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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #375566 > unrolled thread

A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe

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

Contents

  A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-08 15:09 +0000
    Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Se7en <se7en@firemail.cc> - 2016-10-08 19:33 +0000
      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-08 21:47 +0000
    Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-09 10:17 -0400
      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 15:25 +0000
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-09 12:56 -0400
          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-09 13:41 -0400
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:11 -0400
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 09:27 -0400
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:47 -0400
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 10:29 -0400
                    Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 13:13 -0400
                      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 13:21 -0400
                        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 16:40 -0400
                          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 17:02 -0400
                            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 17:55 -0400
          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 23:43 +0000
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:16 -0400
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 09:34 -0400
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 08:41 -0500
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 10:54 -0600
                    Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-10 23:52 +0000
                      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe GreyCloud <Cumulus@mist.com> - 2016-10-10 22:00 -0600
                        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-11 12:49 +0000
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:50 -0400
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 10:44 -0400
                    Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 13:15 -0400
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 10:03 -0700
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 10:31 -0700
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Se7en <se7en@firemail.cc> - 2016-10-10 06:39 +0000
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 09:53 -0400
          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-10 15:19 +0000
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 13:03 -0400
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-10 23:55 +0000
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-11 09:10 -0400
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-11 13:41 +0000
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 13:19 -0400
      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-09 12:51 -0400
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-09 17:10 +0000
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-09 23:38 +0000
          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:15 -0400
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 09:31 -0400
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-10 15:41 +0200
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-10-10 10:36 -0400
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-10 18:16 +0200
                  Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-11-01 10:03 -0700
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 09:42 -0400
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:49 -0400
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 07:10 -0700
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 09:20 -0500
      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-10-09 17:03 +0000
        Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-10-10 09:18 -0400
          Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-10-10 09:45 -0400
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe fr314159@gmail.com - 2016-10-10 07:18 -0700
              Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-10 09:38 -0500
                Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-10-10 18:05 +0200
            Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Jim Polaski <jpolaski@linuxmail.org> - 2016-10-10 15:16 +0000
      Re: A GNU World in a Degenerate Universe Alexander Suvorov <axr.suvorov@yandex.ru> - 2016-10-10 14:08 +0300

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#375789

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no
>>>> loss of any kind.
>>> 
>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>> 
>> Ha!
>> 
>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information (i.e.
>>>>  documents) with other people.  The majority of these
>>>> "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say GNU/Linux
>>>> cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally, Microjunk
>>>> formats were always a weird amalgamation of binary streams
>>>> that are closely related tho their equally weird Component
>>>> Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML format is more
>>>> amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from being a truly open
>>>> standard.
>>>> 
>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into
>>>> using more open formats for data exchange but, as one can
>>>> easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch 
>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to 
>>> Microsoft.
>> 
>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word
>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a decent
>> alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats instead of
>> Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love to go around
>> claiming that Microsoft only got to its position because of
>> bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word is just better
>> than the competition. Quality won, not bribes.
>> 
>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its Office
>>>> suite to actually read and write ODF file formats, which are
>>>> TRULY open formats and which are natively produced by
>>>> GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>> 
>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>> 
>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in
>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't explain
>> why.
>> 
>> 
>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
> 
> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok under
>  Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in opening
> large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also runs better
> under Linux than under Windows 10.

I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it was
MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330 laptop.
In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in addition to
looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the last time I used
it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.AI: @silverslimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX+5RWAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+ulR0H/26J8R7U35n3cLvxFyktgpEO
4LeN7blCBoS5VCTBqUEOASAR6PiFl25NrXGoRdSG17mQkitcywAtAm4LcLImTGZM
u/46syiOu/0zOcQyeyUpbcBjDRrY58msmMR91LRcFkyNa+cXjtoZ5N0Rkf0ZhLFi
z9LGk6/HfSEBimUIp37A1qXyxE4Ze2PWsT/Wq6UKTzSRhrrr3+/PdtZyvO/+VBHi
vdcbVy7cTmg+UTb17LJq0u2qzCb4Q3MDYkWLAdSSXDOoECnyvMI0eI3luz4AjCoz
zbsntaWaIAOUzAHnYXQsIlyM8OyWxgeIpb9Gk8AfiMRv3XdmygeaHIAfVefe9II=
=vxax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#375796

On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no
>>>>> loss of any kind.
>>>> 
>>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>>> 
>>> Ha!
>>> 
>>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information (i.e.
>>>>>  documents) with other people.  The majority of these
>>>>> "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say GNU/Linux
>>>>> cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally, Microjunk
>>>>> formats were always a weird amalgamation of binary streams
>>>>> that are closely related tho their equally weird Component
>>>>> Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML format is more
>>>>> amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from being a truly open
>>>>> standard.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into
>>>>> using more open formats for data exchange but, as one can
>>>>> easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch 
>>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to 
>>>> Microsoft.
>>> 
>>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word
>>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a decent
>>> alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats instead of
>>> Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love to go around
>>> claiming that Microsoft only got to its position because of
>>> bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word is just better
>>> than the competition. Quality won, not bribes.
>>> 
>>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its Office
>>>>> suite to actually read and write ODF file formats, which are
>>>>> TRULY open formats and which are natively produced by
>>>>> GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>>> 
>>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>>> 
>>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in
>>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't explain
>>> why.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
>> 
>> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok under
>>  Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in opening
>> large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also runs better
>> under Linux than under Windows 10.
>
> I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it was
> MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330 laptop.
> In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in addition to
> looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the last time I used
> it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
> if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
> functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.

I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels like
Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus. Especially
true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me to break out the
icons for the various apps like Write and Calc. Instead it is just one
app icon and I have choose which app I want from a menu. On Linux that's
not true at all. 

Other apps are this way as well. I forget the name of it but there was
some app in which I had to add GTK to Windows and the app was written in
Python I think. You can run it on any platform but again on Linux it
felt like a first-class app. Elsewhere, less so. 

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

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

#375798

Marek Novotny wrote:

> On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>
>> On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no
>>>>>> loss of any kind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>>>> 
>>>> Ha!
>>>> 
>>>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information (i.e.
>>>>>>  documents) with other people.  The majority of these
>>>>>> "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say GNU/Linux
>>>>>> cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally, Microjunk
>>>>>> formats were always a weird amalgamation of binary streams
>>>>>> that are closely related tho their equally weird Component
>>>>>> Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML format is more
>>>>>> amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from being a truly open
>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into
>>>>>> using more open formats for data exchange but, as one can
>>>>>> easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch
>>>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>> 
>>>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word
>>>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a decent
>>>> alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats instead of
>>>> Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love to go around
>>>> claiming that Microsoft only got to its position because of
>>>> bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word is just better
>>>> than the competition. Quality won, not bribes.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its Office
>>>>>> suite to actually read and write ODF file formats, which are
>>>>>> TRULY open formats and which are natively produced by
>>>>>> GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>>>> 
>>>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in
>>>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't explain
>>>> why.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
>>> 
>>> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok under
>>>  Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in opening
>>> large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also runs better
>>> under Linux than under Windows 10.
>>
>> I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it was
>> MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330 laptop.
>> In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in addition to
>> looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the last time I used
>> it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
>> if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
>> functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.

All two of those?
Or is it just one now?
 
> I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels like
> Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus. Especially
> true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me to break out the
> icons for the various apps like Write and Calc. Instead it is just one
> app icon and I have choose which app I want from a menu. On Linux that's
> not true at all.

Welcome to the wonderful world of OSX "bundles".
Where all the needed resources of an application are packed into a Pseudo-
directory.
I had to go to some idiotic length just to bypass this major flaw in OSX

It is ridiculous how OSX hinders some things which are considered total 
normal on linux (and even windows)

> Other apps are this way as well. I forget the name of it but there was
> some app in which I had to add GTK to Windows and the app was written in
> Python I think. You can run it on any platform but again on Linux it
> felt like a first-class app. Elsewhere, less so.
> 

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

#375815

On 2016-10-10, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> Marek Novotny wrote:
>
>> On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no
>>>>>>> loss of any kind.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ha!
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information (i.e.
>>>>>>>  documents) with other people.  The majority of these
>>>>>>> "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say GNU/Linux
>>>>>>> cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally, Microjunk
>>>>>>> formats were always a weird amalgamation of binary streams
>>>>>>> that are closely related tho their equally weird Component
>>>>>>> Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML format is more
>>>>>>> amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from being a truly open
>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into
>>>>>>> using more open formats for data exchange but, as one can
>>>>>>> easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch
>>>>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to
>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word
>>>>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a decent
>>>>> alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats instead of
>>>>> Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love to go around
>>>>> claiming that Microsoft only got to its position because of
>>>>> bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word is just better
>>>>> than the competition. Quality won, not bribes.
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its Office
>>>>>>> suite to actually read and write ODF file formats, which are
>>>>>>> TRULY open formats and which are natively produced by
>>>>>>> GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in
>>>>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't explain
>>>>> why.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
>>>> 
>>>> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok under
>>>>  Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in opening
>>>> large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also runs better
>>>> under Linux than under Windows 10.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it was
>>> MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330 laptop.
>>> In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in addition to
>>> looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the last time I used
>>> it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
>>> if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
>>> functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.
>
> All two of those?
> Or is it just one now?
>  
>> I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels like
>> Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus. Especially
>> true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me to break out the
>> icons for the various apps like Write and Calc. Instead it is just one
>> app icon and I have choose which app I want from a menu. On Linux that's
>> not true at all.
>
> Welcome to the wonderful world of OSX "bundles".
> Where all the needed resources of an application are packed into a Pseudo-
> directory.
> I had to go to some idiotic length just to bypass this major flaw in OSX
>
> It is ridiculous how OSX hinders some things which are considered total 
> normal on linux (and even windows)

It's a little strange for Apple to do it this way considering it's their
own platform. They control the whole widget so they shouldn't need to do
this. It reminds me of what Canonical is trying to do with Snaps. That
makes more sense to me and considering that they want a single method of
install for a snap regardless of the distribution. But with Apple, there
is but one OSX. 

Every now and then I have to dig into one of these to get something out.
I would have liked to have been in on some discussion as to the pros and
cons of this back when it was being considered. Why did they feel the
need to do this at all. 

// snip

-- 
Marek Novotny
https://github.com/marek-novotny

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

#375829

Marek Novotny wrote:

> On 2016-10-10, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> Marek Novotny wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no
>>>>>>>> loss of any kind.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ha!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information (i.e.
>>>>>>>>  documents) with other people.  The majority of these
>>>>>>>> "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say GNU/Linux
>>>>>>>> cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally, Microjunk
>>>>>>>> formats were always a weird amalgamation of binary streams
>>>>>>>> that are closely related tho their equally weird Component
>>>>>>>> Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML format is more
>>>>>>>> amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from being a truly open
>>>>>>>> standard.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into
>>>>>>>> using more open formats for data exchange but, as one can
>>>>>>>> easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch
>>>>>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to
>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word
>>>>>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a decent
>>>>>> alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats instead of
>>>>>> Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love to go around
>>>>>> claiming that Microsoft only got to its position because of
>>>>>> bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word is just better
>>>>>> than the competition. Quality won, not bribes.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its Office
>>>>>>>> suite to actually read and write ODF file formats, which are
>>>>>>>> TRULY open formats and which are natively produced by
>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in
>>>>>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't explain
>>>>>> why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
>>>>> 
>>>>> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok under
>>>>>  Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in opening
>>>>> large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also runs better
>>>>> under Linux than under Windows 10.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it was
>>>> MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330 laptop.
>>>> In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in addition to
>>>> looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the last time I used
>>>> it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
>>>> if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
>>>> functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.
>>
>> All two of those?
>> Or is it just one now?
>>  
>>> I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels like
>>> Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus. Especially
>>> true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me to break out the
>>> icons for the various apps like Write and Calc. Instead it is just one
>>> app icon and I have choose which app I want from a menu. On Linux that's
>>> not true at all.
>>
>> Welcome to the wonderful world of OSX "bundles".
>> Where all the needed resources of an application are packed into a
>> Pseudo- directory.
>> I had to go to some idiotic length just to bypass this major flaw in OSX
>>
>> It is ridiculous how OSX hinders some things which are considered total
>> normal on linux (and even windows)
> 
> It's a little strange for Apple to do it this way considering it's their
> own platform. They control the whole widget so they shouldn't need to do
> this. It reminds me of what Canonical is trying to do with Snaps. That
> makes more sense to me and considering that they want a single method of
> install for a snap regardless of the distribution. But with Apple, there
> is but one OSX.
> 
> Every now and then I have to dig into one of these to get something out.
> I would have liked to have been in on some discussion as to the pros and
> cons of this back when it was being considered. Why did they feel the
> need to do this at all.
> 
> // snip

They "need" because apple has *no* package management at all. They simply 
have no idea what libraries exist on an OSX system, and which versions of 
them.
So instead of doing proper package management (the first version of OSX came 
out long after linux used proper package manager software in several 
flavors) they decided on the worst possible alternative: Put everything into 
a "bundle".
That way they make certain that the very same libs exist several times, even 
in different versions. The way to DLL-hell which MS has still not yet fully 
solved. Apple did not learn from that disaster

Add insult to injury, apple has no direct provisions of providing arguments 
to existing GUI apps. In both windows and linux you can set up a shortcut or 
a desktop-entry which not only may have a icon of its own, but also 
arguments to start the application with.

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

#378921

On 10/10/16, 7:36 AM, in article
Mp6dnZy9--saOmbKnZ2dnUU7-cPNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Marek Novotny"
<marek.novotny@marspolar.com> wrote:

>>> I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels like
>>> Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus. Especially
>>> true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me to break out the
>>> icons for the various apps like Write and Calc. Instead it is just one
>>> app icon and I have choose which app I want from a menu. On Linux that's
>>> not true at all.
>> 
>> Welcome to the wonderful world of OSX "bundles".
>> Where all the needed resources of an application are packed into a Pseudo-
>> directory.
>> I had to go to some idiotic length just to bypass this major flaw in OSX
>> 
>> It is ridiculous how OSX hinders some things which are considered total
>> normal on linux (and even windows)
> 
> It's a little strange for Apple to do it this way considering it's their
> own platform. They control the whole widget so they shouldn't need to do
> this. It reminds me of what Canonical is trying to do with Snaps. That
> makes more sense to me and considering that they want a single method of
> install for a snap regardless of the distribution. But with Apple, there
> is but one OSX. 
> 
> Every now and then I have to dig into one of these to get something out.
> I would have liked to have been in on some discussion as to the pros and
> cons of this back when it was being considered. Why did they feel the
> need to do this at all.

Makes it so an application is, to a general user, a single icon they can
move around and even share. Copy it from one computer to another on your
home network and it just works. Move it to the desktop and it just works. Go
to your Applications folder and you can find it more easily. Installation is
just dragging and dropping one "file" -- as seen from the eyes of common
usage.

It works and it is easier for new users and experienced ones.

And the apps can, on first run (or when they do not find a shared library)
install it.  

-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#375800

On 10/10/2016 9:31 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:


> I forget the name of it but there was some app in which I had to add
> GTK to Windows and the app was written in Python I think. You can
> run it on any platform but again on Linux it felt like a first-class
> app.


Your standards have been severely degraded by the hobbyware.

On Windows and Mac that would be a 3rd rate app.

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

#375804

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-10 9:31 AM, Marek Novotny wrote:
> On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2016-10-09 7:38 PM, Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> On 2016-10-09, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 2016-10-09 10:17 AM, DFS wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2016 11:09 AM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer
>>>>>> no loss of any kind.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Except a huge loss of dignity.
>>>> 
>>>> Ha!
>>>> 
>>>>>> But there is always the issue of exchanging information
>>>>>> (i.e. documents) with other people.  The majority of
>>>>>> these "others" use Microjunk formats, and needless to say
>>>>>> GNU/Linux cannot handle these formats.  Traditionally,
>>>>>> Microjunk formats were always a weird amalgamation of
>>>>>> binary streams that are closely related tho their equally
>>>>>> weird Component Object Model.  The newer Microjunk OOXML
>>>>>> format is more amenable to GNU/Linux but it is far from
>>>>>> being a truly open standard.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people
>>>>>> into using more open formats for data exchange but, as
>>>>>> one can easily foresee, the strategy got nowhere:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.en.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 
Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch
>>>>> telling people what to do, I wanna send money directly to 
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>> 
>>>> It's not anyone's fault that Word is the most respected word 
>>>> processor out there. If Corel and LibreOffice had made a
>>>> decent alternative to Word, we'd be using their formats
>>>> instead of Microsoft's. Clearly, the "advocates" would love
>>>> to go around claiming that Microsoft only got to its position
>>>> because of bribing and such but it's plain to see what Word
>>>> is just better than the competition. Quality won, not
>>>> bribes.
>>>> 
>>>>>> Microjunk has for some reason decided to allow its
>>>>>> Office suite to actually read and write ODF file formats,
>>>>>> which are TRULY open formats and which are natively
>>>>>> produced by GNU/Linux LibreOffice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Truly open, and truly slow.
>>>> 
>>>> LibreOffice actually runs very well in Linux. It's only in 
>>>> Windows and OS X that it runs like molasses and I can't
>>>> explain why.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - -- Silver Slimer Islam is a disease Gab.AI: @silverslimer
>>> 
>>> LibreOffice runs better under Linux on my system. It runs ok
>>> under Windows as well but there is a slight speed increase in
>>> opening large documents under Linux for sure. I find gimp also
>>> runs better under Linux than under Windows 10.
>> 
>> I don't believe that I ever tried LibreOffice on this i7 but it
>> was MUCH slower than WordPerfect and Word on my previous i3-M330
>> laptop. In Linux though, LibreOffice loads instantaneously in
>> addition to looking a whole lot better than it did in Windows the
>> last time I used it. I honestly don't think any Linux user would
>> miss Microsoft Office if LibreOffice were installed for them
>> unless there are specific functions that they _know_ aren't
>> available in the open-source suite.
> 
> I use Libre Office on Windows, macOS and Linux. And yeah, it feels
> like Windows and macOS are after-thoughts and Linux is the focus.
> Especially true on the Mac. The Mac version doesn't even allow me
> to break out the icons for the various apps like Write and Calc.
> Instead it is just one app icon and I have choose which app I want
> from a menu. On Linux that's not true at all.
> 
> Other apps are this way as well. I forget the name of it but there
> was some app in which I had to add GTK to Windows and the app was
> written in Python I think. You can run it on any platform but again
> on Linux it felt like a first-class app. Elsewhere, less so.

On Linux, LO just feels like it might have been pre-loaded at bootup.
Except that I have no reason to believe that. It might just be that
the code is optimized better and that its code is simply a lot cleaner
than what gets ported to Windows and OS X. Either way, it runs like a
charm.


- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.AI: @silverslimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX+5xOAAoJEIwFfgf/rr+ujw0H/i4fbqXnx5NCVwX/ffJ5GS6R
pDfc5LoynYXlDJ1FxNEnNhMBo3bXnNWEVJrl+aA3kdmVLkcVy2/lhKaKVa0zeFPr
J+6U1dXAWkudgbiDKsatwE/3YWh6xUmGlqr1wviihSkyrGNkz+n07l3hgH3PRhlr
FPeC4ve5iQBNllPYV9fyaPgP6D8ONPxsUKWCltGO/xODpaOgTja8qBohe9EYr7MM
Pi+F0PNx/RTqPzh7hli9J356ci89eFEQ4HSdfYFUA0tbfncU1nBzgRGAARcOkzz8
K9SissQl2rTEHay7MymEoTBsJiIYqlrHmdi++afWIuzYeOlHeh5hgUvs5Pb/g84=
=I2KR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#375810

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 9:15:02 AM UTC-4, Silver Slimer wrote:


> I honestly don't think any Linux user would miss Microsoft Office
> if LibreOffice were installed for them unless there are specific
> functions that they _know_ aren't available in the open-source suite.
> 

I have to hold my nose while responding to this shit ball, but
more info on this topic is necessary.

LO can be fucking slow in places, and I suspect, although I don't
know for sure, that this is due to the fact that most new "additions"
to LO are written in Python, via the UNO bridge, rather than pure
C/C++.  Python is an interpreted piece-of-garbage language and thus
slow.

Also, the trend of Microshit Office is to have all programs
within the suite interface more completely with Microshit's
Azure "cloud" servers.  This is part of Microshit's desire to
eliminate desktop applications in favor of SaS software located
on remote servers.  SaS subscriptions will give them a guaranteed
cash flow.

Also, Microshit desires to get rid of the Access database in
favor of promoting its SQL Server products.  Access has comparatively
low usage and SQL Server fits better with their SaS strategy.

Also, Microshit has included an entirely new set of capabilities
for their Excel spreadsheet product.  They call this new set,
which is based in OLAP principles, "Self-Service Business Intelligence."
Within Excel this capability is expressed as the Power Pivot add-on
and it allows data modeling using data from external databases.
Again, the desire is to use SQL Server as a back end.

Admittedly, LO lacks such capabilities, and in my opinion, it
should not bother to try to imitate Microshit.  LO does not need
to be "cloud" oriented.  LO has OLAP/pivot and external data access
capabilities and is good enough to serve single workstations only.

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

#375812

"Fabian" wrote:

> Slimer wrote:
>> 
>>
>
>I have to hold my nose while responding to this shit ball, but
>more info on this topic is necessary.
>
> (snip)
>
>Admittedly, LO lacks such capabilities, and in my opinion, it
>should not bother to try to imitate Microshit.  LO does not need
>to be "cloud" oriented.  LO has OLAP/pivot and external data access
>capabilities and is good enough to serve single workstations only.

Good post, "Fabian".

-- 
"Yeah, it's better to be jobless, lazy and anarchic. The mess which is
GNU/Linux caters to those people."  -  "Slimer"

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

#375736

On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:17:58 -0400, DFS wrote:

> 
> The world chose MS Office and its formats 25+ years ago.
> 

Choice my fucking ass.  The people do not exercise choice.
They use Microshit Office largely because of Microshit's
monopolistic practices and because they know of little
else.

Choice is NOT a factor.

With its closed formats, Microshit employs the same tactics
used by the auto companies to close their diagnostic software
and thereby allowing only authorized dealership to service cars.
That criminal nonsense was halted by force of law and the same
force should be applied to Microshit.

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

#375791

On 10/9/2016 1:03 PM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:17:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> The world chose MS Office and its formats 25+ years ago.
>>
>
> Choice my fucking ass.  The people do not exercise choice.

Lotus and WordPerfect had huge headstarts on Microsoft, but lost their 
users because Office was a better deal for equal or better products.  So 
everyone CHOSE MS Office.


> They use Microshit Office largely because of Microshit's
> monopolistic practices and because they know of little
> else.

uh huh... only 8 frothing, disgruntled idiots on comp.os.linux.advocacy 
can evaluate operating systems and application software.


> Choice is NOT a factor.

Choice was and is the ONLY factor.

People and organizations chose MS Windows and Office one purchase at a 
time, until it became mostly unprofitable to develop competing software.

WordPerfect still sells their office software at decent prices, so they 
might have some users.  I used to love and buy lots of Borland software 
(Quattro Pro and Paradox for Windows and Delphi), but they couldn't 
compete with Microsoft either.



> With its closed formats, Microshit employs the same tactics
> used by the auto companies to close their diagnostic software
> and thereby allowing only authorized dealership to service cars.
> That criminal nonsense was halted by force of law and the same
> force should be applied to Microshit.

Too bad it won't.  Too bad you 'software should be Free' morons will 
NEVER be able to force such business-crushing openness on any US company.

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

#375802

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 2016-10-10 9:18 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 10/9/2016 1:03 PM, Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 10:17:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> The world chose MS Office and its formats 25+ years ago.
>>> 
>> 
>> Choice my fucking ass.  The people do not exercise choice.
> 
> Lotus and WordPerfect had huge headstarts on Microsoft, but lost
> their users because Office was a better deal for equal or better
> products.  So everyone CHOSE MS Office.

The only argument the "advocates" would be willing to make about why
Microsoft Office got to where it is today is the fact that it was
"bundled" with Windows 95 PCs. There's just one problem with that
argument, it wasn't. It also didn't run any better than the other
office suites did on those PCs. Considering Windows 9x hadn't even
become a standard at that point and that it was still a toss-up
whether OS/2, Windows 95 or something else was going to win in the
long run, there was nothing stopping companies from jumping on the
OS/2 bandwagon and developing their software exclusively for THAT OS
if they saw Microsoft Office or Windows as a threat. IBM could also
have bundled OS/2 with new PCs as well as the ones they produced to
beat Microsoft. Instead, they didn't use OS/2 on even their own
hardware and companies steadfastly refused to develop for OS/2. As a
result, Windows won by default and became the juggernaut operating
system we know it as today. Microsoft didn't win because of backstage
politics; it won because every other company at the time was grossly
incompetent.

>> They use Microshit Office largely because of Microshit's 
>> monopolistic practices and because they know of little else.
> 
> uh huh... only 8 frothing, disgruntled idiots on
> comp.os.linux.advocacy can evaluate operating systems and
> application software.

There is absolutely _no_ evidence whatsoever of any kinf of
"monopolistic practise" involving Microsoft Office. Like I said, MO
did not perform better than the competition at the time and wasn't
bundled with PCs at ALL. In fact, Office cost several hundred dollars
at the time and I believe that academic rebates only came in later and
few people were even aware of them. So not only was it prohibitively
expensive, but it offered no real advantage and wasn't forced on
people. It simply won because it was better and since businesspeople
were used to using the better product at the workplace, they purchased
it for use at home as well exposing the rest of the family to it in
the same manner that the PC won the war for standardization in the 80s.

>> Choice is NOT a factor.
> 
> Choice was and is the ONLY factor.
> 
> People and organizations chose MS Windows and Office one purchase
> at a time, until it became mostly unprofitable to develop competing
> software.
> 
> WordPerfect still sells their office software at decent prices, so
> they might have some users.  I used to love and buy lots of Borland
> software (Quattro Pro and Paradox for Windows and Delphi), but they
> couldn't compete with Microsoft either.

Read any review of WordPerfect Office and the information is always
the same. If you get the latest version, it's essentially identical to
the version before and the one before that. No innovation is happening
and the company is even struggling to bring its look into the 21st
century. With such ridiculous incompetence, it's no wonder people keep
choosing Microsoft Office instead. To be fair, WordPerfect has some
excellent features in their word processing software but they've since
been rendered inconsequential by additions to Microsoft Office.

>> With its closed formats, Microshit employs the same tactics used
>> by the auto companies to close their diagnostic software and
>> thereby allowing only authorized dealership to service cars. That
>> criminal nonsense was halted by force of law and the same force
>> should be applied to Microshit.
> 
> Too bad it won't.  Too bad you 'software should be Free' morons
> will NEVER be able to force such business-crushing openness on any
> US company.

There are two stances people can take here:

1) Software should be free and only hardware should be paid for to
ensure complete transparency in the code at all levels, reduce costs
and ensure that people are constantly able to use their hardware at
its full potential.

2) Software should be paid-for to encourage further innovation through
a pursuit of increased profits and develop companies as well as jobs
for the public.

Take your pick as to which is better. I prefer the first but won't lie
and say that it produces jobs and a desire for innovation. At best,
the first approach would result in increased features only whenever
they become necessary; nobody would seek out to implement new things
just for the Hell of it knowing that they won't be compensated for it.
As a result, there is no reason to believe that through open-source,
we would have gotten to the point where we are currently at in terms
of software functionality. Forget maps software, forget software like
Siri, and forget something as trivial as GeForce experience which
automatically optimizes the settings for your games. Since the first
two offend the privacy-minded and the latter is essentially
unnecessary, they would simply not exist and we'd most likely still be
in an age where we'd have to handle IRQ settings just to get hardware
to work.

- -- 
Silver Slimer
Islam is a disease
Gab.AI: @silverslimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX+5t9AAoJEIwFfgf/rr+uuwQH/1fI+jsV6bsATI792b84sBB6
tIDj1mbb1nIpwTOiAW79SMDh2WwKPuPv8n3P3r0tCu4X7puQHcaz/q3SqG47yND1
ofvgujzgYC3FZ3ao4Yr2Q4jssfVf23y5Y8ZxGl8W5J+8eOGm0qvVsHKuq6OA7LUV
S5P6FTr3ZPbHFuLPqslsFp/zO3xWaXbZXw4lKoDdWXx1EVg7DB2aeSuEdjZDAZvI
V5Cj+48zsfk4V4qWGG9LI+uFvd+4fNHKuod+5r4iRbMzQSLYoeV37Yvrf8ra1pU6
QI+txVOzrEhQcb/GGoGQKMmRr25GWRqrmPfyBlFdoi1Glm49MxVy96cocovNEyw=
=g0/i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

#375811

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 9:45:33 AM UTC-4, Silver Slimer wrote:

> 
> Read any review of WordPerfect Office and the information is always
> the same.
>

Instead of reading reviews, why don't you actually USE the product
and find out for yourself.

>
> If you get the latest version, it's essentially identical to
> the version before and the one before that. No innovation is happening
> and the company is even struggling to bring its look into the 21st
> century.
>

What a dunce brain!

What kind of of innovation can one expect from a word processor that
already does it all?

Just because another year rolls around, or another century, doesn't
mean that some kind of change is necessary.

Unless, of course, one is a totally deluded idiot, and that is exactly
what you are.

But anyone who actually uses word processors extensively realizes
that Microshit Word has not changed much over the years as well.
So your argument is entirely specious.

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

#375816

fr314159@gmail.com wrote:

> slime wrote:
>>
>> If you get the latest version, it's essentially identical to
>> the version before and the one before that. No innovation is happening
>> and the company is even struggling to bring its look into the 21st
>> century.
>
>What a dunce brain!
>
>What kind of of innovation can one expect from a word processor that
>already does it all?

Right, and this is why "word processors" should be (and sometimes are)
Free software.  Their development costs were recouped long ago.  

Perhaps there are 0.1% of users who would require a "high end" payware
word processor.

-- 
"Along with most open source products, it's a HUGE financial failure.
Every single Linux/OSS development hour ever spent has an opportunity
cost associated with it - and that cost is overwhelmingly never
recouped."  -  DumFSck, lying shamelessly

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

#375828

chrisv wrote:

> fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> slime wrote:
>>>
>>> If you get the latest version, it's essentially identical to
>>> the version before and the one before that. No innovation is happening
>>> and the company is even struggling to bring its look into the 21st
>>> century.
>>
>>What a dunce brain!
>>
>>What kind of of innovation can one expect from a word processor that
>>already does it all?
> 
> Right, and this is why "word processors" should be (and sometimes are)
> Free software.  Their development costs were recouped long ago.
> 
> Perhaps there are 0.1% of users who would require a "high end" payware
> word processor.
> 
No. Not that many.

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

#375820

On 2016-10-10, Silver Slimer <> wrote:
>
>
> The only argument the "advocates" would be willing to make about why
> Microsoft Office got to where it is today is the fact that it was
> "bundled" with Windows 95 PCs. There's just one problem with that
> argument, it wasn't. It also didn't run any better than the other
> office suites did on those PCs. Considering Windows 9x hadn't even
> become a standard at that point and that it was still a toss-up
> whether OS/2, Windows 95 or something else was going to win in the
> long run, there was nothing stopping companies from jumping on the
> OS/2 bandwagon and developing their software exclusively for THAT OS
> if they saw Microsoft Office or Windows as a threat. IBM could also
> have bundled OS/2 with new PCs as well as the ones they produced to
> beat Microsoft. Instead, they didn't use OS/2 on even their own
> hardware and companies steadfastly refused to develop for OS/2. As a
> result, Windows won by default and became the juggernaut operating
> system we know it as today. Microsoft didn't win because of backstage
> politics; it won because every other company at the time was grossly
> incompetent.
>
> - -- 
> Silver Slimer
> Islam is a disease
> Gab.AI: @silverslimer

The very first versions of MS Office were terrible but instead of giving 
up Microsoft improved their the software, added interesting features and 
so forth all the while the other companies were not.
The rest is history.
Libreoffice is a decent program but it just isn't up to the quality 
MSOffice. For most people however, including myself, it is far more 
powerful and feature rich than I could ever need.

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

#375768

Hello, DFS.
On 10/9/16 5:17 PM you wrote:

 >> I could easily use GNU/Linux for EVERYTHING and suffer no loss of 
 >> any kind.
 > Except a huge loss of dignity.

How so, I wonder?
 
 >> Richard Stallman outlined a strategy to entice people into using 
 >> more open formats for data exchange but, as one can easily foresee, 
 >> the strategy got nowhere:
 > Every time I see that obese, disgusting, repulsive sasquatch telling 
 > people what to do, I wanna send money directly to Microsoft.

Don't like the guy either, to be honest. But then again - why should I 
even bother to find someone appealing to me out there and listen to what 
(s)he has to say when I have my own judgement? And I rather keep my 
money to myself, thank you!
 
 >> Most people are lazy and spiritless and could not muster the 
 >> aggressive energy
 > Why should Windows users accomodate a tiny number of open format 
 > users? You made your poor choices: Linux and LibreOffice.  Now 
 > suffer with them.
 >> needed to implement the change (that's why they use Microjunk in 
 >> the first place).
 > No, we just like to use the best software (example: try and find an

The best software, LMAO man, you made my day!!!

 > Access replacement on Linux.  There isn't one.)

Base?
 
 > And we want something that works.  Linux doesn't.

Yes it does! Better and better with every day. The exact opposite from 
MS products!
 
 >> Note that most Microjunk Office users won't even notice the ODF 
 >> extension and will just load and open as usual.  But there still 
 >> needs to be education and coercion to get Microjunk users to 
 >> actually save their documents in ODF formats for exchange with 
 >> GNU/Linux users -- and this will not be a simple matter.
 > You GuhNoo/Linux users who want to coerce the world to use .odf can 
 > suck it.  The world chose MS Office and its formats 25+ years ago.

Eat shit, millions of flies can't be wrong.

--
Best regards! Alexander.
https://www.linuxcounter.net/user/495771

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web