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

This is a discussion on [News] IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony" - Linux ; 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 | ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

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

  1. [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.
    `----

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119007597680930576.html


    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. *
    |
    | “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.” * *
    `----

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

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

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:39:59 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > Free IBM Software Is Bid to Challenge Microsoft Office


    There is a history behind this.

    http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm

    IBM is like an elephant, and will never forget.

  3. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    On Sep 18, 8:39 am, Roy Schestowitz
    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


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


    "The Ghost In The Machine" 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. 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.


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

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" 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.


    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.


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


    "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    news:fcpdmg$kns$02$3@news.t-online.com...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" 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.

    >
    > 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
    >

    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.


  7. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    On 18 Sep, 21:33, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in messagenews: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. 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.


    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.


  8. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    On Sep 18, 8:39 am, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:
    > 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.


    OR

    you could just download Open Office.


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

    What makes you think it is a version of OpenOffice?

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

    On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:50:25 +0200, Peter Khlmann wrote:

    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" 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.

    >
    > 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


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

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

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:50:25 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    >
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "The Ghost In The Machine" 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.

    >>
    >> 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

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


    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...


  12. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"


    "dapunka" wrote in message
    news:1190169077.556598.301920@w3g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
    > On 18 Sep, 21:33, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
    >> messagenews: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. 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.

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

    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.

    > 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.
    >

    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.

    > 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.
    >

    What alternative did the world have to microChannel, PS/2, and OS/2 without
    Microsoft's opposition? This was 1991, remember.

    > 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.
    >

    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.


  13. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    amicus_curious wrote:

    > 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 ..


    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 ..

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...f44c2afc577467
    http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html

  14. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feg6d5$2go$1@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> 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 ..

    >
    > 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 ..
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...f44c2afc577467
    > http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html


    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?


  15. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    amicus_curious wrote:

    < snip >

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


    http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554...719199&start=0

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


  16. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"


    "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    news:fegm15$okg$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > < snip >
    >
    >> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?

    >
    > http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12554...719199&start=0
    >

    Well, you cite the GreyGeek, but he is as ill-informed as yourself. Is he a
    relative? The truth of the matter is at:

    http://www.ddj.com/windows/184409070

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


  17. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    amicus_curious wrote:

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


    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 ..."

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...9?dmode=source

  18. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    Doug Mentohl wrote:
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you
    >> on about?

    >
    > 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 ..."
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...9?dmode=source


    I found this quote of interest:

    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 ??



    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."
    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

  19. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feiavl$7j6$1@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?

    >
    > 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 ..."
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...9?dmode=source


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


  20. Re: IBM Will Release Own Version of OpenOffice.org, Calls It "Symphony"

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    > news:feiavl$7j6$1@news.datemas.de...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>> Windows 3.1 worked perfectly with DR-DOS. Whatever are you on about?

    >>
    >> 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 ..."
    >>
    >>

    http://groups.google.co.uk/group/com...9?dmode=source
    >
    > But, Dilbert, it was never released. MS discussed the idea internally and
    > rejected it.


    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...


+ Reply to Thread