Corel Linux FAQ

My biggest question by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 02:11 · Score: 0

They didn't answer my biggest question, which
is how compatible will it be with the standard
Debian distribution. Specifically, if I use
CLD, can I install normal Debian packages?
Can upgrade a Debian install to CLD? Can I use
apt to do it? Can I install CLD packages on
a standard Debian system?

Inquiring minds wish to know. :)

Re:My biggest question by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 03:22 · Score: 0

Considering that they are applying to join the LSB, I would think that you don't have anything to worry about. Furthermore, I can't help but think that apt is one major reason they chose Debian.
Re:My biggest question by zyklone · 1999-06-05 02:49 · Score: 1

I can't really see why they would decide to replace apt. My guess is that they will write an new GUI for it or something like that.
Re:My biggest question by Sinistrad · 1999-06-05 02:23 · Score: 1

Good question...

I'd hope that they will stick the standard Debian packages so you can use all of Debian's standard installation routines... Obviously tons of effort has gone into these installation routines (just look at how good apt is compared to dselect), it would be silly to throw it all out.

So hopefully if they create their own installation procedures (which the FAQ seems to indicate they will, to help newbiews out) they will at least keep the underlying formats compatible. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't -- the extra manpower to maintain every package in a different format would be huge, while .deb's are already being maintained, at no cost to Corel.

--
James
To err is human, to really screw up takes a computer.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 02:38 · Score: 0

These comments are crazy. Mainly, if corel was the only producer of Linux, it'd be the same. but it isn't because Linux isn't theirs. Also, if MS decided to bundle Windows with Word, we'd all be happy, cause it would save us $$$.

What are you thinking?

The reason... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 02:41 · Score: 0

...we are attacking Microsoft is because they, the gov't, claim that IE is hard coded, so to speak, into the inner workings of Windows 98, and can't be separated. Thus you are basically forced to having IE on your Win98 system. However, Corel bundling WP doesn't mean you have to have it or even install, and if you want you can uninstall for ever, and use Klyx or something.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 03:23 · Score: 0

I'm not screaming at MS for not releasing their code. But anyhow..

Microsoft's fault wasn't the bundling of Internet Explorer, but how it became the 'next version' of the explorer shell, which was included with 98 without even an option to use the old 'non-internet' explorer as a shell.

Corel hasn't given any indication that it's possible bundling in the applications is going to be anything along the same lines as Internet Explorer.

As a matter of fact, it seems as if Corel's creation of CLD isn't because it's interested in having a linux distribution, but because it's a necessary step in the gentle tug to help move their own popular applications to a better platform-- if most of their customers aren't running Linux, why not provide it instead of forcing them to choose the Windows product? And if most of their customers aren't as 'technically inclined' (or whatever you choose to call it), why not just change the distribution to suit their intended audience's level of expertise?

HP Printer Drivers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 03:30 · Score: 0

If you're using a LaserJet, anything since the LJ III is backwards compatible with the LJ III PCL driver.

If you're using a DeskJet, ugh, I'm sorry. Good luck.

(Oh, and how could I forget Web JetAdmin for Linux?)

Re:HP Printer Drivers by Surak · 1999-06-05 04:41 · Score: 1

Several HP drivers are available for Linux in/for the Ghostscript product. The following are installed in my copy of GNU Ghostscript (three of them are "aftermarket" though):

deskjet djet500 laserjet ljetplus ljet2p ljet3 ljet4 cdeskjet cdjcolor cdjmono cdj550 pj pjxl pjxl300 cdj850 cdj890 cdj1600

ljet3 and ljet4 are the LaserJet III and 4 drivers. all the cdjXXX drivers are the appropriate HP DeskJet XXX printers (I have an HP DeskJet 890Cse). The parallel version of the 895 should be compatible with the 890 driver (the USB version won't work for reasons which should be obvious). The 722 should also be compatible with the 890 driver (they are practically the same printer except for paper handling and speed)

Most other DeskJets are compatible with the 550 driver. (I used to use my 890 with the 550 driver until I got the 890 driver, which supports 600DPI black text).

If you have one of the DeskJets that use the Windows Printing System (ie they use GDI rather than PCL) then I'm sorry for you.

Check Aladdin's site for more info...

--
My journal has hot /. gossip.

Re:Not just installation..hp printers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 03:58 · Score: 0

hp has some of the worst drivers in the windows world much less linux...which is a real shame because they do make good reliable printers
but its often a driver of the week game to keep them running and not crashing windows.
i have a feeling that if good drivers for linux become available it wont be from hp.
Maybe Corel or some of the the other deap pockets will put some money towards producing stable
drivers for them.One can only hope...

k

Re:PPC distribution by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 04:01 · Score: 0

Yes, it should be a big advantage of Open Source that it emphasizes portability. Why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centered? Let's ask instead why the other low-end platform is so antagonistic to Linux. That's an easily answered and more germane question. Apple Computer is developing and selling a product they want to compete against Linux with: OSX-Server. OSX-S is important to holding their market in printing and publishing. It doesn't compete against Linux in Linux's main server market, but Linux could compete against OSX in OSX-server's main market, if you follow me. And it's not being totally paranoid to see a possibility that Linux could someday be competing with OSX-consumer in the graphic design market. Say SGI nudges Adobe into porting their apps over to Linux as a faster, more robust solution than NT.(Could happen: Adobe has more to fear from Microsoft now than Apple does) Apple really have no margin for error, so antipathy for Linux is sort of natural.

As for X being broken on your iMac, are you pissed at Xfree86.org for that, or ATI? XFree86 is not a Linux specific project. The ati rage pro turbo chipset in your imac is (probably) an Apple imac specific implementation. ATI could provide information needed to XFree86, but I gather they don't give a fork. Apple (Darwin notwithstanding) is absolutely closed, and they have no good reason that I can see to be open. So why be bitter? Build yourself a AMD box or dual celeron, set it up for dualbooting (hose someone's Wintendoze for games) and let Apple be Apple. (If you _need_ an Apple OTHO I understand --I do so I own one- but nobody that needs an Apple needs an iMac. I'm not against expensive toys, but one can't really complain about their limitations since they are purely optional purchases)

Re:PPC distribution--LINUX PPC 5.0 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 04:22 · Score: 0

I would have to agree with your comments on the ppc distro. Personally, I would like to see a bsd distro for the pmac (or X on darwin, which is basically a BSD distro). Anyway, on MacOSRumors they posted a blurb saying linuxppc 5.0 has gone gm. Hopefully it will be significantly better.

Re:PPC distribution--LINUX PPC 5.0 by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 05:14 · Score: 0

If you go the linuxppc.com web site, you will notice that they no longer say buy R4.1, get R5 for free. Now it is only R5. This change occured at the same time as when the blurb in macosrumors appeared. Yipeee!! I've only been waiting since Feb. for this to happen.:-)

The problem with BSD... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 06:34 · Score: 0

...is that it has a crappy name.

Good names:

Linux
Java
Perl

bad names:

BSD
OS/2
C++

There's more to success than technical excellence; you have to have a cool name.

Re:The problem with BSD... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 08:00 · Score: 0

Yet Unix has been popular for twenty years.
True, but I happen to like the name UNIX. :-)
Re:The problem with BSD... by HiThere · 1999-06-05 09:30 · Score: 1

I like SNOBOL. Both the name and the language. I'm sure that if it had lived, it would be marvelous by now. Those unstructured goto's though... now those needed to be fixed some how.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:The problem with BSD... by for(;;); · 1999-06-05 07:20 · Score: 1

Truly bad names:

revrdist
Unix
LISP
SNOBOL
yacc

There are plenty of successful (and unsuccessful) computer products with atrocious names. An operating system name hononymous with the name for castrated men is not a marketer's dream. Yet Unix has been popular for twenty years.

--

"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:06 · Score: 0

Only Netscape/Mozilla apps can really use Mozilla code -- Gnome, for instance, can't cut and paste useful bits of code from Mozilla

Hasn't this been rectified? A little while ago, IIRC, Netscape changed the NPL to basically change Mozilla to a dual-licensed [MN]PL/GPL codebase. RMS even asked everyone to play nicely and not fork the code . . . .

Re:Corel brings credibility to Linux. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:10 · Score: 0

Out of curiousity, why the beef with Applix?

Re:HP "Win/GDI"-Printers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:12 · Score: 0

GDI/Win-Printers from HP do have support under linux albeit black and white only. See http://www.httptech.com/ppa/ for more information. I use a DeskJet 722C with this driver and i can't complain. I never use color in the first place. Now if we could only get redhat and the other distro's to start including this in their default print filters...

Big egos? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:13 · Score: 0

Where have you heard about the "big egos" of the FreeBSD core? I'm just a lowly user, but from what I see on mailing lists and posts on slashdot from FreeBSD developers, they don't seem to have a big ego. I think a lot of them are kinda annoyed by the fact that linux gets all this news and support while FreeBSD gets little. This applies more to drivers than software, since linux emu is excellent.

Re:Big egos? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 10:42 · Score: 0

The *BSD are in different groups because of different goals, and unlike Linux, they have different kernels and such. And there's plenty of code sharing among *BSDs, especially between Net and Free. If you look at all the linux distros, they each have different goals, like the *BSDs, but w/ linux people think of "Linux OS" not in terms of distros, while *BSDs are recognized as different OSes.

And what about mentioning *BSD positively in Linux centric places . . . I've seen so much anti-BSD stuff here on slashdot . . .
Re:Big egos? by InvisibleCraterFunk · 1999-06-05 07:45 · Score: 1

I don't have exact sources, but if you look at how the BSD projects have splintered into three just because of some flamewars on their mailinglists. For instance look at http://www.theos.com/deraadt/coremail.ht ml.
Similarily the developer of Beowulf (I forget his name, the 3com driver guy) also had problems with getting help with modifications of the kernel (which he also didn't very stable) to suit his special task.

Try to mention Linux positively on freebsd newsgroups (they'll come to your door at night, heavily armed).

Re:Debian ehh? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:19 · Score: 0

Gee, i'm runnin 3.2 -STABLE, and i've had no problems for the most part four months i've been running FreeBSD. The two things that screw my machine up: OSS Sound Drivers for my crappy sound card (this has been reported by many people, I think the OSS drivers are buggy), X windows w/ xfstt.

Since i'm using nVidia's XF86_SVGA server w/ truetype now, I probably won't have any problems with X.

Office Suites?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:33 · Score: 0

Why do people want "Office Suites"?
They all suck: They're all bloated pieces of software trying to do too much. And Office Suites aren't done the "UNIX way" either: a bunch of smaller programs interoperating to do a good job. Why not use laTeX (or the quite useable - though ugly - frontend LyX) for word processing, get a spreadsheet if and when you need it, etc, etc.
Do you really need a big integrated package? I almost never use a spreadsheet, so why would I get software when I don't use it. And, by not getting a big office suite, you can support free software by using it.

And don't tell "for those coming from Windows, they need something similar." UNIX is a different culture and philosophy: don't try to have them be a Windows user who just so happens to use UNIX.

btw: Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS was the greatest!!
Small, efficient, and it did everything!

Re:Office Suites?? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:14 · Score: 0

bash isn't the Unix way. Neither is Emacs. And real unix hackers read and send email using the mail command.

And don't get me going about that X window thing...
Re:Office Suites?? by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 11:39 · Score: 1

I sort of agree. I don't think a good WYSIWIG word processor is too much to ask, and I don't think that you're not a real man unless you use LaTeX, but I do think that suites are a waste. I use WP7 Suite when I happen to be in Windows, and it includes Quattro Pro, Presentations, and God knows what-all other crap that nobody wants, but they bundle because they know that nobody wants it, but at least they can get another $20 for. I like Emacs, but I'm not about to use it to write essays in.

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Re:Office Suites?? by HiThere · 1999-06-05 09:17 · Score: 1

Why IDE's? People want the tools that they use frequently to be grouped closely together, and to work well together. Personally, I like the "idea" of office suites. I just think that they don't split things apart enough. The spell checker should be a module, with a well defined interface to the word processor. That way you could remove one and substitute another. Ditto for the grammarian (or whatever they are calling it). And the table manager (which needs to be able to make call-backs to the word processor, so that it can handle the tiny "document" within each table cell). Etc.

Then there ISN'T a large monolithic construction. Just a good, well-tuned, workbench.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:How to read this by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:56 · Score: 0

Corel is recognizing that infrastructure should be Open Source but you can make some money off of proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure as long as you don't make it impossible for Open Source applications to fill the same niche.

Exactly!

If Corel (or anyone else) makes a word processor that I don't happen to like, then I'll just use another. But if they (or anyone else) controls the OS, then they are in a position to excercise undue control over me as a user.

This is a realistic position between the "all software must be free" and "software is IP" extremes. As Linus says, Linux is "the road".

GTK+ widgets by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 08:00 · Score: 0

Speaking of winelib and GTK+ widgets, I was idly wondering today if it would be possible to convince Winelib to render GTK+ widgets instead of the standard Windows ones. (and replace the Windows shaded-box-drawing routines with GTK+ calls, etc)

Probably wouldn't work too well but it would be fun to try..

Daniel

Re:GTK+ widgets by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 11:28 · Score: 1

I want to know that about Motif and Qt, too. I use Netscape, which looks like it uses Motif, which is ugly, and I also play ksame, the KDE version of SameGame, both in Enlightenment/GNOME. There's a Gnome version of SameGame, but I don't like it. Anyway, I want all my programs to look the same. I'm not a programmer, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to write a script to convert Qt themes to GTK.

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Re:GTK+ widgets by jamesm · 1999-06-05 20:38 · Score: 1

Every once in a while someone brings up this question on the wine mailing list or news group. The concensus seems to be that there's no reason why it wouldn't be possible, it would just be a lot of work. You're welcome to code something up... :-)
Re:GTK+ widgets by gavriels · 1999-06-05 09:31 · Score: 1

This is exactly the kind of thing that we did to get CorelDRAW 8 Mac looking good in the MacOS environment. It's on our radar for Linux, but probably won't make the first release.

-Gav

Re:What will the packages be called? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 08:35 · Score: 0

Wow! As a debian user, I think its quite a stretch to say that .debs are intrinsicly superior to .rpms.

.debs are better at some things and .rpms are better at other things. For example, .rpms have a security mechanism attached to them for verifying the origin of the package. .debs don't. Personally, for most of the things I do, I don't need the feature. But for one specific project that I'm working on, I absolutely must be able to verify the origin of the package. I can't do that with .debs (yet).

Re:Bundling by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 09:27 · Score: 0

Actually, although I'm unsure what would happen had you deleted everything to do with IE, if you run something such as LiteStep, you can run basically IE clean. Best of all, it'll even seem a bit X-like. :)

Re:One thing is very important though... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 09:53 · Score: 0

Probably compatibility can be achieved through export and
import, but in practice this never works so well - it would be
nice if all word processing apps and dtp had solid xml support
but that seems unlikely because Corel is not releasing source
code and I'd expect them to favour their own formats. Somehow
the two seem to go together - not releasing source code and
proprietary formats, although there can be exceptions.

Just as important is using a native Linux toolkit - like gtk or
qt2.0/kde. Since the distro will be based around kde, why not
just make word perfect a kde app.

Curently as many of you know WP for unix uses motif. Not
only is this ugly as sin, but it's awkward to use (compared
with Windows, Qt, or Gtk, for example). I see no indication
that Corel plans a rewrite of the interface, and the fact that
they are not releasing source code makes me feel that they
will stay with motif. If so, they can forget it...

By the way, I've looked at the new kde widgets using qt 2.0,
and they are really pretty. At least as pretty as E and what
Gtk/Gnome has, and probably much faster and just as con-
figurable. Even much nice than Window Maker and more
flexible regarding Window Maker's limitations of using large,
squarish icons and a fixed dock. (though nothing will be as
fast as Window Maker, in my opionion) I agree that the current
Kde themes aren't great - but the basic interface is ok
and looks clean and I have no problem with it. But for
those who want slick, what I have seen coming with Kde
is impressive.

I'm somewhat puzzled about the release date being about
the same as KOffice, which is, from what I have seen, something
that will make Word Perfect obsolete. However, I exepct a
very usable beta much earlier, maybe this summer, for those
already using Kde without having to upgrade to Qt 2.0. If
this beta is stable enough to use for some things (even with
some others incomplete) then it could all be over before the
end of next year or even by the end of the summer. Look
out, commercial desktop suites... And, there is also AbiWord
which is making great progress and is already very usable.

I would really like to see a modern version of the complete
Corel Suite using a modern LInux interface and favouring
open file formats, but I'm not optimistic. Who care about
open source so long as they make the effort and don;t deliver
a watered down port of their Windows product. Certainly
I'd pay for a good commercial suite for *Linux*, not another
washed out port using an obsolete interface.

From my prior experience with how Corel has done a
halfway job on its ports of Dos and Windows applications
to Amiga and OS2, I will be very surprised if Corel treats
LInux any differently.

Re:What will the packages be called? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 09:56 · Score: 0

.debs may not contain their own signature, but if you're getting them from ftp.debian.org then you can also get the relevant Packages file which will include the MD5sum for the package, which you can use to verify that the package you downloaded matches the 'official' .deb stored on ftp.debian.org.

JMU, but I believe that the signature in .rpms only verifies that the package has not been altered/corrupted since it was built, and would not protect you against someone providing you with a 'bogus' .rpm.

John P.

Re:Not all is good with Corel by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 12:56 · Score: 0

Kind of like how Netscape did for Mozilla ;-)
Frankly if I am interested in an Open Source Office solution, I would look at something like KOffice which was open from the start. The code for Wordperfect is probably a mess and after removing any third party features is probably barely functional like Mozilla was. It will require lots of redesign which might be better spent on something like KOffice or Abiword.

Re:Not just installation by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 13:37 · Score: 0

Agreed, Linux Printer support is just lacking quite a bit. I have yet to get a printer working sucessfully. First there is Ghostscript that you need to wory about, then the lpd deamon, then the lp printer port modules. it is way to complex. this is where windows shines. you simply install one driver, and you are set to go. but with linux, nooooo that would be to easy we'll make you mess with ghostscript, magik files, lpd configuration, and last but not least, let you figure out which modules you need to install just to get the freeking printer port to be registered.
now I do hate windows, I havent even run windows on my machine since last october, but I have a perfectly good HP 692C sitting right by me that I could use, but cant figure out how to get the stupid thang working. yes I have read the FAQ's, the HOWTO's, the Man pages, etc. no luck they all assume that you have installed printers in the past. sorry I havent. I love everything else in linux, but I hate the printer support with a passion. use the KISS principle. instead of going through 5 freaking layers. if you have any suggestions, send them to "quade@therim.net"

DEBS vs RPMS by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 14:09 · Score: 0

Obviously Superior?

In what ways are DEBs obviously superior. I'd really like to try debian, but am waiting for 2.2's completion and/or a 2.3 version.

1. I've heard that DEBS can be opened with standard tools (does that mean tar and bunzip2 or gunzip)

2. apt seems pretty cool, but what about major changes in packages. Quite frequently in the linux community a new software package has a new config file (etc) that is not compatible with older versions. If apt updates packages without user input does this not risk the integrity of the system?

There must be more, right? anyone got any cool links about debian's debs?

-ac

Re:DEBS vs RPMS by edgy · 1999-06-06 00:29 · Score: 2

apt seems pretty cool, but what about major changes in packages. Quite frequently in the linux community a new software package has a new config file (etc) that is not compatible with older versions. If apt updates packages without user input does this not risk the integrity of the system?

Usually you will be warned that the configuration files do not match, and whether or not you want to cancel the installation. At that point, you can put a hold on that application, and apt won't automatically upgrade it for you if you move to a new version of the distribution.

There are sometimes scripts that will convert data over, or there are configuration scripts for the new version, so you can set it up yourself.

For the most part, Debian does its best to let you know what's going on so you don't accidentally upgrade to a package you can't use because the configuration has changed.

Re:puzzled... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 14:16 · Score: 0

Yes you're quite right, I meant MCSE...

grts,

avi

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 14:24 · Score: 0

Running a software for which you do not have source code is asking for trouble. Allow me to state on only one of the reasons: free-software permits everyone to examine the sources so we can tell what the program actually does without much difficulty. When you run proprietary software you are on your own and you have no choice but to trust Corel. It is like closing your eyes and let strangers feed you without being allowed to investigate the food they serve you. And no! Nobody is forcing you to open your eyes, and nobody is forcing you to eat without first asking the doctors and the chemists if what you eat is safe. Like you said earlier, your are on your own.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 17:24 · Score: 0

"Regardless of the installation process or interface used, however, WordPerfect® Office 2000 and other major Corel® applications for Linux will run on all Linux distributions. By building a distribution that is based on the current Debian distribution, and by returning source code back to the community, Corel is helping to support and strengthen the open source community."

Enough said!

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 17:34 · Score: 0

Win95 shipped with IExplorer 2.0 (AFAIK some licensed code from some 3rd party). Did you forget an out-cry from AOL, Progidy et al about MS not shipping it?

Re:Debian ehh? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 17:37 · Score: 0

GPL FreeBSD (not the BSD license - possible fragmentation as happened to Unix) for more support.

After all, there should be some return for your effort of writing up "free" codes. You don't want your nice codes incorporated in MS Windows to make Bill rich while you are not getting any reward from it, do you?

Re:Not just installation..hp printers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 19:51 · Score: 0

Seconded. HP PCL drivers are the flakiest damn things. I do tech support in a large corporate environment. We see problems every week where somebody wants to do some seemingly simple printing but is getting bizarre results. It's almost always HP drivers. A lot of times there's nothing we can do because HP has still not fixed them. Or they've fixed that particular problem but broke something else. I never understood why people liked PostScript until I got this job. Now I know..

Re:Corel does add value by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 20:10 · Score: 0

Well said.

And if they decided to release the source *right now*, the example of Netscape/Mozilla taught us that it'd take them 6 months to a year to sanitise the sources (i.e. remove the contractualy tied parts), 6 months to make it work again, and 12 more to remove the bloat.

It's telling how purely the commercial apps tend to be written. Still I'd rather pay for CorelDraw in 6 months than hack on it 2 years from now... Especially when in perspective, I /might/ get to hack on it 3 years from now...

Corel is clueless about OSS development by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 20:22 · Score: 0

They are coding all their KDE stuff in-house and won't release any of it back to KDE until their distribution is already in the marketplace in order to get a head-start on other KDE Linux distributors. They are not communicating with the KDE developers at all. Thus, very little of their code will be useful to KDE, since they have gone off into their own little world and have done coding which conflicts with other developments in KDE. Pretty clueless actions, really. They created their own sub-version.
Anonymous, pissed-off KDE developer.

Re:Corel is clueless about OSS development by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:32 · Score: 0

If Corel buys developer licenses from Troll Tech to develop KDE-like applications, it's their business. They're more in support of Troll Tech in that case than the entire KDE team ever has been.
Re:Corel is clueless about OSS development by Midnight+Coder · 1999-06-05 21:11 · Score: 1

Thanks very much for that response anonymous.

I have to agree that anything less than regular communication with the KDE team greatly increases the chances of bad feelings and wasted work. Months of hard work by Corel might after a days discussion be rejected from inclusion into KDE CVS. This would pretty much mean that their distribution would be non-standard and their changes would become obsolete as the main KDE branch progressed. If there was a book on OSS anti-patterns this would be in it, I've seen individuals make this mistake over and over again.

That scenario is only likely to eventuate if they are working on kdelibs or kdebase stuff if they are working on additional apps then I don't have a problem with them doing it in privacy until they are ready to release an alpha/beta.

Thanks for the info again, 'preciate it.
Re:Corel is clueless about OSS development by Midnight+Coder · 1999-06-06 17:45 · Score: 1

I wonder if Corel has purchased any licenses from Troll Tech, after all they are apparently relying on Wine and not QT (to port their software that is). It's possible that they haven't paid TrollTech a dime.

Meanwhile KDE developers have contributed code to QT (I don't know how much exactly). Several KDE developers work for TrollTech and feelings between the two camps is good, excellent even. I'd shout a Troll a beer any day. All the publicity KDE receives can't be bad for TrollTech either. After all if Corel purchases licenses from TrollTech it'll be because of the KDE won't it?

Disclaimer:
I don't work for TrollTech and don't know a great deal about them.(But they seem like nice guys to me, keep up the good work! I'm counting on you guys for a bug free QT 2.0!)

Note:
I don't want to come off sounding like an anti Corel KDE developer. I'm a very minor contributor and no significance in the big scheme of things. I'm moderately anti IP and aren't keen on entities owning software for lenghty periods of time, so I'm weary of Corel's involvement with free software. I hope they are smart enough to realize that they are in a "give and thou shalt receive" type situation as far as being involved in free software type projects.

Any attempt to screw the KDE project for a quick buck is not going to back fire.
Re:Corel is clueless about OSS development by Midnight+Coder · 1999-06-06 17:49 · Score: 1

Obviously I meant to say any attempt to screw the KDE project for a quick buck will backfire.

model-specific installation by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 21:53 · Score: 0

I've been programming computers for 24 years, in assembly language, in Pascal, C, and Forth, and I have found Linux installation difficult.

One thing that hardware vendors could do to ease the installation of Linux is to provide model-specific installation procedures. For example, after the installation program prompts you for your language and keyboard mapping, it could display a list of installation scripts for different computer systems. Suppose that I have a Dell XPS-D300; I just select it from the list, and it narrows my choices down to hardware that's specific to this system. This greatly reduces the chance of selecting a non-functional configuration. A "custom" selection would have to be provided to deal with hardware upgrades, or systems not listed.

This would be particularly effective if the different Linux distros used the same installation script format -- not necessarily the same installation program, just a common way of specifying hardware options in a configuration file that could be understood by whatever installation program happened to be used.

Re:model-specific installation by wmeyer · 1999-06-07 07:44 · Score: 1

One thing that hardware vendors could do to ease the installation of Linux is to provide model-specific installation procedures.

An interesting, if impractical thought. The last time I bught an off the shelf system, it was a 386/20 from ALR (and that was pretty hot stuff!)

What is needed, is to handle much better the matter of video cards and monitors in the X configuration. It is worse than silly to expect people to look up scanning frequency limits when their monitor is not listed. Further, it is unfortunate that my monitor (Viewsonic PT771), which is listed in the install, is not properly supported. The monitor is perfectly capable of 1600x1200, as is my video card, and they both do it very well under Win98, but I seem to be limited to 1280x1024 under Linux and X.

The perms and coms of all of the hardware possibilities are admittedly too numerous to be foreseen, and specific procedures for specific systems are too simplistic.

But the reality is that it is more than sufficient to support each element independent of the others. Most hardware vendors have done a good job in their own area, and interaction among the various elements is not the cause of much difficulty.

When I see a distro handle the full range of options for each of the elements of my system, I will be more than pleased.

--
--- Bill

survival of the fitest (or "the best code wins") by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 22:10 · Score: 0

Thus, very little of their code will be useful to KDE, since they have gone off into their own little world and have done coding which conflicts with other developments in KDE.

I understand your displeasure, but that's one of the consequences of Open Source software -- anyone can fork the development tree at any time.

It's entirely possible that Corel will release a version that's better than the original, and if it's successful in the marketplace, the original KDE project may be relegated to second place status. Corel would effectively gain control of future development. This would suck for KDE developers, but that's the downside of Open Source development.

If it really is a better product, then it's still a win for end users.

Re:All these new distro's by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 22:12 · Score: 0

What is the video chipset ? (Amptron used to have boards with the SiS 6326 which is supported under the XSVGA driver, and these have been used successfully with X) Compare the manual with the cardlist Can't tell da players widout a program.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 01:37 · Score: 0

I very seriously doubt they will bundle WP Office with their distro. They wish to make money from this product. At most they will bundle the free (functional) slightly watered down version of WP8. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INSTALL THIS! There is nothing wrong with them doing this. Many other distro's already do.

No, it will create an incompatible version by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 02:59 · Score: 0

KDE CVS is now based on Qt2.0 and is what will become KDE2.0. Corel's is based on old 1.1 code and has no future. Forking is okay, but a commercial company forking code and not releasing or contributing back until it is in the marketplace *is not* good. That does not help free software at all. All it does is make Corel users dependent on Corel's specific version of KDE. What would you do if a each Linux distributor came up with their own modified version of the kernel and didn't contribute the code until it was on store shelves?

Re:PPC distribution by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 04:18 · Score: 0

I have tested LinuxPPC for some weeks on a PowerMac 7300/200. It is fast and stable, but has some rough edges, for example international support under X. It ain't as simple as just recompiling code. For example, the Mac keyboard differs from the PC keyboard, so the X keymaps are different. Since Apple is migrating MacOS to Unix anyway, what valid reason is there for opting for the more expensive and less well supported PPC hardware? LinuxPPC is based on Red Hat. Everyone is looking forward to R5 which should close the generation gap. However, commercial software houses e. g. Corel have shown little interest in porting their Linux versions to PPC.

Having examined all the distributions' websites, Debian appears to be doing a very thorough job, really serious hard work on stability, information, licensing issues, etc. Some of the others are based on Red Hat. The information provided on the Debian web site is the most exhaustive I have found including SuSe, who have speeded ahead and caught themselves in unintended compatibility problems.

Maintaining stability and system integrity are absolutely vital issues for Linux. Quality before speed and newness! WGS has a similar approach on stability as Debian but is based on Red Hat and does not classify the packages according to licensing like Debian. Debian are trying to maintain a clear free source stance.

Re:HP linux drivers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 07:33 · Score: 0

Have you tried ghostscript whith any of the cdjxxx drivers? I have an officejet ???? and it works just fine with the driver intended for the deskjet 550C.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 11:11 · Score: 0

Windows 98 comes with a boot disk if you're honest and pay the extra money for a "new machine" install. Many people bad-mouth Microsoft because they were cheap and bought the "upgrade" version, with which Microsoft did not include a boot disk. The Windows 98 upgrade is half the price of the new install version but unless it's installed it on a machine that already has (or had) Windows 95 on it (which is pretty easy, because the CDROM driver is then already installed and the CD accessable) they're breaking the law. Microsoft should make it easier for people to break the law?

Linux is only 'free' if your time is worth nothing.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 11:29 · Score: 0

How about those of us who build our own computers? My computer came with no boot disk.

If you make your own computer, you should have bought the Windows 95 or 98 full install version. It's twice as expensive, but it includes a boot floppy that enables the CD-ROM drive for installing the OS. If you built a computer 'from scratch' and then went out and bought an 'Upgrade' copy of Windows 9x to install on the machine you broke the law. It's a complicated thing that goes waaay back to the very beginning of the IBM-PC and clones, but Microsoft until very recently (Win95) never sold copies of their OS directly to consumers. If you build a machine from parts you buy at a hole-in-the-wall place (a mom and pop type place) they're supposed to provide or sell you an OEM version of the OS. If you buy a commercial machine you're supposed to get the OEM version from the vendor with the machine. Back in the old days the workaround was to buy a retail copy of PC-DOS from IBM. That was about the only legal option to get an OS on a totally new machine (and gave you a legal upgrade path to buy MS 'upgrade' OSes to then install on it when available). It has NEVER been possible to buy a legal copy of MS-DOS unless you bought it from an OEM vendor, with a computer.

Before people here get all libertarian and start trashing the idea that Microsoft's OS is copyrighted and it's criminal, etc. etc. that they sell it, bear in mind the following:
The GPL is (it's said, anyway) what makes the development of Linux possible. The GPL is based on the existence of copyright law. If you REALLY want to thumb your nose at copyright law, the whole system comes down, INCLUDING the part that protects Linux developers, and keeps them contributing to the common code base. Take down the copyrighting of software and a half year later there will be 100 non-compatible versions of Linux distributed with NO source code. Microsoft Linux, protected by 'trade secret' methods (the non-distribution of the source) then pops up.

Re:you've never installed NT by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 11:42 · Score: 0

Linux docs are out of date because they're written by volunteers. And everybody knows it's more fun to be a code cowboy than it is to clean up the mess code cowboys leave behind (lack of documentation, or documentation in the form of source code comments.) To run Linux you're supposed to get down inside and feeeeel the code. Beginners are supposed to read the kernel source code to learn about drivers support and stuff. Because it's non-commercial and there's no evile businessman taking your money (to pay for documentation, etc.)

But it's a server OS in any case, which some people eventually figure out. Then if they're lucky they recognize they should be running Windows 9x or BeOS or OS/2 (or WinNT WS) on a workstation machine. Running Linux on the desktop is like tooling around town in a big two ton truck. It's probably fun for some. That macho feeling and all.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 11:50 · Score: 0

Get real, dude. Oh, and watch out, somebody's been trying to upload a bitmap of a black helicopter onto your machine for weeks now. All people who like Microsoft products are not MS employees. I, for instance, got tired of screwing around at a low level and pitched the Linux "desktop" machine I was trying to run. So I went out and bought Windows 98 (after running ONLY Linux for over six months). I have Linux running on one machine (and NetBSD on three more down in my home lab) because there are some nice programs and things that are done far easier with unix-type systems. But I'm not going to damage my eyesight any longer with the feeble joke called "X."

I have NEVER worked for Microsoft, and I suspect I never will. They don't need to pay people to like their products. And Microsoft users don't have to form little defensive cults (some would say the sort of people drawn to little clique games naturally gravitate to 'minority' OSes like Linux or the Mac- gives them something to oppose).

Re:I think they'll address this... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 11:56 · Score: 0

Linux is not a desktop OS. Look around, you'll see that the "big boys" IBM, the database vendors, SGI, Compaq) aren't even talking about Linux as a desktop OS. They're writing server apps for it, because that's what Linux does good.

Only feeble companies like Corel (a company stupid enough to buy the Wordperfect line from Novel when it was dieing) and Caldera (whose founder Ray Noorda uses it as a club to fight his personal grudge with Bill Gates) are advocating Linux as a desktop solution in any big way (and of course the Linux-only vendors like RedHat)

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:04 · Score: 0

You can easly install Netscape onto the machine and run it instead if you like.

You can't remove run a Linux machine without that /etc directory. I don't like that /etc directory. I want to use /etc for the name of my home directory. Waaaah! Waaah! The Linux developers are unfair!

Re:Dissapointed. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:28 · Score: 0

Why should they release the source code to their real products? They don't need monkeys crawling around all over in their product line.

Re:Dissapointed. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:30 · Score: 0

What has been accomplished because of it? Hrm, well, millions of dollars and huge companies, one just going public.

Millions of dollars does not represent huge companies. It represents puny little companies like RedHat, the media darling of the minute.

If you hadn't noticed, the 'big companies' supporting Linux are only supporting it as a server OS.

Re:What will the packages be called? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-07 01:44 · Score: 0

I believe that the signature in .rpms only verifies that the package has not been altered/corrupted since it was built

Well, yeah, but that's kinda the point isn't it? You want to know if someone has messed around with the package, or appended a signature of a valid package, to their spoofed package.

If the signature doesn't match, for any reason, don't install the package.

and would not protect you against someone providing you with a 'bogus' .rpm.

Uhh.. I disagree, any package that doesn't match the signature is, by definition, a 'bogus' rpm. The package could not match the signature for a bunch of reasons: Bad transmission during download. Disk drive took a hit. Someone intentionally trying to spoof a package.

It doesn't matter what the reason, if it doesn't match the signature, its a bad package. Go get a good one. For some applications, this type of strict security is required.

The point is that .debs are not "intrinsically superior" to .rpms. For all of the distinct advantages that .debs have, the security surrounding them is a huge hassle. Especially when compared to how .rpms handle that problem.

Even considering the MD5 sums in the Packages file. The problem with that is trying to maintain trusted copies of that file everywhere the package might need to go. Attaching a cryptographic signature to a package just scales better. You only need to securely distribute the public key of the signer on each machine you want to protect, and you can very easily ensure that new packages have not been spoofed, mangled in transit, or fallen upon some other calamity. And you only need to do this once, not everytime you update or add a package. You don't have to worry about securely keeping the local copy of the Packages file up to date on a hundred machines. You just need to make sure that you sign every new package that you create.

In any case, the point is just that .debs are not "intrinsically superier" to .rpms.

Re:Dissapointed. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-08 22:21 · Score: 0

Not true. What about Caldera which has one of the most user friendly installs of all the linux distributions?

They certainly are a big company and make lots of money. What you said it totally contridictary to what everyone is talking about and getting involved with in the linux uprising. I totally agree with suprax on this matter.

Re:puzzled... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-10 09:21 · Score: 0

It's MSCSE (MS Computer Systems Engineering)
The Microsoft acronym makes me happy I stopped at
a bachelors degree; at least BSCSE won't have
people confusing my 4 year college education
with a hck-job correspondence school style
course :).

Re:puzzled... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-10 09:23 · Score: 0

I'm excited -- by the app noone seems to notice.
Quaatro Pro is a very very good spreadsheet!
I'm definitely buying a copy.

puzzled... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-05 07:46 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who isn't the least bit interested in Corels distro or WP efforts ??

The single most significant snippet of news from Corel in that whole FAQ/Blurb/feel-good-posting was the fact that they publically stated that CorelDRAW 9, CorelPAINT 9 and CorelVENTURA 9 will be brought out for linux... SOON!

That means that finally the last untapped group of potential contributors to OpenSource software 'll have the tools to help out. Compilers for coders we've got, smart people to code we've got too, but designers that know about presenting information, designers that know about presenting functionality and people with high natural aesthetic sensibility are few and far between in OpenSource-land.

The DTP-ers and Graphic designers 'll love working in a stable and sensible environment, they'll love the sense of community even more, allthough they'll find it rather peculiar that such fierce debates rage over GNOME vs KDE and Motif/Xview/FTLK/Qt/Gtk/Xforms since it's painfully obvious that from a design/aesthetic point of view, virtually _all_ UI toolkits under X suck dead rabbits through bent straws!!

And here's a radical idea for all you C-heads out there: get yourself a designer net-friend and let him/her do a major overhaul of the interface of your application(s). Two things 'll happen. 1 - You'll be amazed how much better your app 'll become. 2 - linux based software may actually do something innovative on the information design & User Interface front, and may suddenly find itself ending up light years ahead of MS-Windows and the Mac in a very visible and realistic way.

The end result: People can finally get back to getting work done with their computers!! And the whole bunch of bloodsucking, pointyheared MSCE-profiteers can go and re-train as plumbers!!

Welcome the designers, listen to them, seek them out and offer them to 'reclothe' our superior software. Only then will 'world domination' be a real proposition. Meanwhile, thank Corel on your bare knees for making it possible for the designers to enter the world of OpenSource software.

avi bercovich
bercovic@swi.psy.uva.nl

Re:puzzled... by GypC · 1999-06-05 10:52 · Score: 1

I think you mean MCSE... Microsoft Certified System Engineer.
MSCE == Master of Science Computer Engineering (?)

Re:They're distributing it with their apps! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-06-06 12:26 · Score: 1

But where did my QuickBooks go?"

And then it's just a few minutes later until they're looking in the phone book for the number for their attorney (contact list also formatted over) and it's goodbye Corel.

I personally think everybody should try Linux for awhile. (I ran only Linux on my main home machine for over half a year before burning out on being a tweakmesister and not doing anything else with my computer but play with it. Ken Thompson coming out and saying Linux was a losing proposition was the breaking point for me. Opened my eyes a bit.) Makes it so much easier to see how good the Microsoft Desktop (and the wonderful privledge of actually being able to go into a store and find nicely packaged easy to use applications) really is.

My servers are all Linux and NetBSD.

One thing is very important though... by KalleAnka · 1999-06-05 02:53 · Score: 1

The most important thing Corel must bare in mind together with the rest of the community (Yes, Corel is a member of the community) is to make sure that WordPerfect is absolutely, ie 150%, compatible with KOffice and other suites that ships with Linux. Every file created by one Linux system should be readable for another system.

If all suits were using, say XML, for everything. Sooner or later all MsOffice users will understand that they need to use XML instead of Word8 Doc, and if that happens I feel that my functions on this planet is fulfilled, making me pretty obsolete *grin*

Re:One thing is very important though... by blowdart · 1999-06-05 20:09 · Score: 1

Errrr Office 2000 files can be XML based :)
You're obsolete, please report to recyling.

Debian ehh? by KalleAnka · 1999-06-05 04:15 · Score: 1

Hmm, since they want the most roboust distribution they chose Debian. If I was in that position I'd without any doubt chose FreeBSD instead... KDE is actually nicer in FreeBSD than in Linux.
Two problems with using FreeBSD though.

1. No hype
2. No drivers

Debian is really nice, but I'm not sure it's the most roboust distribution. I think it's more about choosing something that sounds good, Debian is probably the most respected distribution.

Don't get me wrong though... But I'd really like to see more FreeBSD hype!

Re:Debian ehh? by Scola · 1999-06-06 10:36 · Score: 1

Oh God forbid the code you wrote was actually free, rather than free unless you want to do A, B, or C (A B and C being make a derived work and not release the source). The BSD license IMHO is the best license out there in the world of free software, and the only one that works off the assumption that when source is available, better code results, and thus closed-source derived works are not a threat.
Re:Debian ehh? by Steve+Bergman · 1999-06-05 05:08 · Score: 1

First of all, this is not a flame ;-)

But I see this from time to time and don't know quite what to make of it.

*Why* is FeeeBSD more robust? If there are problems, Linux developers need to hear about it.

*Why* is KDE nicer in FreeBSD?

I'm not sure how many people remember the original series Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battle Field..." which, as they say, "is the one where" the Enterprise picks up two seperate guys in seperate ships (in the process of blasting the hell out of each other) who are from the same planet (Charon) and who have a bad case of mutual racial hatred, which seems odd because they look almost like twins. As it turns out, one of them has dark skin on the right half of his body and light skin on the left. The other has dark skin on the *left* half and light skin on the *right*. At the end of the episode they both escape to the surface of a planet and proceed to battle each other, presumably for all eternity, but it's a bit unclear and its been a while since I've watched that one.

Sometimes Linux/FreeBSD makes me feel this way. We have 90% of stuff in common. We are both from the planet "Unix" in the "Open-Source" system. From the standpoint of the desktop user, we are both from a small planet in a rather unfashionable arm of the Milkyway galaxy (yes, I'm shamelessly mixing metaphors ;-), but property values are getting better everyday. As long as the murder rate on "Unix" stays down, property values should continue to climb.

This is not really in response to the previous post. It started out that way, but ended up a more general rant.

BTW, Linux is the Unix flavor that I use, but I would not mind seeing more FreeBSD hype myself. Walnut Creek CDROM makes a pretty impressive poster child. :-)
Re:Debian ehh? by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 11:54 · Score: 1

I completely agree. I don't know what makes people so riled up and flamey. They're THE SAME! Well, almost. Different licenses, same goals. And the licenses aren't even that different. I also use Linux, and I also would not mind seeing FreeBSD get more hype.

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Re:Debian ehh? by InvisibleCraterFunk · 1999-06-05 04:59 · Score: 1

Could you please be specific about what is non-robust in debian? Which distribution is more robust than debian?

And I've personally felt the robustness of FreeBSD for the past 3 months (3.2-STABLE, cvsupped every week). It has given me about four panics/reboots in that short period of time (seemed pretty random to me). I haven't experienced panics in linux for a very long time, and actually think the linux kernel is more stable than the FreeBSD kernel right now (the userland is another story). Beware: this only applies to my hardware -- and all the reboots happened while in X (That might be the specific problem, it's running as root nevertheless). I can only speak for my particular hardware configuration.
FreeBSD might be a better performer these days, but I think the stability of Linux has reached that of FreeBSD's, at least for XFree.
Another issue is the developer resources. Many external developers have complained about the big egos of the FreeBSD core and developer team.
I've seen pretty good communication between Corel and the Debian community on debian-devel lately.

No flames please. I know the FreeBSD team are better coders than the averae Linux-developer, there are just fewer of them. A shame, really.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify by Isaac-Lew · 1999-06-05 06:42 · Score: 1

Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies?

ITYM "slashdot and flame" :).
Sorry, but in most instances I've installed the two (especially when dealing with some 3Com PCI Ethernet cards whose drivers are not included with NT 4.0), Linux came out ahead.

Re:Dissapointed. by gavinhall · 1999-06-05 12:08 · Score: 1

Posted by stodge:

What is it with having to release source code? They're under no obligation to do so (providing they're careful with licensing). I'm tired of people saying that the source for every program released for Linux has to be given away for free. I believe that there are two markets in Linux - one where source is given for free, and one where developers can make a profit and not release source code.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by gavinhall · 1999-06-05 12:11 · Score: 1

Posted by stodge:

But why does everyone have to realease source code under Linux? Not everyone wants to live in the regime of OSS. GOd its like saying you can buy any colour Ford car, as long as its black. "You can write any kind of software for Linux, as long as its OSS". Sheesh

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by gavinhall · 1999-06-07 02:51 · Score: 1

Posted by stodge:

You cant compare food with software. Personally I don't give a monkey's about the source. I don't want to wade through reams and reams of source code, just to spot a little bug. Hell I do enough of that work. I want to use software, not play with it. Personal preference, but I wish OSS people and hence Linux people would realise that and get used to the idea that developers dont have to give their source away. End of story.

I think they'll address this... by Ami+Ganguli · 1999-06-05 08:43 · Score: 1

They say that they want to make Linux easier for end users to install, but in my experience it's already pretty easy. The sticking points are disk partitioning (a relatively easy thing to fix, I think) and video card setup (harder to fix).

I suspect that when they sit down and try to improve the installation they'll end up focusing on video

Linux hardware support is actually very good. Your video card is probably already supported, if only you could figure out how to set it up.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

It's open-source, so port it! by Ami+Ganguli · 1999-06-05 09:31 · Score: 1

Corel is open-sourcing it and I suspect it will be 99.9% C or C++. You should be able to port it to any processor Linux supports with a recompile.

They might write some hardware-specific device probes and you'd have to work out how booting works on your target platform. But most non-intel platforms have fewer hardware hassles and the booting has been figured out by somebody for some distro already.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

They're distributing it with their apps! by Ami+Ganguli · 1999-06-05 09:40 · Score: 1

The question on whether or not they plan on distributing CLD separate from their applications implies that they WILL be distributing it with their applications.

I know Corel doesn't have huge market-share nowadays, but they're still nothing to sneeze at. Imagine if every Corel application came with a complete Linux distribution in the box. Millions of end-users would suddenly find themselves with Linux CDs (kind of like the AOL coasters that used to be everywhere).

If Corel does this right it's not hard to imagine a scenario where several million Corel users install Linux as an upgrade to their Windows boxes.

"Hmm. It says if I click 'yes' my computer will be faster and won't crash so much. Hey, it worked! But where did my QuickBooks go?"

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Ian+Bicking · 1999-06-05 05:35 · Score: 1

There's two things here: the CLD and the Corel Office apps.

From everything they say about the CLD it sounds like a good deal. Everything they do will remain Free (speach), and as such it will be possible to fold them into non-CLD efforts. And because the CLD will be Free, if they bundle CLD with Wordperfect et. al. it won't be a problem -- it'll be easy enough to strip the proprietary parts from the distribution and for Cheapbytes to sell it, as they most likely will. I don't see how the CLD can do any harm, and it could do a lot of good.

As for Corel's proprietary apps, I suppose it's nice they exist for Linux but it's nothing to be excited about. Opening them up wouldn't be too useful. Netscape is the only one to really do this seriously, and though it's been somewhat successful, there's been significant problems. A bizaar-style app has to be designed differently, I think, with minimalism and a carefully modular design. I doubt that's the case with a program with a long history like Wordperfect.

Because of the licensed software Corel uses they'd probably need their own license (like the Netscape Public License) which seriously decreased the value of the software. Only Netscape/Mozilla apps can really use Mozilla code -- Gnome, for instance, can't cut and paste useful bits of code from Mozilla. The same would probably be true for Open Sourced Corel apps.

This is why the license proliferation sucks. Cross-polination is part of what makes Free software good, and license incompatibilities damage that. Somehow I imagine that much of the software under different licenses will whither or never expand outside of the proprietary niches they previously occupied, and eventually leave just the GPL and XFree-ish licenses.

(and good ridance)

Not all is good with Corel by Scott · 1999-06-05 09:58 · Score: 1

I find something irritating, and perhaps dangerous, in the fact Corel is jumping on the Linux bandwagon but won't open up their own products. In their answer to that question in the FAQ, it seems to be a typical corporate or marketing answer.

"We don't really believe in Open Source, but there are enough users to milk more business out of by playing along."

If they are *really* serious about supporting Linux and what the OSS community stands for, they'll go through the hassle of removing third party code in the products and making it free (as in source). Until they commit in such a way, I'm not going to support them.

Re:Not all is good with Corel by Scott · 1999-06-07 04:19 · Score: 1

Heh, well, then they should dump WP and work on Abi and KOffice. Both look like they'll be great programs, especially KOffice. And if Qt 2 actually looks decent I might be able to use it.
Re:Not all is good with Corel by Scola · 1999-06-06 10:39 · Score: 1

Supporting Linux and supporting Open Source are not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with having closed source software on linux, or open source software on Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Windows, ect. The two are not the same.

only with fundamental changes by hawk · 1999-06-05 03:09 · Score: 2

would your scenario be possible. Linux installations offer a choice of what to install; it wouldn't be a matter of uninstalling it, but of not choosing to install it in the first place.

Caldera is not interested in selling linux. They are coming up with the distribution so that they can sell their regular products. They are doing exactly what netscape should have done two years ago--spin a linux distribution to bundle with the browser, and contribute the work to finish wine.

It is quite clear from caldera's statement that if there's actually demand for it, that they'll sell their version of linux separately.

Also, given that they're going to be using debian as a base, they will be thoroughly infected with the GPL; only completely independent portions that they design could possibly be proprietary, and the
rest could be sold or otherwise distributed by anyone else.

I'm really not sure why I'm bothering to explain this, as I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll . . .

Re:Good Open Source Citizens - Let me clarify by C.Lee · 1999-06-05 17:47 · Score: 1

>Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies?

How about the fact that 99.999% of them are people like you, mircosoft-employed trolls who are trying to do to linux what you bastards did to OS/2 on Fidonet and the rest of the bbs networks by planting false horror stories about how "difficult" they found Linux to install? Your *ENTIRE* post is a perfect example of this. Do yourself a favor and report back to the morons at the MS PR firm that hired you that their *latest* attempt at anti-linux FUD is yet another failure that they can add to their already long list.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by Per+Abrahamsen · 1999-06-05 03:00 · Score: 1

"We" are not screaming at MS for not releasing their code. You may be, but I haven't seen anyone else do that.

It seems Corel intend to be a good player in the Linux marked, contributing to important free software projects. Their main products won't be free software, but that doesn't prevent free software enthusiasts from enjoying their contributions to free software.

And, no, nobody with a clue is pissed at MS for "bundling" in general. People are worried that MS using their near monopoly on the desktop OS marked to unfairly compete in the application area. Corel has no "near monopoly", they are returning their enhancements to the community, they plan to follow the community standards, and their applications will also work on other distributions. There really isn't any sensible comparison.

Corel should be aplauded for their significant contributions to free software standards, and for being careful about doing this "the right way".

KDE 98? by Per+Abrahamsen · 1999-06-05 03:10 · Score: 1

1) If you want CLD without WP, then download and install Debian and KDE, on which it is based. Or download one of the many other Linux distributions.

2) You second point is not making any sense at all, KDE is not hardcoded into 98 or anything else with a near monopoly status.

Apparently you have no idea of what the problems with Microsoft business practices are, so maybe you should just stop commenting on them.

CLD is not in a nearmonopoly situation by Per+Abrahamsen · 1999-06-05 03:22 · Score: 1

I know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you don't. I suggest you read the replies you got (slowly), and try to understand how you misunderstood the critique if MS.

A hint can be found in the subject line.

Re:CLD is not in a nearmonopoly situation by flesh99 · 1999-06-05 13:38 · Score: 1

First off I don't need to read slowly, my ideas are clear when I type why can't other peoples be (not refering to this thread) all I am doing is voicing concern, look a couple of articles back and many people voiced concern about Red Hat, they just worded it differently. The same fears people have of RH should intesify with a company like Corel. I just want to get people to think about what could happen. Please don't insult me again by asking me to read slowly.

--

Re:What will the packages be called? by William+Tanksley · 1999-06-05 07:22 · Score: 1

I suspect that they will be called .debs. For one thing, Corel said their 'internal' CVS server would be kept public on the debian.org site (not mirrored, actually stored there).

Not every distro has invented their own. Slackware used Unix tradition together with its own directory structure; Debian developed .deb when it was needed; Redhat developed .rpm because they didn't know about .deb or didn't want to use it; and most distros from then on (including all of the biggest) have chosen .rpms. Stampede is one of the exceptions to the rule.

I'm curious, though. You state that RPMs spread for "obvious reasons". Given that .debs are intrinsicly superior, what are those reasons? I've often wondered.

-Billy

Re:What will the packages be called? by William+Tanksley · 1999-06-07 02:29 · Score: 1

I can't claim (and shouldn't have allowed myself to imply) that .debs beat .rpms is every possible category. That would be a pretty difficult (if not impossible) feat; even .tar.gz beats .deb in certain applications.

However, I look at two things to make my comparison.

First, a laundry list of features. .rpm is not unrespectable, but .deb comes out ahead for almost everything.

Second, actual use. The system which works with .debs is stable, effective, and powerful. I've been through a lot of upgrades with Debian without more than minor problems (lately the problems have been disappearing as packages become more tested). Compare this with .rpms; they may be a nice package format, but the system which manages them doesn't use their capabilities to any real extent. Yes, you can install and uninstall -- but what if you want to upgrade? AFAICT, you have to buy or download an entire new CD, and run the installation program on it.

You're right that Debian doesn't scale well; fortunately, so far we've done very well keeping everything at debian.org (mainly) and the repackager's site (rarely, the only one I've ever used was KDE 1.1.1).

Considering the sheer number of packages at debian.org, I'm not too worried.

-Billy

pre-IPO Corel stock by mlinksva · 1999-06-05 05:46 · Score: 1

Why all the hype over the Red Hat IPO? You can get Corel stock at pre-pre-IPO prices now! :)

I'm only half joking. I have some COSFF already and may buy more if their distribution (and marketing for it) look good and the price doesn't go way up before then.

You'd be correct... by alexsh · 1999-06-05 05:24 · Score: 1

...if the situation wasn't exactly the other way around -- the government is trying to prove that IE can be separated from the OS and thus it is not an essential service, and should not be bundled. Microsoft tries to "prove" otherwise.

Dissapointed. by suprax · 1999-06-05 10:17 · Score: 1

I am dissapointed at one section of that FAQ. The section where they talk about releasing the source code to the linux community. They talked about "giving back to the community", but they will not release the source code because of contracts with other companies. This is poor, and they should release the source code, so people can develop the distribution. They love the fact that debian has such a large developer base, but they won't get one by going this route. I think Corel should reconsider the plans to not release the source code to their upcoming linux distribution.

Re:Dissapointed. by suprax · 1999-06-07 07:52 · Score: 1

It's the whole idea of it, which benefits them in the long run. Think about it, linux was started as an open source project and to this very second, is and will remain open source. What has been accomplished because of it? Hrm, well, millions of dollars and huge companies, one just going public. Not bad for something that started off as some code that was freely available. Now i'm not saying that every single peice of software on this earth must be open source, even though it would be nice, but the majority should be. If you had a software company, would you pick having thousands of people all over the world help you develop your product, or just the few people you hired to sit in a room and try to make good software. I would opt out for number 1, but I'm not sure about you. All I'm trying to get across is not releasing the source to your software is dumb, as it does not help you at all. Look at Microsoft, sure, they have millions of users, but is the number going down rapidly? I believe so.

Re:Corel support Open Source, no really they do ! by way_out · 1999-06-05 04:43 · Score: 1

"isn't that one of the reasons we are pissed at MS, or is it OK for a Linux distro to do it ?"

Nah.. That's not a smart remark. You cannot compare the linux environment, or any Unix environment to the MS way of bundling.

Take, for instance, a normal Debian install. You could still add KDE and the COREL suite yourself.

Or for that matter, imagine Sun *bundling* java with solaris..It's still not the same as the "try
to enforce windows everywhere" strategy Win employs.

How to read this by Bruce+Perens · 1999-06-05 07:25 · Score: 3

If Microsoft GPL-ed Windows 2000 tomorrow, and decided to keep Word proprietary, you'd still think it was an improvement. Look at Corel in that light. Corel is recognizing that infrastructure should be Open Source but you can make some money off of proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure as long as you don't make it impossible for Open Source applications to fill the same niche. They will be constantly competing with Open Source applications, so their software had better be incredibly good or it won't sell.

Thanks

Bruce

--
Bruce Perens.

Well duh. by pirkka · 1999-06-06 15:28 · Score: 1

If they opened up the source to, say WP, they'd have to come up with a licence that allows source distribution between paying customers, unless they'd like to give it away for free. And what good would that be. At least they would still get the same amount of flames...

I'm _very_ glad Corel is not giving everything they have away for free. I like seeing Corel alive instead of belly up.

Maybe some day they will OS WP, but right now I like to see them making some money from us. That's right - I like it that a company can make money making Linux products!
--
Pirkka

you've never installed NT by RelliK · 1999-06-05 04:04 · Score: 1

You should give it a try some time. The damn thing kept screwing up and crashing. Took me the whole day to install this POS. For that matter even win95/98 is far from perfect. SuSE on the other hand installed smoothly and detected my hardware properly. You just can't compare the two.

--
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.

Re:you've never installed NT by HiThere · 1999-06-05 08:20 · Score: 1

It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be:

The first time I installed Linux it took me two days (part time). The first time I installed Windows, it took me about 6 hours.

They both got easier the next time I did an install. If the hardware matches the installer, they're now both pretty easy. If it doesn't match ... well, with Linux sometimes there isn't any answer except buy new equipment. With Windows it can be difficult to find out what one needs to do, but there (so far) has always been an answer.

Linux docs tend to be out of date. Windows docs tend to be vauge and fuzzy. I'm not sure which is worse.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

I'd pay for WP by RelliK · 1999-06-05 06:50 · Score: 1

GPL is not the answer to everything. It works better then other licences in some cases but fails in others. So Corel want to keep their apps private and there's nothing wrong with that. After all you can't force somebody to GPL their products just because you feel like it. I am willing to pay for them if they prove to be good. (And just to reiterate -- the current WP8 for Linux doesn't even come close to being a good app.)

--
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Ben+Hutchings · 1999-06-07 07:14 · Score: 1

Windows 95 OSR1 did not contain any web browser. The original Windows 95 Plus Pack had Internet Explorer 1.0, which was a really sad joke.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Scola · 1999-06-05 03:56 · Score: 1

Windows easy to install? Ha, you make me laugh. I wanted to install a version of windows with a modern DirectX so I could play games. First I tried Win98. It hung during the part where it says "building the start bar", and of course when I had to hit the reboot switch it went right back to the same point and hung again. Then I tried NT5 beta 2 (beta 3 was not out yet). It wouldn't install unless I took my ethernet card (a DEC tulip) out of the machine. When I did so, it wouldn't recognize my standard 3 button logitech serial mouse. Finally, I gave up and installed NT4 so at least I could play Starcraft and Railroad Tycoon, if not Half Life. It ranks amongst the worst install expiriences I've ever had.

Caldera OpenLinnux 2.2, from what I've seen in reviews and such (I've not installed linux on my own machines for a while, for reinstalling is for wussies, and people and employers who want me to install linux for them always want Redhat for some reason) is a far superior install to windows. Easy, pointy-clicky, and it even lets you play tetris as you wait. Redhat's install aren;t wonderful, but they are OK.

Also, I installed FreeBSD on an old 386 someone gave me for free a while ago. Although it was not the most friendly install for a windows user, for someone who has been using unix for a while, I'd say it was a very clean and good install.

Solaris 2.5.1 had very straightforward install. Solaris 2.7 lets you use a web browser to install for christ's sake.

The BeOS install is a walk in the park.

Out of the machines I've had to install in recent memory, the Windows install, is one of the most annoying, buggiest, most difficult, and most ass-backwards. Perhaps I'd rank it in a tie with Slackware, and just in front of Debian, but far behind Redhat, Caldera, Be, FreeBSD, Sol2.5.1, and Sol 2.7.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Scola · 1999-06-06 10:32 · Score: 1

I installed it once. It installed. I just found the whole expirience crude and annoying. It also required babysitting, something I don't like (a flaw of Slackware and Windows as well, but less so for FreeBSD, and not at all for Redhat, Caldera, or Solaris).

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by dvdeug · 1999-06-05 09:55 · Score: 1

Win95 OSR 1 has no Web browser packaged with it.

Who cares? I tried installing Linux circa 95 and it wouldn't recognize my CD drive. If I mentioned that here, I would get so flamed . . .

If MS just made the CD bootable and able to fdisk and format

Windows 98 is bootable with fdisk and format on the CD. Compare current Linux's with current Windows, or else you're just spreading fud.

Re:PPC distribution by david_morgan · 1999-06-05 02:12 · Score: 1

The biggest reason is that most people have x86 processors. It's hard to port something to another platform without know how it works, and if your ported app will even work. But take heart, I think that someday soon the x86 will no longer have the 90 some percent of the developers as the Alpha, ARM, and PPC are becoming more and more common.

ps
god i hope so, i'm really sick of the x86 and really want an alpha or ultra sparc!!

--

if my wife asks a question, and I'm not paying attention, and then I answer wrong does it still count

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by Ed+Avis · 1999-06-05 02:59 · Score: 1

Windows also comes with far less stuff the linux, no web browser for instatnce.

Well, for a start, Windows already has a web browser. It's compulsory in fact. But Win2k will include lots of stuff, eg web server (IIS), directory (MS Active Directory or MAD), and probably some other bits and bobs too. It's still true that Linux has more, but NT these days is hardly a 'lightweight' install.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com

Re:PPC distribution--LINUX PPC 5.0 by AArthur · 1999-06-05 06:53 · Score: 1

Of course that link change is due to they are out of R4.1 CD's and don't want to make up more.

Bad News.

It won't be right away, from what I have heard. No CD have been pressed yet, nor have it been finalized. Yes, it is being finlized up, (last pre-R5 distro was May 13), but still work is being done.

Tonight Tom Rini (glibc2.1/ppc app developer/porter) was working on getting some more patches (on gnome-core and esd) to JCarr (LinuxPPC CEO). Also the next two weeks JHazz (Marketing Manger/WebSite/FTP) is on vacation, so I don't think he we will be seeing web site updates or any major updates.

Also, LinuxPPC R5 is suppost to be including Netscape Communicator 4.6, but Netscape hasn't gotten it's ass together enought to do a glibc2.1/ppc port of Netscape Communicator. We are waiting Netscape. ;-)

Anyways that MacOS Rumors article was summitted by BillyH, which nobody is really sure if he knows someting we don't know.

It will be at least 2 weeks till it goes off to the CD printer in California?, and that will take some time.

If you want to download, the lastest pre-R5 is stable and usable, but lacks Netscape Communicator.

Thanks,

Andrew Arthur aka AArthur
arthur99@gobal2000.net

Re:PPC distribution by AArthur · 1999-06-05 07:16 · Score: 1

"Yes, it should be a big advantage of Open Source that it emphasizes portability."

It is a big advantage. Without Open Source any Linux for the PowerPC distro would not exist or have like 3 programs. Due to opensource, 1000s of programs can run on Linux for the PowerPC now!

"Why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centered?"

Linux is not x86 centered as you may think, any more. Many Linux developers use Alphas or PowerPCs now, hell their is even RedHat for Alphas. Yes, many binaries are x86 only, but guess what, many of those same companies are considering at least PowerPC/Linux ports (examples: IBM DB2, RealPlayer G2 (under consideration at Real)).

"Let's ask instead why the other low-end platform is so antagonistic to Linux."

I think that's kind of flame bait. But i'll bite. The x86 platform has the greatest choice of equipment and x86 machine can be built/bought really cheap. Many Linux developers are streched for cash as is it.

Thanks,

Andrew B. Arthur, aka AArthur
arthur99@global2000.net

Re:Is it Open Source if..... by AArthur · 1999-06-05 07:29 · Score: 1

"The waffling about Open Source between their "real" products and their Linux efforts kinda disturbs me, though. Porting applications to Linux generally means an almost complete rewrite, so I do not see where a little extra investment wouldn't be worth making their products Open Source. Furthermore, I think CorelDraw is at least 90% Corel's own code (I used to work for a company that has beta tested CorelDraw from time to time)...the other stuff has to do with things like color matching standards that most Linux users really won't care about (unless they happen to be professional graphic designers, that is...) "

I disagree on this. While I do see opensource as a good thing in general, releasing the source code to these projects seems a little bit exterme. The GPL is great of *nix-native projects, but I am not sure if they need / want the competition.

If you want a OpenSource Word Processing Solution look no farther then KOffice. If you want a expensive commerical solution look at the Corel series of Commerical Linux Solutions such as Word Perfect.

I hope you see where I am comming from.

Re:PPC distribution by AArthur · 1999-06-05 07:07 · Score: 2

"X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog
Server 1.0 after install on my iMac..."

Just to set the record straight. The iMac is a pretty new machine, only 1 year old.

The iMac uses different technology in it display / graphics card, so of course their will be issues.

Heck, The iMac didn't even work until October 1998, getting USB drivers have been a pain in the ass also.

Apple hasn't gaven us much help at all, and the systems are pretty complex.

LinuxPPC R4 was realeased before any support of the iMac in Linux, so of course it going to require a special kernel and patches and stuff to make it work.

Yellow Dog Server 1.0 has some problems with X since it is a new kid on the block (give it some slack), and the default X Server, Xfree86-3.3.1 is also a new kid on the block. (Older Powermac systems used Xpmac, a autoconfiguring server, that plug and play basically). Xfree86-3.3.1 is vastly better, but it needs work on the powerpc to up to snuff. This is one reason for LinuxPPC R5 delay, JCarr has been busy playing with, making it more user friendly, and plug and play. (No playing with crap like configuration files).

I hope you now understand.

Thanks,

Andrew B. Arthur aka AArthur
arthur99@global2000.net

Koral for Newbies by doomy · 1999-06-05 03:26 · Score: 1

Now that coral is making a newbie OS based on Debian, we can stop making debian more friendly to newbies and let it live as the official hacker OS.
In the past, we've told newbies to start with RH, but with Coral's new OS, we've got a good alternative and a nice way of introducing people to Debian.

On WordPerfect 9, is that going to be based on winelib? How efficent would be if it's based on that? I've been using abiword for the last 2 weeks and have falling in love with this editor. Unless coral gets the bloat out of WP8, I'd have to switch to abiword. Wouldnt anything based on winelab be slower than native code?

I wish coral good luck their new dist and office applications.

--

--
...free your source and the rest would follow...

Re:What desktops actually need by Acronym · 1999-06-05 07:09 · Score: 1

Cause it ain't Micro$oft?

Seriously, a lot of people install Linux as an act of rebellion against Bill of Borg personally, and this is entirely the wrong reason.

The right reason is because it suits your needs better. For some tasks, including my own (I'm a physical-sciences student), Linux is ideal. For others, a *BSD is better. For a few, you could probably convincingly argue a Microsoft OS is the best for the job, and ditto BeOS and so forth.

Installing Linux for what it *isn't* is the wrong reason. Installing whatever OS is best for what you need and want to do is inherently The Right Thing, and this is why a monopoly is bad - it restricts the use people can get from their computers.

Corels contributions to the KDE by Midnight+Coder · 1999-06-05 10:45 · Score: 1

Does anyone know of any contributions Corel has made to the KDE? Do they have programmers with CVS access?

Just curious, as I haven't seen any Corel developers post on the dev list.

Re:survival of the fitest (or "the best code wins" by Midnight+Coder · 1999-06-06 11:10 · Score: 1

It's entirely possible that Corel will release a version that's better than the original, and if it's successful in the marketplace, the original KDE project may be relegated to second place status.
Even if Corel release a version of KDE that is superior to the original KDE, users may choose to use the authentic version, believing that the next release of the authentic version will be superior to the Corel release. Moreover if it is easier to upgrade from one authentic version to another rather than from a Corel version to an authentic version. It can't just be better at one point in time, it has to better over a prolonged period.

Corel would effectively gain control of future development
The current suite of KDE applications provide valuable functionality and will continue to mature and become increasingly valuable in the comming months.

There is good will that exists between KDE application developers and kde libs/base developers that has been built up over a period of years through a combination of open communication and joint involvement in projects of mutual benefit. (The same is true of KDE users and KDE application programmers and KDE libs/base developers and TrollTech developers). Even if Corel produce a superior version of KDE libs/base they may fail to gain market share due to failure to attract KDE application programmers.

I fear that if Corel is intending to go their own way and produce a better KDE than KDE then they are doomed to failure. The free software community is different, they can look beyond the set of features sported by a software system and look at how that software will satisfy the long term needs of themselves and their community.

Re:Buy a real video card (-; by elflord · 1999-06-05 12:47 · Score: 1

Even though you have a built in, chances are that it will be disabled automatically if you get another one ( you can ask ). TNT / Matrox are good choices ( esp in light of nVidia's recent announcement ... )

Small Steps by Aleatoric · 1999-06-05 02:59 · Score: 2

You have to start somewhere.

I, as an advocate of Open Source software, have no real problem with commercial, closed applications. The real benefit of OSS, especially in the beginning, is the availability of a commoditized OS so that the applications we want to run aren't tied to any particular distribution or company.

As we progress, the applications that are best expressed in the open source method will be, leaving only a very few, probably highly specialized apps as closed.

I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.

I don't think this is as big of an issue as you make it. It is one of the strengths of Linux that a distribution can be tailored to suit a particular scope or purpose, without diluting the concept. If a bundled app is such that it will only run on one particular version of Linux, that would be an issue, but it seems to me that kind of bundling would seriously backfire.

It is not the presence of commercial software that I have a problem with, it the the presence of commercial software that is so strongly tied to one company's OS that you no longer have a real choice.

In past postings, many here have stated that they would be willing to purchase closed commercial games for Linux. Why then would there be an issue with closed commerical word processors, et.al.? There are open alternatives to virtually all of these, and therefore, we have a choice, and choice is what it's really about.

--

Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.

Re:Not just installation by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 10:45 · Score: 1

About printers, I agree. Red Hat obviously has no problem with including a little closed-source, e.g. the whole Applications disc and the XBFCom X-servers, so why can't they just inclue Ghostscript 5? They make you download it, which presupposes that your modem is working, or that you can reboot into Windows, or that you have a Zip drive or a CD burner and access to another computer (I think it's more that 1.44MB, I might be wrong). In any case, it's extra hassle. Also, if you're new, you might not know how to do tar xvzf or rpm -ivh. And that's not even the OS's fault -- it's the distro's.

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.

Re:What will the packages be called? by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 10:57 · Score: 1

I have Red Hat, and I am relatively satisfied with rpms. When I first started, I was afraid of tarballs, and RPMs helped me. Pretty easy to say rpm -ivh whatever-0.1.13.i386.rpm. They have their flaws, but at least you don't have to worry about what directory you should be in, etc.

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.

Re:Installation and support by Kyobu · 1999-06-05 10:35 · Score: 2

Don't get me wrong -- I love Linux. But Red Hat's setup really really sucks. Besides that, and I understand why, but the hardware support sucks, too. I bought a whole computer so I could run X (my previous one was a Dell with an onboard video controller). I finally got all my hardware working in Linux a couple days ago, after using this computer for about 2 months. I had very bad experiences with RH5.2, but 6.0 has been great. I think Red Hat has finally matured. Today, I wen't to my friend's house, and in about two hours, got his whole system working (he'd already installed the OS, but not configured it).
My fairly computer-illiterate mom, who is a lawyer, will be using Linux when she finaly buys a new computer this summer, replacing her Altima 1 286 notebook with character-based monochrome screen and parallel-port, single-speed CD-ROM. This because of Corel's porting of WordPerfect. I have been using Enlightenment for a while now, and I think that since DR 0.15, it is very usable. KDE is probably even more usable, but it's ugly. However, it has better applets bundled (not to say that there's anything preventing you from running Qt apps in Gnome). I used KDE for a while until DR 0.15 came out, because 14 was a bitch to use. Now, though, I think it's pretty good. a couple things still bug me, like a few flaws in the Gnome panel, and the way Midnight Commander sucks, but it's very usable, on the whole. I am not hacker, and my computer is not a server. I am a nerd, though, and Linux is my toy, but that doesn't mean I can't get work done in it. I run WordPerfect, print, use the Gimp, play MP3s, and do everything else in it except run Terragen, Alpha Centauri, and Quake 3 (I know there's a Linux port, but I don't want to download 22MB again).

--
Switch the . and the @ to email me.

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by _Dante_ · 1999-06-05 02:47 · Score: 1

That is such FUD.

Recently, at work I've had to fight with a machine with a faulty hard drive so I installed both RH5.2 and Win95 several times (before we were sure the drive had failed).

RH5.2 installed far more easily, and reliably every time. It took less reboots(only 1) and everything was well explained. To boot the manual is easy to follow and well put together. It detected ALL of our hardware, every time.

Windows, on the other hand, has no boot disk(or an image) so you have to install your own CDROM drivers using your own boot disk just to start. It couldn't autoconfigure the NE2000 network card (linux did), and if you told windows the correct IRQ for the card during instillation, it hung on reboot.

Windows also comes with far less stuff the linux, no web browser for instatnce.

The only reason that people say that Windows is easier to install is because they don't have to do it, as it *comes* installed. If you compare Windows to Red Hat 5.2, Red Hat is the clear winner.

--
And the robot says: "In the begining was man. Man created all things. Man, with his infinite skill, created machines

Re:Good Open Source Citizens by _Dante_ · 1999-06-05 10:35 · Score: 1

In defence of my earlier posting:

Lets say you have one computer with a blank hard drive (like I had). Lets even say it has normal hardware that both Linux and Windows can autodetect/use.

1. Put in the boot disk

2. Select English, US keyboard, Local CDROM.

3. Follow the manual to partition

4. Select Workstation, Server, or Custom(which will require extra work)

5. Drink Coffee

6. Set up X(tell it your moitor and card)

7. Your Off... AND you have everything you need to do anything (if you bought the RH box, you even have WordPerfect - but thats also a free download).

Lets say you have a windows OEM CD or a box:

1. Wait: You have no boot disk - you can't install.

2. Find some guy with Win/DOS and get a boot disk made.

3. Find CD-ROM Drivers. Install them, update your config.sys and autoexec.bat

4. If you don't want one big drive, you have to use DOS FDISK to partition (which you only have if its on the boot disk - and which is way less useful than either GNU fdisk or DiskDruid.

5. Now you install...and hope it can set up your hardware. Like I said above if it doesn't you have problems

6. Reeboot and Go. But you have nothing but freecell. So you have to install Explorer(I did have Win95 release 1 btw), and whatever else you want. And if you want a web server, or an FTP server, or the GIMP...tough

So which is easier? Red Hat.

--
And the robot says: "In the begining was man. Man created all things. Man, with his infinite skill, created machines

Re:Bullshit! by SalsaDoom · 1999-06-05 12:57 · Score: 0

Get real pal,
None of that makes linux a toy.

The unfortunate fact that some of this guys hardware doesn't work in linux really sucks, it sucks for him, it sucks for you, and it sucks for me. It sucks for everyone but the MS Drones(tm).
And you know, that is totally unconsequencial, because a hell of a lot of hardware IS supported, there is documentation out there, these are not secrets on how to run linux that you have to be a the kernel devel team to install or use it.

Hard != Impossible, I figured it out, I read the manuals, I had no unix background. Good for me right? well yeah, but it proves that ppl can do it, if they really want to. And the point of this little bit of ego stroking is that linux can be install, and the vast majority of hardware DOES work, so, Linux is far, far from useless.

I'm being a jerk about because he started yappin and saying FUD. Thats why. I sure do hate FUD spreaders, even if you don't.

So you have a printer, thats impressive. A 400$ one to, and this is important because? Fine, so you bought it before you went to linux, thats to bad, bitch to the company. Oh but wait, since YOUR stupid printer doesn't work, I guess what makes linux useless, or a hacker toy right?

Now, i'm a jerk because I harshly correct a guy who should have STFU in the first place, and now your a jerk to because your defending a guy to says linux is useless because . Thats pretty stupid.

Anyone whos says linux is useless is a idiot or a microsoft drone, thats the facts.

If I bruised your feelings/ego you can hack my web page.

--
"Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."

Not just installation by HiThere · 1999-06-05 02:48 · Score: 1

I second the applause of Corel, as to the rest...

Installation actually seems to be getting pretty smooth. I still have trouble figuring out how I should partition my disk, but that's not a install problem per-se, more of a "now the next time I install, I don't want to reformat..." kind of problem.

OTOH, WINE is a BIG!!! need. I need to be able to run the applications that are standard in my office. I'm really glad that they've been doing lots of support for that. (Now about getting the installers to work...).

The big other factor is hardware. Yes, lots of hardware IS supported. But way too much ISN'T. From one perspective, it's reasonable to say "Well, you shouldn't expect a ... (WinModem?) to work." But from another.. "The company hands me this computer. What can I use on it?" And printers are even worse (I don't use modems at work, after all, just ethernet cards), but HP has these printers that don't have any drivers. I can't spend too much time at work trying to get the system operating, so I have to go back to Windows. Be nice if someone that they would listen to talked sweetly to HP about getting Linux drivers released.