Corel Looking To Sell Linux Operations?

PySloth wrote to us with a link to InformationWeek that speculates about what Corel might be doing differently soon. One of the possibilities is the sale of their Linux operations, which would be odd concerning the .NET portion of their deal with Microsoft.

Comments

WordPerfect Office..

[onion2k]

"Why would we want to beat our heads against the wall trying to get people to switch from Microsoft Word?"

For the good of humanity as a whole I'd say.

Re:WordPerfect Office..

[levik]

Humanity would not benefit from a product designed to draw people away from Word. The should try to build a product that would stand up on it's own merits, and not try and sell it by pointing out Word's flaws.

Obviously the world is doing just fine using Word right now. Besides, saying that imposing your point of view on people will be good for humanity smacks of the middle ages and the crusades.

As long as there is a company that takes up the torch after Corel, I doubt anyone will cry about the deal.

Question

[karma_policeman]

Selling their Linux division is only one option being considered by Corel. They are also thinking about making some Linux aquisitions. According to the CEO:
"To be successful in the Linux market, you need a wider product offering. There's got to be some kind of acquisition,"

Why is this? The above statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Corel is already generating 10% of revenues from Linux, according to the article, so why do they need to change?

Why Corel is right to sell out

[buttfucker2000]

Corel are selling Linux because Linux is not suitable for desktop use. Let me give my experiences - I have been reading all about Linux and how great it is and how bad Windows 9x/NT/2000 is. Well I use both. I use Windows when I want to get things done, regardless of the GPF's Blue Screens, of Illegal Operations I experience. I just use Linux to play and dream of the day when it fully comes of desktop age.
Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can't sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it. Truth be known (and you have all experienced the same) I have problems with her sitting in front of Windows, just like I have problems with 80% of the users that I support.

Four main (Bullshit) reasons for using Linux over Windows 9x/NT/2000:
1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That's not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.

2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.

3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.

4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It's too much work. That's not a good argument either. It's only a choice.

So why are we people using Linux? Because Linux is Cool; and they are elite and like doing things the hard way - it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.

I have a problem with the following:

Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Lack of Fonts.
Lack of. Popular games.
Lack of Drive support.
And no easy way of doing things.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[istartedi]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: life is best when you connect a Windows desktop to a *NIX server.

Conversely, it's gotta be rotten when you connect a *NIX desktop to a Windows server, but I've never been in that situation; so I really can't say.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[MartinG]

> And no easy way of doing things.

Wow. You've hit the nail right on the head there. Most people when they complain about Linux simply give vague complaints and inaccurate statements. You however manage to get the message across perfectly with your insightful, succinct analysis of the problem.

Only yesterday, I was trying to use linux to do things and it was really hard. I phoned my support line and said "I can't seem to do things with Linux"

"We get that complaint all the time" they said. Better off with windows I say. Well, okay it's not as stable as Linux, but what good is enterprise class stability in an OS that cant even "do things" ?

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[nharmon]

Which DOS? MS-DOS does not run in 386 protected mode. Plus, you don't get the networking, and other high-tech stuff associated with an advanced OS.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[banky]

>Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Do you like VBS worms?

>Lack of Fonts.
[blacksun:/usr/share/fonts/truetype]: ls *.ttf | wc -l
433
Please explain how I'm missing fonts.
>Lack of. Popular games.
Yes and no. Only proven windows winners make it, and the sleepers (Homeworld, for instance) aren't there and never will be.
>Lack of Drive support.
What,exactly, does that mean? Got 3 IDE drives in my desktop and a few dozen SCSI in various servers.
>And no easy way of doing things
See above. How fast can you count the # of true-type fonts you have installed?

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[TheAncientHacker]

How fast can you count the # of true-type fonts you have installed?

C:\>dir \windows\fonts\*.ttf

Any other questions?

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[photozz]

Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Lack of Fonts.
Lack of. Popular games.
Lack of Drive support.
And no easy way of doing things.


Try the new Linux Mandrake. First time I was able to imidiately use Linux out of the box and get something done. Office suite in KDE2 is MS compatable, networking is a no brainer and e-mail is just as good as always. Fonts?? big deal, they have plenty. Drive support? Like what???? they support everything I use and can think of.... Easy? KDE2 is very Windows like, so of course any idiot can use it.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[Ektanoor]

Your considerations on Linux not being ready for desktop show also that you are not ready for Linux at all. No one in the developer community says you that Linux should be a Windows-II. Yes it is a hassle to build an office worksation. But that also depends on what you really wanna build. If you want a 20 minutes installation on a "lemedofoyou" style to do typesetting then choose Windows. If your concerns are far from this and concern document manipulation, automatising services like fax, file transfer/archiving. backup, encryption, small server tasks and secured Internet then you should choose Linux or even BSD (frankly here Linux is not unique).
The only good point you make is lack of popular games. Yes that is still a thing that Linux lacks of. But it is also a ++++ for offices as it concentrates people in more concrete tasks. At least presently :).
On the rest you are only doing flamebait.

Note: I have people working on desktop Linuxes. Even financial directors. And they don't want to see Windows even in rosy clothes. All that is needed on Windows, they can get on Linux. And besides they don't dig on code nor are developers but their demands are much more complex since Linux came to their desktops.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[buttfucker2000]

What I don't understand is how Linux is so hard to use. I mean Windows 3.0 is easier, and had *far less* development on its GUI than Linux.

1. I guess it just shows why one company should make the whole OS (or at least integrate other people's work).

2. Linux tries to work over major problems - X, which from a UI point of view is slow and primitive, Unix security models, which are useless for home users - I mean just imagine the first user with Linux - they won't have a clue about not being able to write different directories, never mind chmod and file permissions.

The fact is that Linux will *never* be as easy to use as Windows - no integrated configuration, caused by the many different companies working on it, Unix-style rules about devices (permissions to play mp3s anyone?), different toolkits and widgets - most users can't even manage to learn one, no cross-application interaction - e.g., can't cut and paste between two different types of application. No support for advanced hardware (e.g., 3d acceleration - in the cases where there are drivers, the Linux distros snootily refuse to use them because they're not open source - as if the company should give away its secrets.

The fact is that Linux/Unix will never get more than 10% desktop share - most people do not define themselves as computer users, but rather as people who happen to use computers. For these people all the 'nerd' advantages of Linux do not exist, and so they will use Windows.

Perhaps Linux has a role on crippled one-function boxes (web tv, etc.), but as a multi-function computer Windows will continue to reign in its fully integrated existence.

Companies are starting to recognize this, and are getting out; however, companies like Eazel, Helixcode, the Kompany, etc., still delude themselves that they can make money - Eazel by charging for services no-one will use, Helixcode by no means, and the Kompany by giving most of its software away (no company can afford to give most of its software away).

The fact that Corel is so badly fucked is due to Linux. It just happens that Corel used to work under realworld principles of making money, whereas the opensource companies have been fortunate enough to have opensource rules, where you'll make money for services about 10 years in the future, and now that it is losing money, it is judged by those principles; Corel should get out now before it gets screwed any more.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[FFFish]

>>Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like
>>Word and Outlook).
>Do you like VBS worms?

I use Eudora, and I disable macros and I have .js/.vbs/etc set to open in Notepad. No worms.

But that's beside the point: *productivity* is. At this time, Windows maximizes my ability to be productive. And as a contractor, it's really important that I not waste my time not being paid.

>>Lack of Fonts.
>433
>Please explain how I'm missing fonts.

I currently have 1356 fonts -- and about 80% of them are high-quality Bitstream or Adobe fonts. How many of your 433 are professional fonts?

>>And no easy way of doing things
>See above. How fast can you count the # of
>true-type fonts you have installed?

Took me about 30 seconds. Goodness, do you know how much time I waste each and every day just counting fonts? My god, I really do need to start using Linux.

But in important things -- creating professional-quality page layout using Ventura Publisher, diagrams using Visio, and client communications using Word97 (because, damn it, that's what they're all using) -- it seems that Linux would result in (a) my not being able to do my work or (b) doing my work a lot slower/less capably/less efficiently.

Except for the rare geek who feels a need to count fonts quickly, Linux is an overall loser on the productivity front. It simple does not have the tools and applications needed by people like me.

And that is the key: **for people like me**. For you, Linux might be great. For me, it sucks rocks.


--

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[cyber-vandal]

I couldn't care less if my parents can't use Linux. I've advised them not to, because it has a steep learning curve. Having said that though, a lot of very intelligent people ask me to help out with their Windows setups, so the conclusion I've come to is that Windows isn't paticularly easy either for the computer non-literate, it just has more software and prettier pictures.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[dboyles]

Face it Linux is not ready for prime time. Why, because I can?t sit my mother in front of a Linux box and expect for her to learn it and to like it.

Fuck traditional users. Seriously. I've stopped recommending Linux to Windows-using friends because most people are so used to getting things spoonfed to them, they don't stand a chance. These people don't even know how to do simple things. I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google, put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really happened is you ran out of gas.

1) Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates. A friend or family member has bootlegged a copy for them. Besides most you bought your distributions (That?s not free). So Linux being free is not a good reason.

I think all of my friends who run Windows have at least one piece of pirated software on their computer. But that's not the point, and I can't make the sweeping generalization that all Windows users are pirates based on that small sample space. Just like you can't make the argument that "most of [us] bought [our] distributions." I would think that the opposite would be true. So for those people with some morals, the fact that Linux is FAIB (Free As In Beer) is a very compelling reason to use it.

2) You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.

I have never looked at the source code. But that doesn't matter. Other people look at the source code. Other people contribute. Just because I don't have the skills to hack out a driver for some unsupported sound card doesn't mean that Open Source Software is of no benefit to me.

3) Linux is stable. So is DOS. The Linux GUI is no stable. Software packages crash all the time. Stability is not a good argument either.

Stability is not a good argument? I think we place our priorities in different areas. I like knowing that a glitch in code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and possibly cause data loss. Sure, Netscape crashes too frequently. But a Netscape crash costs me maybe 10 or 15 seconds, whereas a MSIE crash that brings the system to a halt would cost much, much more than that (impacting other programs and data in the process).

4) Linux is customizable. Really?!. Most users, if given the opportunity, other than changing the background would never customize Windows or any OS. It?s too much work. That?s not a good argument either. It?s only a choice.

Again, fuck most users. I realize that most people think things like this are "too much work." But there are a lot of us who actually enjoy doing a little bit of work to manipulate something into the way we want it to work. I think most Windows users would think writing a script out to be tedious. I think a lot of Linux users would find it enjoyable.

...it's like people reading advanced philosophy it will never appeal to most people, and 'desktop philosophy' won't have mass appeal.

Again, we're back to that "most people" issue. And again, I have to say fuck most people. They aren't me.

I have a problem with the following: (snip)

Then don't use Linux, it's not right for you.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[_xeno_]

Ok, let's take the "Who is Corel's Market?" test.

Is it:

1. Uber-hackers
2. Power UNIX users
3. 1337 k1dd13s
4. Average "dumb" desktop users

Well, it isn't the top three, that leaves 4: Average "dumb" desktop users. Who, by most Power Users or even 1337 k1dd13s standards are morons when it comes to "computers." You do realize that in life outside of the tech croud, a "power user" is someone who is simply experienced with the interface? Someone who understands the quirks and can get things done, without having to ask for much help?

The first thing that is taught in my college's Human/Computer Interaction (HCI) course is that: You are NOT NORMAL.

The users that Corel was attempting to target are the people who Microsoft is hiding the command line from. The users that Corel wanted to move to Linux are those who think that the desktop is the only interface - who shy away from "complicated" things like logging on, or having a password.

The original poster (although the username ("buttfucker2000") strikes me as a troll name) is entirely right when he said that Corel is right to pull out - Linux isn't ready for the user market that Corel was targetting.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[divec]

I can't seem to do things with Linux

You can do things, just with sed, which you can't do with a full install of NT. Judging by your sig, I'd've thought you would know that. For example, get the last 10 lines of a 1 GB log file in a sensible amount of time. I have seen NT users trying hard to do that and not really being able to even using VB.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[banky]

OK, let's pick nits: Its a new machine and I just slapped on some fonts I had handy. The point is, the "there are no fonts on linux!" means your sysadmin is incompetent and can't install xfstt or any other alternative. Besides, when I want to do gfx, I move over to my G4, anyway.

Re 30 seconds: what method did you use? Took me 1 second. I don't normally sit around counting fonts, of course. The point is, the shell is a powerful tool that saves time, because you can automate tasks.

And it should be noted that the original post referred to general purpose use, and you name a number of specific uses, for which yes, Linux probably isn't the best tool. I'd argue strongly for a Mac in the instance you specifically describe.

Also, I hate that productivity = writing memos and using Word. Productivity for me means writing CGI, working with databases, network and system administration. Why is it so bad when I counter that my "productivity tools" are nmap, ethereal, snort, inetd, Apache, mod_perl, and so forth?

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[lizrd]

Bingo! Exactly how many users out there are actually using a legitimate licensed copy of Win9X on their home machines? I'd say about 60%.

What crack have you been smoking? I'd guess that the %age of win 9x home users who have a legit copy has got to be upwards of 97%. Do keep in mind that very few people ever upgrade their operating system. Even fewer build their own machine. If you didn't build your own machine it came with a legit (I assume that it's legit when you buy an e-machine or what have you) copy of win 9x. Now you've got a legit copy per machine, the only way that you could really start to pirate Windows is if you want to upgrade. The group that upgrades the OS is fairly small, the group that does it for free is a subset of that. It's just not very big.
_____________

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[stang]

I have friends come to me and ask me about an error message they get in Windows. For the love of god, why not go to Google, put in your error message, and search for the answer yourself? It's like taking your car to the mechanic and telling him it's not working, when what's really happened is you ran out of gas.

Yeah, except with Linux, they don't give you a gas gauge.

The problem here (and don't get me wrong, it's a Windows problem) is that the error message your friends are getting is practically worthless. Instead of having to root around the Web to find out what the message really means, the message should tell you in the first place.

Apparently, in the new beta version of Visual Studio, Microsoft has added a "Lame!" button to some (all?) of their error notifications. Press it, and your web browser launches and takes you to a page on the MS site where you can tell 'em exactly why this message sucks. This isn't perfect, but at least they're *trying* to make things easier.

Stability is not a good argument? [...] I like knowing that a glitch in code won't bring my system to a halt, force me to spend 5 minutes rebooting, and possibly cause data loss.

Me too -- that's why I run Windows 2000 (aka NT 5). Glitches in my code, or MSIE, or my dev environment don't bring my system to a halt. If you're (and not -you- personally, but anyone) doing development work in Win95/98/SE/ME, you're an idiot.

--

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[ichimunki]

I sure as hell hope they could do this under Linux, and I suspect that they can. I recall distinctly having to turn the automatic hardware change detection feature in Red Hat to "off" so that it would stop carping when I removed the keyboard and tried to reboot (I was testing system and network regeneration in case of power outage).

Finally, the only problem with Linux distributions that make it difficult for newbies is not all the underlying Unixosity. It's the fact that most distros offer you choices like KDE or GNOME. It's the fact that they've never encountered an OS that was originally intended for multiple users connecting via terminals to a single large machine-- and the distro does nothing to cover up this situation by using single user mode as the default. It's the fact that none of these applications are likely the ones their friends have or they use at work. It's not a Linux problem per se, it's the fact that no one has made the difficult choice to dumb down the distributions.

Also, replying to the moderation on your own post is lame. Really lame. Especially even more lame since your original post was written in such a way as to provoke argument, i.e. the clinical definition of "flamebait".

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[FFFish]

"Took me one second"

Rubbish! It took you *eons* to become fluent enough with the command line to be able to save time using the shell.

Me? I clicked my four fonts folders in sequence, and noted what Explorer reported the number of files in the folder to be. Added them up.

How long did it take you to learn all the intricacies of the LS command, the WC command and piping?

How long did it take me to learn to click a folder icon?


--

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[Kiwi]

I remember when Slashdot was a site by Linux users for Linux users. Now all the winvocates have moved in and taken over.

But, anyway, in reply to this particular winvocate.

Linux is free. Most users of Windows are pirates.

Yep. We get a lot of articles about how the RIAA is horrible for trying to stop people from stealing their music, and how the MPAA is horrible for trying to stop people from stealing their movies.

You get the source code of the OS. So what, I have never looked at the source. I never plan on looking at the source. So having access to the source is not a good argument.

Just because you have never had to use the source does not mean that other people have not. I recently chose to use a FTP server that did not have security problems, but had a problem with making uploaded web pages unreadable. It was a one-line source code change to fix. Another time, Qmail was giving me an obscure error message (since I was doing obscure things with Qmail) that a quick glance at the source code let me track down and fix.

So why are we people using Linux? Because Linux is Cool; and they are elite and like doing things the hard way

I do not think you can speak for me. The command line has a lof of powerful tools that make complicated tasks in Windows simple in Linux. More importantly, when something does break down, I can find out what is really going on, instead of installing software at random until the problem magically goes away.

- Sam

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[FFFish]

It looks like I must, once again, re-iterate my point, because Linux bigots are too narrow-minded to comprehend it the very first time:

*FOR ME* Linux *IS NOT* productive.

For starters, it does not allow me to use Ventura Publisher. The only Linux software that comes remotely close to Ventura is a buggy beta of Framemaker. Using buggy beta software does nothing to increase my productivity.

It doesn't allow me to use Visio, either. Linux does offer some Visio-like applications, but they're far from complete and, just as importantly, they're not compatible with the software my clients use. Using incompatible, incomplete software does nothing to increase my productivity.

*FOR YOU* Linux may well be productive. But face facts: *you* are *not* Corel's target market.

I *am* Corel's target market: I use Ventura, Photopaint, Draw and would, if my clients were more hip to quality software, use WordPerfect.

Until Corel Linux supports those Corel products -- and Ventura is by far the most important to me -- then Linux is simply not a productive operating system *for me.*

You, hacking in GCC or running a webserver or doing whatever it is you do, *are not* Corel's target market. You're the target market for Debian and RedHat.

I wish the Linux bigots would grab a freaking clue: different people have different needs, and Linux *does not* satisfy the needs of *a lot* of people right now.

Just as Windows doesn't satisfy the needs of *a lot* of Linux bigots. Hey, they're using Linux because it's best for them.

Just please don't insist that it's best for me, too. It plainly is not.

--

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[kinnunen]

> Lack of Productivity Software. (Yes, I like Word and Outlook).
Do you like VBS worms?

Yet another nice, typical Linux-answer.
- "I can't do my work using Linux because I need application XYZ"
- "That's stupid and so are you, just use the same software I use. If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for the rest of the world".

--

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[spitzak]

How the hell did you know what "folder" to click? I guess it was intuitive, huh?

However, font support on Linux sucks. Trying to argue otherwise is pointless and idiotic. I should be able to put a font in a directory and have it be immediately usable on my screen and printer (like Windoze except without the reboot).

You should return to your original arguments, which made a lot of sense, you have allowed the Linux zealots to get you into a rather inane arguemnt about a very obscure area (counting fonts) where Linux obviously wins.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[Chris Johnson]

No, this is a problem not an axiom. Your assertion 'a company has to live and die by what most people do/think/buy' is misleading and untrue.

• Apple
• Rolls-Royce
• Harley-Davidson
• Rickenbacker
• Martin-Logan
• Jadis
• Cartier
• Boeing
• Caterpillar
• Mack

None of these companies pay attention to what 'most' people do/think/buy. In some cases they are providing boutique items, in others they are providing performance items at staggering cost, and in some they are just plain vertical market and the buyer is not 'most people', it is a specific target like an airline or a contracting company.

It's always shocked and dismayed me that so many computer people assume the computer industry can be reduced to 'most people'. That's like saying Toyotas are equivalent to Mack Trucks and Caterpillar tractors. True, most people have no clue what the semi-trailer market is like: however, in the computer industry because of the greatly enhanced communication of the Internet and the public expectations for software companies (basically, 'be like Microsoft or be crushed by Microsoft), there is more of a risk of legitimate vertical markets being destroyed by the _expectation_ that they will be destroyed, since they are not mainstream. When it becomes an issue of standards and interoperability, this risk becomes still worse- sure you could make a nifty optical packet switch for vertical markets, but what if Microsoft controls the whole environment and would rather people used NT routers? If they could break the environment around your nifty switch they _create_ your destruction, artificially, in a way they couldn't do if you were, say, building trucks.

The end result is either going to be a grudging acceptance of vertical markets and unorthodox needs (even on 'the desktop': people use desktops for many different things), or a wasteland, a 'Dark Ages' in which no innovation can happen because all needs are 'met' by very generic products which are expected to work perfectly for everyone- 'proved' by the fact that no competing products can arise. The assumption is that the generic, 'most people' product is therefore the best one. The reality is that the industry is a lot more sensitive to network effects than anyone bargained for, and this stifles genuine innovations for specialised purposes at birth. If you won't look beyond the 'dummy' rationalisation of 'it must be the best solution 'cos everyone uses it so logically nothing better has been proposed or tried', you won't ever get beyond a sort of Wal-Mart environment (physically and intellectually) and will be sharply limited in the tasks you're able to perform, without even knowing it.

Basically, in order to get anywhere you have to reject network effects. You can't 'run everything' or be 'compatible' with everything. You have to make choices. If you don't or won't you just end up in Wal-Mart-land playing Diablo on WinME and waiting for other people to decide that your interests are 'most people' enough to provide.

Re:Why Corel is right to sell out

[extrasolar]

Don't mind the zealots. The non-zealots are the ones building that application that you require as we speak. The zealots are the ones who spend too much time on Slashdot slapping each other on the back about how good their OS is.

You know...your voice counts. There are any number of Free Software applications that could have the features you need in a few years. These projects tend to evolve from user input. In the past the users with the voice were the administrators, the web authors, and the software developers. But if you go to a project (KWord seems like a good start but if someone could post alternatives...) subscribe to their mailing list, and tell them frankly "Hi I need X, Y, and Z, features to move to GNU/Linux" and if they inquire, give them details about what exactly your needs are and why you need them. If the developers aren't interested, then just back away. It would be impossible to convince them. But a lot of developers of Free Software are explicitly trying to make GNU/Linux more useful for a broader class of users. A lot of times, they just need to know how.

It kind of works different in the Free Software world. In order to get what you want out of the software, you have to get involved in the process of its development. Free Software isn't a spectator sport like propietary software sometimes is. Now...it could mean actual development of your own. But it could also be explaining to the developers exactly what your needs are.

Also note that this isn't the right forum for getting actual changes. Its a good forum for opinion but it has nothing to do with actual progress.

But I am curious...what exactly are your needs? What is in this application of yours that you couldn't achieve with TeX, Mozilla + CSS, or postscript? Yes, I know these are complicated tools...but it is a start.

(Note, I haven't read all of the preceeding posts...sorry, no time.)

Always thought it strange

[photozz]

I always thought it was a little strange that a graphics company tries to jump into the desktop OS market. It's way outside their core competency and not in line with their other product offerings, just to throw in a few corporate buzwords. Their marketing department certainly dosen't seem up to it. It's nice to see major old school (for the computer industry andyway..) companies supporting Linux, but it realy should be someone with a little OS experiance.

sinking ship

[Juliet]

it's a sinking ship.. and they are trying to salvage as much as possible.. what better than to grab onto something as big and over-inflated, and full of air like MS! ;>

The market just doesn't exist yet

[update()]

The Linux world has a collective delusion that if we just keep repeating that there's a large market for commercial desktop applications, it will somehow magically become true. Meanwhile, CmdrTaco is booting into Windows to play Diablo and then wonders why software vendors Don't Get It.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the impressive market share numbers are driven by servers, farms and Red Hat partitions that the owner means to get around to using some day. And the folks who are actually using Linux anywhere near full-time on the desktop have been conditioned to believe that paying for software is an unfair imposition on them. Yeah, there's a market for Linux productivity apps but it's nowhere near enough to keep a company like Corel going.

Re:The market just doesn't exist yet

[Ektanoor]

Cool. Commercial desktop applications or playing Diablo? What should we choose from your argumentation? If you talk about commercial applications then you're wrong. Yes you don't have them at a click distance. But on a good Linux setup you've always to get your hands dirty.

If you consider Diablo then you are correct. But then don't mess a commercial game with office apps or design tools. You are not paid for playing Diablo but for doing the real job.

On what concerns any possible hassles companies, like Corel, face, then it is natural. The business model on Linux is not the same as Windows. You build systems fit for tasks and not tasks fit for systems as M$ does. If you don't understand this then try to dig on the last 15 years of computer development and tell me where 80% of apps went into. How many office systems you may get in the market? How many design tools are offered? What is the range multimedia tools today, compared to 5-6 years ago? How many compilers and development tools are offered to you? How far can you change system settings, desktop environments? And how flexible are all these things for you to modify, integrate, improve, implement and interact in a software/hardware system?
Am I talking BS? Cool. Then why I can't choose between command line typping and mouse clicks anymore?

Re:The market just doesn't exist yet

[LHOOQtius_ov_Borg]

This gets back to the issue of Linux not being easy enough for your usual desktop productivity suite users to work with. Here is where the "get around to using some day" folks come in... If they have it, but aren't using it - and I know this is common - there is a problem.

One problem is that Linux is difficult and unfamiliar, even with nice installers, etc. like RedHat's it still takes a while to *configure* (especially since many of the graphical configuration tools are so unstable and slow - I generally do everything at the command line because of this, despite not being a command-line-only snob...)

Another is that while StarOffice, Corel, and Applixware are all fine and well, M$ Office is still actually better. Linux developers find it sexy to work on the kernel, but where are all the Linux application developers making better apps for Linux? A handful of games, word processors, dbs and spreadsheets do not a useful desktop OS make... People, the ones who buy stuff and make the computer market a market, have come to expect a wide selection of software. Linux doesn't have it. UNIX is really great for developers, but somehow this hasn't translated into developers developing things on it that make it really great for everyone else. Almost everything on *nix seems to be required to have a dated look, feel half-finished (or BE half-finshed), and require strange (by desktop user standards) behaviors to make things work - I guess professional grade software other than kernels isn't "cool" enough for *nix developers to work on it...

Also, don't forget, Corel's suite has competition from Applixware and Sun's free StarOffice... That is also probably part of their problem. While all three are sub-standard compared to Office, and Corel is the best of the three, Corel also has put more money into making themselves the best and many Linux people would rather have a mediocre program for free than a good piece of software they have to pay for.

It's not suprising they're looking to sell their Linux business - I wonder who will buy? Maybe RedHat could take over the office suite, add a nice Outlook-like mail tool and a decent Web browser and go to town... Or maybe that's too much work for a Linux company...

Re:The market just doesn't exist yet

[Kiwi]

And the folks who are actually using Linux anywhere near full-time on the desktop have been conditioned to believe that paying for software is an unfair imposition on them.

Oh boy, another Winvocate speaking for us full-time Linux users again. Why am I not surprised?

Seriously, slashdot.org is, quite frankly, a software/media-pirate friendly site. So, you get a lot of people here who believe silly tripe like abolishing copyright laws. I do not think this represents the majority of Linux users.

I once heard a story about someone who was at a swap meet. He was buying some Linux software, and wrote a check. The person who received the check did not even ask for the Linux user's driver's license. When the Linux user asked why, the seller responded "Linux users are very honest people. I can trust them."

As for myself, I have bought a number of applications and even a couple of games for Linux. Word Perfect office, Applixware (two versions), Caldera's internet office suite (anyone remeber that), countless distributions (both as cheapbytes/linuxmall/lsl/linuxcentral CDs and as official CDs), Loki's Heroes of Might and Magic II, among other software.

- Sam

No vision

[Ih8sG8s]

Corel has no vision. It has been in downward spiral ever since it decided it could do more than create a good graphics package. It chose the wrong markets. By the time they picked up Wordperfect, Office had already won the war and they failed to see it. Scrambling, and with nowhere to turn, they decide to adpot Linux and once again battle the giant. Subsequently, they decide to port their deprecated Wordperfect stuff to Linux, but do it with an ugly, ugly hack using Wine. WP over Wine is a pig and buggy, so it's generally seen as inferior to other, *free* office suites for Linux. Now they can't beat the giant *or* please their newly adpoted user-base. Meanwhile, Photoshop surpasses Draw and becomes the defacto standard for Windows graphics editing and creation. Michael is charged with insider trading, and nothing is heard of the charges afterwards, but he does step down. In comes the newbie who decides that maybe Linux isn't the right way to go. ~Maybe we should just give up and jump in bed with Microsoft~, and ~Maybe we should just aquire a company that has a clue about Linux~ Maybe you should give your head a shake. Now the newbie stands in the lookout atop the mast of a 4/5 sunken ship, attempting to sail this ship out of trouble. And still now, he wonders publically how he should approach sailing it. ~Hmm, maybe we should buy someone who knows how to sail~. Maybe you should.

Consolidation?

[istartedi]

There could be consolidation in the Linux sector. Market down, lots of companies in trouble now. Time for the losers to look for lifelines, and the winners to prey on panic and fear.

What would be odd here?

[ackthpt]

Correl borrowing from Microsoft to add to Linux suite of applications, thus creating a transparent conflict of interest? Or concern that Microsoft might taint it?

Perhaps it just doesn't make money and they feel it's not the direction they want to go and simply sell it off to someone who would care. I was part of a spin off, once. There are good and clear reasons when you are on the inside, some anxiety, but you'd rather be spun than shut down.

--

One Good Reasons and a Conspiracy Theory

[dwdyer]

First off, Corel hasn't had a real direction in years. They were a specialty software company, then they caught the WordPerfect football after it had been kicked around a dozen times, then they came up with a Linux distro, then there was the NetWinder. I don't see a clear business objective in all this. If they dump the Linux distro, they can at least focus on their core business -- application software.

And now for the conspiracy -- they get money from Microsoft in the form of "nonvoting" shares, but Corel's so strapped for cash that Microsoft gets some serious influence. They do the .NET deal, but Corel doesn't have the resources to do anything with in it Linux, and Microsoft doesn't want that anyway, so they get rid of the Linux distro, and keep the rights to do .NET in Linux. Linux support in their application SW will be left to wither on the vine, and they'll sit on the .NET porting rights.

Don't laugh -- the same thing happened to the 100 mpg carburetor!!

One thing to note: They're Canadian

[BluedemonX]

Which means that they have tons of crap to deal with, like charging the GST (Goods and Services Tax) - paying outrageous amounts of employee taxes, collecting confiscatory amounts of income tax, etc.

Kind of hard to compete internationally when you have a communist dictator for the leader of your country who seems to think any kind of profit you make should be siphoned off to fatten his home district.

A lot of Canadian businesses are going under and/or being sold simply because of the crap economy to the North, and the level of taxation and red tape there is choking the life out of what's left.

Re:One thing to note: They're Canadian

[twit]

A lot of Canadian businesses are going under and/or being sold simply because of the crap economy to the North

Well, south of the border, I see massive internet market consolidation (that is, businesses being bought up). 130 US net firms have gone bankrupt since January, and November is moving along at a rate of more than one per day. Canadian businesses seem to be doing better than that, not worse.

and the level of taxation and red tape there is choking the life out of what's left.

The taxation scheme is different in Canada when compared to the US. The federal government's share of payroll taxes in Canada is much greater than the federal government's share in the US. When you compare combined state and federal taxes, to combined provincial and federal taxes, they're comparable.

One might wonder why it's the high-tax jurisdictions in the US (MA, CA, NY) that have done so well with the new economy. Don't high taxes inhibit economic growth? Look at that barren wasteland of innovation, Silicon Valley.

A study, released November 13, by Harvard University and the World Bank showed that Canada has the lowest level of red tape for startups of 76 developed and developing nations. The Report on Business also mentioned it November 15, 16 and 17. Perhaps you simply don't read the business pages, although I find that hard to believe with your oh-so-extensive knowledge of Canadian economics and business affairs.

--

Re:One thing to note: They're Canadian

[BluedemonX]

RE: Well, south of the border, I see massive internet market consolidation (that is, businesses being bought up). 130 US net firms have gone bankrupt since January, and November is moving along at a rate of more than one per day. Canadian businesses seem to be doing better than that, not worse.

Cause Canadians never HAD that business to consolidate.

RE: One might wonder why it's the high-tax jurisdictions in the US (MA, CA, NY) that have done so well with the new economy. Don't high taxes inhibit economic growth? Look at that barren wasteland of innovation, Silicon Valley.

Funnily enough though, all these corporations are "a Delaware Corporation". There's no Canadian equivalent.

Re:One thing to note: They're Canadian

[twit]

Delaware is a jurisdiction of convenience because of its nonexistent corporate taxes. You don't pay corporate taxes when you're losing money. Most net firms haven't come within a country mile of making money, so the Delaware incorporation is irrelevant.

Nice try, though.

--

How to set up a Linux system for mothers...

[bero-rh]

I recently converted my parents to using Linux, and it went without much of a hassle.

Some of the things I did to the system are not exactly standard, but work for them(tm).

Quick instructions:

• Install your favorite Linux distribution (I used Red Hat Linux 7 + fixes)
• Install KDE 2.0 (download RPMs)
• Install autologin so they don't need to handle users and permissions
• Install StarOffice - anyone who has used M$ office before can learn to use it quickly, they're not that different UI-wise
• Create a link to StarOffice on the desktop
• Install wine and set up binfmt_misc to execute .exe files out of the box for some Windows applications they want to use

Concerning the problems you're addressing:

• Lack of Productivity Software: What exactly are you missing? StarOffice is at least as good as Word for normal use, KMail is at least as good as Outlook (and not vulnerable to VBS viruses)
• Lack of fonts: Linux can use the exact same TrueType fonts Windows can use. At least any modern distribution can. XFree86 4.0 has TrueType support by default, Red Hat and Mandrake (and probably others) have shipped patched XFree86 3.x servers to handle TrueType fonts before that, SuSE has shipped xfstt (an alternate TrueType fontserver).
• Lack of popular games: There are currently more Windoze games than Linux games, yes. But a lot of very good games ARE available for Linux. For the others, there's always wine and dual boot.
• Lack of drive support: Such as??? I've never had a problem with my drives on Linux
• No easy way of doing things: What's hard about KDE 2.0? And what functionality do beginners need that KDE 2.0 doesn't provide?

A couple of advantages my parents have from converting to Linux:

• They can't mess up their system anymore (thanks to the fact that, unlinke Windows 9x, you don't work as root all the time in Linux)
• Stability. No more bluescreens.
• Much better net access (Last time I checked, Windoze couldn't share an ISDN connection between 2 computers. Did they fix this in ME?)
• Easy way to get things fixed up - if they have a problem, I can just ssh in and fix it. Show me a way to do that with Windows without spending a lot of money on extra software.
• It's free as in $0 - no need to waste money on buying updates to the OS and Office suite

Interesting...

[Svartalf]

This is the same people backing HelixCode, CodeWeavers, MetroLink, others.

Re:.net = multiplatform -- NOT

[catseye_95051]

If you actually read their stuff, the only "multi-platform" support .NET has or is ever likely to is Win NT/98/CE.

Win-something the only platforms MS ever wants to encourage anyoen to use.

Re:Pay more attention to History

[Dr. Evil]

I still have the WP5.1 for Windows floppies. It was a terrible product. WP5.2 was a very significant improvement. It was actually usable.

But remember something else about the time period in which Wordperfect was dealing. This was the time of killer apps, and people on PCs usually ran only one application at a time. 1-2-3 and WordPerfect were great.

At the time Microsoft had its own products which it was trying to sell. Windows was built around running Excel. It didn't have the complex memory limitations of 1-2-3 and it could run several tasks simultaneously. I've heard some rumoured compromises concerning the features of Windows which are supposedly related to Excel, but I've never been able to confirm them.

Now think about Wordperfect and other application developers. Which GUI do you target? Desqview/X, which was showing remarkable promise, Do you feed into the hands of a ruthless competitor and develop for their GUI?, Do you target Geos?, MacOS?, or wait for something better?

Then Microsoft saw that it had a unique advantage... they could bundle their OS with their GUI, and their Spreadsheet with their Wordprocessor. Undercutting everybody at every turn. If Lotus and Wordperfect merged, there may have been a very different outcome.

5.2 was slow to market, but WP was still strong when Word was trying to take hold. Wordperfect didn't kill Wordperfect, Microsoft's tying and bundling killed Wordperfect. Yes, the GUI version of 5.1 sucked horridly, but so did many versions of Word.

If doubt the diversity of platforms and the reluctance to be controlled by the likes of Microsoft, think about the control Microsoft exercised over Lotus, and think about the fact that over time WordPerfect has existed for DOS, OS/2, Linux, almost Java and even Windows.

Go back to the drawing board.

[be-fan]

Linux has so many problems on the desktop it isn't even funny. Sure the basics are there, but it is all so poorly put together that it is quite obvious to anyone why Linux on the mass-market desktop isn't taking off. I think the best thing to do would be to work to polish Linux up. Forget about putting more nifty features in the DEs, creating four different filesystems, a browser that rivels Emacs in overkill factor and get the basics done. For example: 1) Polish up X. 4.0 was a huge leap forward for people in terms of usability, but it still needs work. First, get a GUI to configure it. Relying on a text file to configure something like inetd is one thing; it is so complex that a GUI would be very confusing. However, XFree86Config has so little in it, a GUI should be no problem! All it does is specify a list of modules, specify fontpaths, and set some options for input/output devices. It would be a piece of cake to totally wrap all the features of xf86config (XF86Setup still hasn't been updated yet, AIRC) into a nice GUI program. Second, make it as usable as every other GUI interface in existance. Every single GUI I've ever used, (BeOS, all flavors of Windows since 3.0, QNX Photon, OS/2) have let you choose an exact refresh rate. Why the hell can't X do it? (The sad part is that it probably can, but in the last hour that i've been trying, I can find neither the documentation that says so, nor does anything that comes with the X distro tell me how to do so. Maybe I should read the source?) Hell, even accelerated X lets you set the exact refresh rate! Why can't X change the resolution on the fly? You wouldn't believe how useful BeOS's seperate workspace/seperate res setting is. It helps when you're doing graphics work, when you're doing web work, and even when you're gaming. Set one of the 32 workspaces to a certain resoluation and just switch to that and load your 640x480 game. Lastly, speed it up. Again, 4.0 has made huge strides in this area, but it is still not good enough. The sad part is that the X guys are probably the ones who most "get" what is wrong with Linux on the desktop and are working to fix it. 2) Get a standard DE API. Its great that there are all sorts of UIs out there, that's not a problem. What IS a problem is that there are different APIs for them. All software should be coded for one GUI API, and the window manager should interpret that as necessary. It is totally horrible to anyone with any sense of cleanliness to see the mess that is the miasma of libraries that makes up a common Linux system. You've got TclX, KDE, GNOME, OpenStep, straight-X, Motif, FLTK, etc. That is ugly, ass-ugly. It also makes Linux take up as much RAM as Win2K. That is simply wrong. Not only that, it is confusing. Mandrake installs dozens of different apps that do the same thing, but use different UIs. For example, you can get XCDRoast (ugly UI), gnometoaster (I don't use GNOME) or cdrecord (CLI, hah!) In an ideal world, there would be one GUI API and no matter what desktop you used, it would work. I liked the way it was in the pre enlightenment era when apps weren't tied to DEs. All apps worked on WindowMaker, FVWM, MWM, etc without extra libraries, and with the same (butt-ugly) straight-X interface. Sure you can run a GNOME app in KDE, but it still quacks like a GNOME app, waddles like a GNOME app, and tastes like a GNOME app. (I dislike duck, chicken is best.) 3) Make the advanced features of Linux more accessible. All the cool features that make Linux worthwhile to switch too are often hidden to the average user. If you run KDE, the only thing you gain over running Windows is more stability. All the stuff that makes Linux cool is hidden to you unless you A) Learn the CLI, AND B) Give up the consistant interface of KDE. Yea, it takes work. Yea, it takes thinking. It means that instead of sitting down and just coding, the KDE and GNOME guys actually have to use their brains and decide how everything fits together. A user environment is a home for the user. People don't like poorly architecture/organized homes (no matter how solidly built) and people don't like poorly architectured DEs (most anyway.) Creating a user environment is like writing a sonnet or a novel. Everything has to have a purpose, parts shouldn't be redundant, everything has to harmonize together. That's the only good way to do it. With al the effor being expended putting useless features into GNOME and KDE, the Linux crowd could have taken AfterStep or WindowMaker long ago and have shaped Linux into a desktop-worthy OS today. Its a shame that people are working so hard to fix something that isn't the problem.

Re:Go back to the drawing board.

[be-fan]

Good grief, /. changes the default posting mode every day? (Or is it just a concpiracy. Does /. detect NetPositive and go about screwing hapless BeOS users?)

Linux has so many problems on the desktop it isn't even funny. Sure the basics are there, but it is all so poorly put together that it is quite obvious to anyone why Linux on the mass-market desktop isn't taking off. I think the best thing to do would be to work to polish Linux up. Forget about putting more nifty features in the DEs, creating four different filesystems, a browser that rivels Emacs in overkill factor and get the basics done. For example:

1) Polish up X. 4.0 was a huge leap forward for people in terms of usability, but it still needs work. First, get a GUI to configure it. Relying on a text file to configure something like inetd is one thing; it is so complex that a GUI would be very confusing. However, XFree86Config has so little in it, a GUI should be no problem! All it does is specify a list of modules, specify fontpaths, and set some options for input/output devices. It would be a piece of cake to totally wrap all the features of xf86config (XF86Setup still hasn't been updated yet, AIRC) into a nice GUI program. Second, make it as usable as every other GUI interface in existance. Every single GUI I've ever used, (BeOS, all flavors of Windows since 3.0, QNX Photon, OS/2) have let you choose an exact refresh rate. Why the hell can't X do it? (The sad part is that it probably can, but in the last hour that i've been trying, I can find neither the documentation that says so, nor does anything that comes with the X distro tell me how to do so. Maybe I should read the source?) Hell, even accelerated X lets you set the exact refresh rate! Why can't X change the resolution on the fly? You wouldn't believe how useful BeOS's seperate workspace/seperate res setting is. It helps when you're doing graphics work, when you're doing web work, and even when you're gaming. Set one of the 32 workspaces to a certain resoluation and just switch to that and load your 640x480 game. Lastly, speed it up. Again, 4.0 has made huge strides in this area, but it is still not good enough. The sad part is that the X guys are probably the ones who most "get" what is wrong with Linux on the desktop and are working to fix it.

2) Get a standard DE API. Its great that there are all sorts of UIs out there, that's not a problem. What IS a problem is that there are different APIs for them. All software should be coded for one GUI API, and the window manager should interpret that as necessary. It is totally horrible to anyone with any sense of cleanliness to see the mess that is the miasma of libraries that makes up a common Linux system. You've got TclX, KDE, GNOME, OpenStep, straight-X, Motif, FLTK, etc. That is ugly, ass-ugly. It also makes Linux take up as much RAM as Win2K. That is simply wrong. Not only that, it is confusing. Mandrake installs dozens of different apps that do the same thing, but use different UIs. For example, you can get XCDRoast (ugly UI), gnometoaster (I don't use GNOME) or cdrecord (CLI, hah!) In an ideal world, there would be one GUI API and no matter what desktop you used, it would work. I liked the way it was in the pre enlightenment era when apps weren't tied to DEs. All apps worked on WindowMaker, FVWM, MWM, etc without extra libraries, and with the same (butt-ugly) straight-X interface. Sure you can run a GNOME app in KDE, but it still quacks like a GNOME app, waddles like a GNOME app, and tastes like a GNOME app. (I dislike duck, chicken is best.)

3) Make the advanced features of Linux more accessible. All the cool features that make Linux worthwhile to switch too are often hidden to the average user. If you run KDE, the only thing you gain over running Windows is more stability. All the stuff that makes Linux cool is hidden to you unless you
A) Learn the CLI, AND
B) Give up the consistant interface of KDE.
Yea, it takes work. Yea, it takes thinking. It means that instead of sitting down and just coding, the KDE and GNOME guys actually have to use their brains and decide how everything fits together. A user environment is a home for the user. People don't like poorly architecture/organized homes (no matter how solidly built) and people don't like poorly architectured DEs (most anyway.) Creating a user environment is like writing a sonnet or a novel. Everything has to have a purpose, parts shouldn't be redundant, everything has to harmonize together. That's the only good way to do it.

With al the effor being expended putting useless features into GNOME and KDE, the Linux crowd could have taken AfterStep or WindowMaker long ago and have shaped Linux into a desktop-worthy OS today. Its a shame that people are working so hard to fix something that isn't the problem.