Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #36587 > unrolled thread

Lost Linux Software

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Lost Linux Software Tavis Ormandy <taviso@gmail.com> - 2022-12-24 00:37 +0000
    Re: Lost Linux Software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-24 01:40 +0000
      Re: Lost Linux Software "26C.Z969" <26C.Z969@noaada.net> - 2022-12-25 02:01 -0500
    Re: Lost Linux Software Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2022-12-30 02:46 +0000
      Re: Lost Linux Software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-30 14:24 +0000
        Re: Lost Linux Software Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2022-12-30 21:06 +0000
          Re: Lost Linux Software The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2022-12-30 22:00 +0000
        Re: Lost Linux Software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2022-12-31 14:24 +0100
          Re: Lost Linux Software Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2022-12-31 19:23 +0000
            Re: Lost Linux Software "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2022-12-31 22:29 +0100

#36587 — Lost Linux Software

In 1999 Adobe made a beta native version of FrameMaker 5.5.6 for Linux,
it was freely available from their ftp site.

It never made it out of beta -- there are rumours the project was
killed by Adobe management as part of a deal with Microsoft (this was
the halloween documents era), but who knows.

Here is the original press release:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000301210923/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199912/19991215linux.html

And it would have been downloaded from this page:

https://web.archive.org/web/20000303113845/http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/fmlinux.html

I think this software is lost - I can't find a copy of it
anywhere. I don't suppose anyone on this group has a copy in an old
backup or something?

It would have been called "fmlinux2.tar.gz"

Tavis.

(I realize the beta will have expired -- that's okay!)

-- 
 _o)            $ lynx lock.cmpxchg8b.com
 /\\  _o)  _o)  $ finger taviso@sdf.org
_\_V _( ) _( )  @taviso

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#36588

On 24/12/2022 00:37, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
> In 1999 Adobe made a beta native version of FrameMaker 5.5.6 for Linux,
> it was freely available from their ftp site.
> 
> It never made it out of beta -- there are rumours the project was
> killed by Adobe management as part of a deal with Microsoft (this was
> the halloween documents era), but who knows.
> 
> Here is the original press release:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000301210923/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199912/19991215linux.html
> 
> And it would have been downloaded from this page:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000303113845/http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/fmlinux.html
> 
> I think this software is lost - I can't find a copy of it
> anywhere. I don't suppose anyone on this group has a copy in an old
> backup or something?
> 
> It would have been called "fmlinux2.tar.gz"
> 
> Tavis.
> 
> (I realize the beta will have expired -- that's okay!)
> 

Frankly I now use Scribus for reliable WYSIWIG page generation software. 
I hate adobe with a passion

It probably isn't as powerful as framemaker tho

-- 
  “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, 
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, 
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36595

On 12/23/22 8:40 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 24/12/2022 00:37, Tavis Ormandy wrote:
>> In 1999 Adobe made a beta native version of FrameMaker 5.5.6 for Linux,
>> it was freely available from their ftp site.
>>
>> It never made it out of beta -- there are rumours the project was
>> killed by Adobe management as part of a deal with Microsoft (this was
>> the halloween documents era), but who knows.
>>
>> Here is the original press release:
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20000301210923/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199912/19991215linux.html 
>>
>>
>> And it would have been downloaded from this page:
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20000303113845/http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/fmlinux.html 
>>
>>
>> I think this software is lost - I can't find a copy of it
>> anywhere. I don't suppose anyone on this group has a copy in an old
>> backup or something?
>>
>> It would have been called "fmlinux2.tar.gz"
>>
>> Tavis.
>>
>> (I realize the beta will have expired -- that's okay!)
>>
> 
> Frankly I now use Scribus for reliable WYSIWIG page generation software. 
> I hate adobe with a passion
> 
> It probably isn't as powerful as framemaker tho


   Downloaded Scribus ... SEEMS to be a weaker version
   of LibreOffice Draw, at first impression anyhow.

   No, I don't love LibreOffice Draw all that much ...
   95% of the time I'll just use GIMP and manually
   arrange pix/text. I do understand where Draw fits
   in ... but, well, 95% of the time .......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36625

In comp.os.linux.misc, Tavis Ormandy  <taviso@gmail.com> wrote:
> In 1999 Adobe made a beta native version of FrameMaker 5.5.6 for Linux,
> it was freely available from their ftp site.
> 
> It never made it out of beta -- there are rumours the project was
> killed by Adobe management as part of a deal with Microsoft (this was
> the halloween documents era), but who knows.
> 
> Here is the original press release:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000301210923/http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/199912/19991215linux.html
> 
> And it would have been downloaded from this page:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20000303113845/http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/fmlinux.html
> 
> I think this software is lost - I can't find a copy of it
> anywhere. I don't suppose anyone on this group has a copy in an old
> backup or something?
> 
> It would have been called "fmlinux2.tar.gz"

If I had known of that at the time, I would have downloaded it and tried
it. But I have no recollection of ever using Framemaker on Linux. Just a
couple of years before then I used Framemaker, probably still the Frame
Technologies one rather than a version post Adobe acquisition, on
Solaris. Frame was the tool for book sized documents on Unix.

Scribus works, but last time I tried to create a book in it, it just
crawled, and on a machine with a lot more memory than that pizza box
Sun I used in the 1990s.

Elijah
------
Adobe used to be such a promising company

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36627

On 30/12/2022 02:46, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> Scribus works, but last time I tried to create a book in it, it just
> crawled, and on a machine with a lot more memory than that pizza box
> Sun I used in the 1990s.

I think for a book, OpenOffice Write is the way to go. Books do not 
change formats or feature extensive images, normally.

I used Scribus to create marketing collateral. Theatre programs, or 
printable flyers.

In fact I bought a colour printer because it was cheaper than taking the 
PDF to a printing company for the number of leaflets needed.

I would more have assumed that the paid for book writing software would 
be Quark Xpress or the Adobe creative suite  equivalent.

Or if it was technical, LaTex.

That's the sort of thing you *might* install in a windows VM...
I still have CorelDraw in my XP VM. Its a unique program for certain things.


-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36632

In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 30/12/2022 02:46, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Scribus works, but last time I tried to create a book in it, it just
>> crawled, and on a machine with a lot more memory than that pizza box
>> Sun I used in the 1990s.
> I think for a book, OpenOffice Write is the way to go. Books do not 
> change formats or feature extensive images, normally.

I turn to page layout programs when I'm not editing text (that was all
vi) and am concerned with things like differing margins on right and
left side pages (want a larger margin towards the spine), page numbering
on outer corners, and generating the N-hundred page PDF to send to the
printer (service, not device).

I'm sure there's an overlap with what a word processor can do, but in my
mind, one is targeted for smaller documents and one is targeted towards
larger.

Elijah
------
used to make impositions for folding into books in page layout programs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36633

On 30/12/2022 21:06, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural Philosopher  <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 30/12/2022 02:46, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>>> Scribus works, but last time I tried to create a book in it, it just
>>> crawled, and on a machine with a lot more memory than that pizza box
>>> Sun I used in the 1990s.
>> I think for a book, OpenOffice Write is the way to go. Books do not
>> change formats or feature extensive images, normally.
> 
> I turn to page layout programs when I'm not editing text (that was all
> vi) and am concerned with things like differing margins on right and
> left side pages (want a larger margin towards the spine), page numbering
> on outer corners, and generating the N-hundred page PDF to send to the
> printer (service, not device).
> 
> I'm sure there's an overlap with what a word processor can do, but in my
> mind, one is targeted for smaller documents and one is targeted towards
> larger.
> 
Exactly. Scribus is targeted to small documents, Open Office to the larger.

That's where its mostly unused format templates do actually become useful

If you stop thinking in terms of 'word processor' or 'page layout' and 
examine what they actually can DO,  you can find the application that 
can handle the data size and the required manipulations.

I am currently writing a book using open office.



> Elijah
> ------
> used to make impositions for folding into books in page layout programs

-- 
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do 
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon 
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent 
renewable energy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36639

On 2022-12-30 15:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/12/2022 02:46, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> Scribus works, but last time I tried to create a book in it, it just
>> crawled, and on a machine with a lot more memory than that pizza box
>> Sun I used in the 1990s.
> 
> I think for a book, OpenOffice Write is the way to go. Books do not 
> change formats or feature extensive images, normally.

I would use LyX.

I have, in fact.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36640

In comp.os.linux.misc, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> I would use LyX.
> 
> I have, in fact.

I did very seriously consider both troff and Latex but I'm not that
great at either (better at troff, if only from man pages), and I
couldn't find any ready made templates that suited the book I was
making. Namely a volume of email correspondence, where I wanted each
message to start as a new page, carry over to to additional pages as
needed, and have chapters covering a month at a time with a table of
contents automaticallly generated. Plus title page and related
forematter formatted.

Elijah
------
also considered Sile but ran into documentation issues on that newer project

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36642

On 2022-12-31 20:23, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> I would use LyX.
>>
>> I have, in fact.
> 
> I did very seriously consider both troff and Latex but I'm not that
> great at either (better at troff, if only from man pages), and I
> couldn't find any ready made templates that suited the book I was
> making. Namely a volume of email correspondence, where I wanted each
> message to start as a new page, carry over to to additional pages as
> needed, and have chapters covering a month at a time with a table of
> contents automaticallly generated. Plus title page and related
> forematter formatted.
Well, LyX is different. I don't feel confortable with Latex. LyX is 
related to Latex, but hides it from view. What you view in the display 
is similar in format to the final result, so working with it is more 
comfortable to one used to office editors like me.

The thing is, with LyX one doesn't have to worry about the formatting, 
if, and this is a big if, you already have a style that fits what you 
want. If not, and you need a different template, or have to customize 
one, things become difficult.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web