Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!newsfeed.kamp.net!newsfeed.kamp.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: William Poaster Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup Subject: Re: Who SERIOUSLY uses Linux for SERIOUS WORK, seriously? Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:24:13 +0100 Organization: Dumb Willy Boaster @ Llareggub Lines: 68 Message-ID: References:

<9103626a-9672-4b3f-bd3f-544145a57652@x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net r2O8NMHpidYlZp+HSiA0/wKak2kBSwh/JXSUEfMgLCFh/IQWV8 X-Orig-Path: linuxnetwork.alpha.org!news Cancel-Lock: sha1:RyVH87su3qzhy79jMOKvI8ZeGYc= User-Agent: XPN/1.2.6 (Street Spirit ; Linux) X-Desktop: KDE 4.6.2 X-COLA-Trolls: The arseholes listed in http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ are ignored. X-System: Fedora 15 64-bit Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.os.linux.advocacy:33271 comp.os.linux.setup:554 In reply to David Brown who posted: > On 15/06/11 22:52, Hadron wrote: >> David Brown writes: >> >>> On 14/06/2011 19:20, RayLopez99 wrote: >>>> On Jun 14, 4:09 pm, David Brown >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 14/06/2011 14:02, Chris wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Am Tue, 14 Jun 2011 03:58:21 -0700 schrieb RayLopez99: >>>>> >>>>>>> Serious Work is a defined term. >>>>> >>>>>> But I still don't understand the point of this thread. >>>>>> Clearly the definition of "Serious Work" being so different from "serious >>>>>> work" is not a good way to do this at all. >>>>> >>>>> Ray's point was to define his phrase "SERIOUS WORK" to be something that >>>>> Linux users don't do, and then place a troll epost asking if any Linux >>>>> users do "SERIOUS WORK" by that definition. It's a circular argument - >>>>> he is asking if anyone uses particular named Windows-specific software >>>>> on their Linux machines even though there are better open-source >>>>> alternatives. >>>> >>>> Actually that's not a bad synopsis, aside from the name calling. >>>> >>>> So I ask you, David Brown, in your 'learned opinion' whether you think >>>> Wine would be a good place to do Serious Work in Linux? >>>> >>>> From the horror stories involving Wine I doubt it, but I've never used >>>> it. >>>> >>> >>> I use OpenOffice (or now LibreOffice) for my "serious work" (your definition) on >>> both Windows and Linux. It works perfectly (much better than MS Office on >>> Windows that a few others at the office have), and doesn't need Wine. >>> >>> If you are wondering about running MS Office under Wine, then I don't know. I >>> don't have a copy of MS Office, and haven't had it on one of my computers since >>> the days of Word 2.0 on WfW 3.11. >> >> Yet you feel qualified to comment? Strange. And by your own admission >> know nothing about MSO? > > No, by my own admission I don't have MS Office installed, and I have > rarely used it. But I know about it - I have to support the few people > at the office who use it. And since we use mostly OpenOffice or > LibreOffice at my work, I /am/ qualified to compare them (at least in > the scope of how we use the tools). > >> >> While nice for "free" OO is a complete dog compared to MSO. Its why almost >> no one uses it. I guess all these are not using OOo then. The wiki must be lying according to the M$ wintroll! http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments -- E Pluribus UNIX. "Microsoft has vast resources, literally billions of dollars in cash, or liquid assets reserves. Microsoft is an incredibly successful empire built on the premise of market dominance with low-quality goods." -- Former White House adviser Richard A. Clarke --