Microsoft. Gates & Co
saw their chance and grabbed it, which helped them achieve the near-
monopoly they currenty enjoy.

I'm not saying that if IBM had insisted on sole rights to MSDOS it
would have been a boon to Freedom - obviously only a loon would say
that. But to suggest that MS "gave the world an out" is disingenuous/
ludicrous/a ****ing lie.

Sit, next you'll be suggesting that Microsoft's "interoperability"
deals with various chicken-livered Linux distros proves that MS is
committed to the spread of Free Software or some such horse skev.

On Sep 18, 8:39 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com>
wrote:[color=blue]
> Free IBM Software Is Bid to Challenge Microsoft Office
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | The IBM package, called Symphony, can be downloaded free of charge. The home
> | edition of Microsoft's Office lists for $120 on Internet retail sites. IBM
> | will also give away the Symphony software to customers who buy the latest
> | version of its Notes collaboration software, which costs $145 per user.[/color]

OR

you could just download Open Office.

What makes you think it is a version of OpenOffice?

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:50:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> message news:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...[color=darkred]
>>>>
>>>> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.
>>>
>>> That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
>>> not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
>>> Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
>>> or Win3.1.
>>>[/color]
>> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and
>> OS/2, trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners.[/color]
>
> Except, they did not
> There where *two* versions of OS/2 around at that time.
> One running only on MicroChannel machines (which were not at all available
> only from IBM, other manufacturers for those existed) and one version for
> standard PCs[/color]

That's true. The part you forget, however, was that *MICROSOFT* sold the
non-Microchannel version.

Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:50:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>[color=green]
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>>> message news:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.
>>>>
>>>> That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
>>>> not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
>>>> Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
>>>> or Win3.1.
>>>>
>>> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and
>>> OS/2, trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners.[/color]
>>
>> Except, they did not
>> There where *two* versions of OS/2 around at that time.
>> One running only on MicroChannel machines (which were not at all
>> available only from IBM, other manufacturers for those existed) and one
>> version for standard PCs[/color]
>
> That's true. The part you forget, however, was that *MICROSOFT* sold the
> non-Microchannel version.[/color]

I did not forget it. It is irrelevant in this context

Relevant is only that Bill Weisgerber in his unlimited dishonesty tried to
rewrite history once again
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...

"dapunka" <dapunka@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1190169077.556598.301920@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> On 18 Sep, 21:33, "amicus_curious" <A...@sti.net> wrote:[color=green]
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:6nk5s4-qos.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > That sequence isn't quite complete, apparently, as it does
>> > not mention the breakup/divorce/fallout of the OS/2 <->
>> > Windows effort. This was sometime just before Win3.0
>> > or Win3.1.[/color]
>>
>> IBM tried to proprietize the PC hardware with PS/2, MicroChannel, and
>> OS/2,
>> trying for a coup that would stop the march of the cloners. For all the
>> whining about Microsoft, I think it would be a much sadder world if
>> Microsoft had not held onto the rights for DOS and kept the cloners alive
>> after IBM slammed the door on the open hardware architecture and tried to
>> control the future. They failed because MS and Windows gave the world an
>> out.[/color]
>
> So you think MS held onto the right to license its OS to third parties
> to "give the world an out"?
>[/color]
I didn't say anything like that. Microsoft had the initial good sense to
provide MS-DOS in a form fully compatible with PC-DOS and that allowed the
rise of the clones. But my reference was to the FACT that the existence of
Windows and Microsoft's continued support of the ISA architecture was the
"out" that defeated IBM's attempt to proprietize all of the PC Market ala'
Apple's own efforts. If you do not understand that, you are being
deliberately thick.
[color=blue]
> IBM's failure to insist on no third party licensing was a mistake on
> IBM's fault, not a cunningly altruistic move by Microsoft. Gates & Co
> saw their chance and grabbed it, which helped them achieve the near-
> monopoly they currenty enjoy.
>[/color]
At the time, it was not very obvious to anyone as to the value of the
copyright in selling to others. Hardware was the dominant factor in
personal computer products. You can denigrate Microsoft and/or Gates as
being far-seeing all you want, but you just look lame.
[color=blue]
> I'm not saying that if IBM had insisted on sole rights to MSDOS it
> would have been a boon to Freedom - obviously only a loon would say
> that. But to suggest that MS "gave the world an out" is disingenuous/
> ludicrous/a ****ing lie.
>[/color]
What alternative did the world have to microChannel, PS/2, and OS/2 without
Microsoft's opposition? This was 1991, remember.
[color=blue]
> Sit, next you'll be suggesting that Microsoft's "interoperability"
> deals with various chicken-livered Linux distros proves that MS is
> committed to the spread of Free Software or some such horse skev.
>[/color]
You chumps can stand there and stamp your foot and talk a lot of trash about
Microsoft, but at the end of the day you're still just whining losers. Even
with the EU trying its best to tap into the Microsoft cash with its little
fines and rules to eliminate media player, next to no one wants anything
else.

amicus_curious wrote:
[color=blue]
> I didn't say anything like that. Microsoft had the initial good sense
> to provide MS-DOS in a form fully compatible with PC-DOS and that
> allowed the rise of the clones ..[/color]

Total bollix and you know it, fuddie. MS bought a clone of CP/M called
QDOS and then renamed it and licensed it to IBM. When third parties
found out how to clone the PC MS was more than happy to sell DOS to
them. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 that Microsoft managed to make Windows
not work with DR-DOS ..

[url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/86f44c2afc577467[/url]
[url]http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html[/url]

"Doug Mentohl" <doug_mentohl@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:feg6d5$2go$1@news.datemas.de...[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I didn't say anything like that. Microsoft had the initial good sense to
>> provide MS-DOS in a form fully compatible with PC-DOS and that allowed
>> the rise of the clones ..[/color]
>
> Total bollix and you know it, fuddie. MS bought a clone of CP/M called
> QDOS and then renamed it and licensed it to IBM. When third parties found
> out how to clone the PC MS was more than happy to sell DOS to them. It
> wasn't until Windows 3.1 that Microsoft managed to make Windows not work
> with DR-DOS ..
>
> [url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/86f44c2afc577467[/url]
> [url]http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html[/url][/color]

You ramble so that it is not easy to reply, but you misjudge the topic and
so fail to comment accurately.

Microsoft effectively outsourced the original PC-DOS by purchasing the
rights to a similar product called QDOS from Seattle Computing and paid the
original developer to make the alteration to meet the IBM specifications.
They retained the copyright rights for their own version which they marketed
to clone vendors.

Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?

amicus_curious wrote:

< snip >
[color=blue]
> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?[/color]

[url]http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39046&messageID=719199&start=0[/url]

--
Windows was created to keep stupid people away from UNIX."
-- Tom Christiansen

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:fegm15$okg$03$1@news.t-online.com...[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
> < snip >
>[color=green]
>> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?[/color]
>
> [url]http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39046&messageID=719199&start=0[/url]
>[/color]
Well, you cite the GreyGeek, but he is as ill-informed as yourself. Is he a
relative? The truth of the matter is at:

[url]http://www.ddj.com/windows/184409070[/url]

Windows 3.1 worked fine with DR-DOS. The beta test item was never released
either.

amicus_curious wrote:
[color=blue]
> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?[/color]

the crucial and, appropriately, most obfuscated test, however,
appears at the end of the AARD test gauntlet .. All versions of MS-DOS
pass this test; no version of DR DOS does ..."

[url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/403b90e473319a69?dmode=source[/url]

Doug Mentohl wrote:[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you
>> on about?[/color]
>
> the crucial and, appropriately, most obfuscated test, however,
> appears at the end of the AARD test gauntlet .. All versions
> of MS-DOS pass this test; no version of DR DOS does ..."
>
> [url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/403b90e473319a69?dmode=source[/url][/color]

I found this quote of interest:

[quote]
This case set out before US District Judge Dee Benson who ruled
"that Caldera had presented sufficient evidence to present its
claims before a jury" - THIS IS CHINESE WHISPERS ??

<SNIP>

I don't have to prove it - the facts have all ready been proven -
in numerous courts of law. Are the findings of a Superior court
Judge good enough for you.

Incidentally there is a priceless quote from his billness in the
article which might explain the peculiar design 'features' of
Windows.

"I doubt they [Digital Research] will be able to clone Windows.
It is very difficult to do technically, we have made it a moving
target and we have some visual copyright and patent protection.
I believe people underestimate the impact DR-DOS has had on us in
terms of pricing."
[/quote]

Regarding "peculiar design 'features' of Windows", could this be
the reason why CFS/SMB protocols could not be properly and
concisely documented by Microsoft, before the EU?

--
HPT

"Doug Mentohl" <doug_mentohl@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:feiavl$7j6$1@news.datemas.de...[color=blue]
> amicus_curious wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?[/color]
>
> the crucial and, appropriately, most obfuscated test, however,
> appears at the end of the AARD test gauntlet .. All versions of MS-DOS
> pass this test; no version of DR DOS does ..."
>
> [url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/403b90e473319a69?dmode=source[/url][/color]

But, Dilbert, it was never released. MS discussed the idea internally and
rejected it.

amicus_curious wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Doug Mentohl" <doug_mentohl@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
> news:feiavl$7j6$1@news.datemas.de...[color=green]
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?[/color]
>>
>> the crucial and, appropriately, most obfuscated test, however,
>> appears at the end of the AARD test gauntlet .. All versions of MS-DOS
>> pass this test; no version of DR DOS does ..."
>>
>>[/color][/color]
[url]http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/403b90e473319a69?dmode=source[/url][color=blue]
>
> But, Dilbert, it was never released. MS discussed the idea internally and
> rejected it.[/color]

The point is: It *was* released in Betas. And it served the purpose well.
People thought that DR-DOS was not completely compatible with windows

When the (disabled, not removed) code in the retail version did no longer
its bad deed, the harm was already done

You can stop your rewriting of history now. A lot of the people posting here
were already around and activly computing when that happened
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...