Open office has a document management collaboration and document management solution http://www.o3spaces.com/ Funny enough Abiword (remember them) is taking the lead here on free collaboration https://abicollab.net/ In terms of the rest... CRM works just as well for most any document system. As for email / scheduling there are open source solutions for that as well.
Microsoft offers a damn good suite for a medium sized per user cost. You can however build an Unixy environment and offer these same features. And frankly the fully unix solutions (like the ones from Oracle) are often quite a bit better than the Microsoft alternatives.
No, in english we have the notion of homographs. The same word having related but different meanings. Linux is a family of operating systems that use the Linux kernel. UIs popular are on Linux are rightfully called Linux UIs.
Interesting point. It makes sense. It depends if end users are using lots of apps or a small number of apps.
If they are using lots of apps they want the OS to set the standards. If they are using a small number they want each app to work as well as possible and thus setup an app specific interface.
It doesn't make sense to do that if your long term direction is going to be to offer functionality that cannot be easily expressed in menus. The point of the ribbon interface is to move towards context sensitive options and move away from menus. 10 years from now an office application might have 30,000 menu items if you were to look at them statically.
Imagine that cars were getting millions of times more powerful and gas efficient with each generation. If I owned a car in the 1950s to do the occasional weekend drive, now I can drive out to moons of Saturn for the weekend. Or maybe time travel is bundled in with my 2011 model.
Yeah things might be changing a lot on the controls then too.
For KDE was the default for Caldera/Suse/TurboLinux/Conectiva the United Linux guys. Suse and Turbo are both major players. Knoppix and Mandrake were important second tier distributions. But no question Gnome has always been more popular and by the time of Ubuntu there was no comparison. You are right about KDE-4 hurting their percentages. KDE has had some rough years, but right now it is in excellent shape. In terms of power users, basically you are saying that switching would be no big deal and you don't use many desktop features.
Yes the entire Linux desktop user base is tiny. The market Gnome is going after is the cell phone and tablet market. Also the low end computer market. They have no interest in supporting software developers. KDE on the other hand you are their target customer.
You are disagreeing with GP. Obviously that is a different problem which is caused by Linux apps not bundling their dependencies. And that problem disappeared with Linux's use of package management. To some extent that was the point of distributions to resolve this sort of stuff once.
Oh I see. Yes I agree that is a wonderful feature of the windows menus inherited from DOS. Yep score one for Windows, that is a plus.
But that's why I was pointing you to Quicksilver. QS has a function called "Menu bar items" that kicks you over to a version of an application's menu accessable by first letter. So for example if you setup one generic shortcut cm-space = quicksilver cm-v = view menu from current application f = file sa = save as
Of for enterprise. I agree with you. LO/OO are fine for corporate use for most end users. The real difference is things like sharepoint. There is simply no equivalent to sharepoint / exchange which allows you to have threaded libraries of documents tied to conversations, in a way that is archivable, versionable and searchable. Being able to look at the threaded discussions and get diffs between word documents from years ago is incredibly important in deciding why things were done. For spreadsheet and accounting tieing that can also be gold. Don't forget the spreadsheet is often the UI to the accounting data warehouse in practice.
LO/OO just don't support anything remotely like that.
They aren't going to do that, because there are features of the UI (like notifications) that don't exist in Gnome 2 and can't be added. They want all their applications to support those features.
When you decided to go with a GUI instead of a window manager, you wanted integration. This is the downside of integration. You are more experienced now then you were a decade ago. Maybe next time you go for a window manager.
IMHO a large group of people that learned Unix under Ubuntu are the main people freaked about GNOME 3. Those people have been with Gnome for a decade and are upset. KDE has always been the power user desktop. There are plenty of great options.
Gnome has every intention of losing the majority of their existing user base. That user base is tiny and is going to tie them to a very small market segment.
I've been using office productivity applications at least partially since the mid 1980s, with some computerized interfaces like type writer word processors before that. I'm comfortable with and prefer the ribbon interface. I think it is an upgrade. Essentially it creates complex context sensitive submenus which is a major feature that people have talked about for decades.
Microsoft was ultra conservative. The old Excel was not too much different from Lotus 1-2-3 which had an Ansi based interface and ran on DOS. It is time to rethink the spreadsheet entirely. There are some really cool ideas at research.microsoft.com and yes they are going to force you to learn new stuff to use them.
I'll give you an example my wife is a Word power user.
1) She likes automatic bibliographic integration so the automatic bibliographic integration services she uses. 2) Has to use IPA settings for transcripts in multiple languages. So she needs more full featured IPA. 3) She needs support for both encodings of cyrillic alphabets.
Nothing. There were people unhappy with Apple's moves for the last 15 years. Companies have to pick a direction and sometimes individual users don't agree with every choice.
That's not a bug, you disagree with a design decision. I agree with you I'd rather have the additional features and that might pull me towards stepping away from iCal soon.
That is easy to change in preferences. The reason for it is that it makes scrolling on OSX consistent with scrolling on iOS. If you are using a mouse it sucks. If you switch the the magic trackpad it is good. They want to move users over.
You would be much much happier using Unix tools. Many VIM commands still date back to ed (from 1971). Most Unix shells still do many of things from the Thompson shell (1971), and Bourne shell from 1977 is still available.
If you want toolsets that operate across OSes you need to go web and then you aren't going to get consistency year to year. You obviously like the old Borland tools, but it was Borland that ultimately shifted away from the Phillip Kahn model and dropped them. If you want consistency you should switch to Unix tools and use
6 monitors? That is a totally non standard configuration of course things don't work well. OSX was never designed to support that kind of setup. Basically you aren't going to be able to use a mouse as your primary input device and be efficient. Use something like Quicksilver for application control and message passing.
First off all, all mac menus (essentially) are changeable. You can just create your own shortcuts. If you want a more powerful interface try using a launcher like http://qsapp.com/
Please no. Save the screen space. I have one set of menus to deal which allows all my windows to be smaller. Right clicking and keyboard shortcuts work well for most common items so I don't even need to use the menu bar.
When I was using a palm the majority of my coworkers still used physical desk planners. My 12 year is required to use one in school, because they don't like electronics. That ain't 1890.
And frankly my Franklin planner had many advantages over my electronic calendar I still miss. I still can't do things like sequences of meeting with different groups of people on related with associated notes.
DLL hell was a product of different versions of libraries having the same name and path. Just making use of hierarchy or complex names gets rid of 95% of the problem. Which means that Unixes never had it.
Moreover the other part was also much less bad. Because distributions compiled apps from source they frequently caught or even resolved subtle library incompatibilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Open office has a document management collaboration and document management solution http://www.o3spaces.com/ Funny enough Abiword (remember them) is taking the lead here on free collaboration https://abicollab.net/ In terms of the rest... CRM works just as well for most any document system. As for email / scheduling there are open source solutions for that as well.
Microsoft offers a damn good suite for a medium sized per user cost. You can however build an Unixy environment and offer these same features. And frankly the fully unix solutions (like the ones from Oracle) are often quite a bit better than the Microsoft alternatives.
No, in english we have the notion of homographs. The same word having related but different meanings. Linux is a family of operating systems that use the Linux kernel. UIs popular are on Linux are rightfully called Linux UIs.
Interesting point. It makes sense. It depends if end users are using lots of apps or a small number of apps.
If they are using lots of apps they want the OS to set the standards. If they are using a small number they want each app to work as well as possible and thus setup an app specific interface.
It doesn't make sense to do that if your long term direction is going to be to offer functionality that cannot be easily expressed in menus. The point of the ribbon interface is to move towards context sensitive options and move away from menus. 10 years from now an office application might have 30,000 menu items if you were to look at them statically.
Imagine that cars were getting millions of times more powerful and gas efficient with each generation. If I owned a car in the 1950s to do the occasional weekend drive, now I can drive out to moons of Saturn for the weekend. Or maybe time travel is bundled in with my 2011 model.
Yeah things might be changing a lot on the controls then too.
For KDE was the default for Caldera/Suse/TurboLinux/Conectiva the United Linux guys. Suse and Turbo are both major players. Knoppix and Mandrake were important second tier distributions. But no question Gnome has always been more popular and by the time of Ubuntu there was no comparison. You are right about KDE-4 hurting their percentages. KDE has had some rough years, but right now it is in excellent shape. In terms of power users, basically you are saying that switching would be no big deal and you don't use many desktop features.
Yes the entire Linux desktop user base is tiny. The market Gnome is going after is the cell phone and tablet market. Also the low end computer market. They have no interest in supporting software developers. KDE on the other hand you are their target customer.
But as you mentioned, you could use anything.
You are disagreeing with GP. Obviously that is a different problem which is caused by Linux apps not bundling their dependencies. And that problem disappeared with Linux's use of package management. To some extent that was the point of distributions to resolve this sort of stuff once.
Oh I see. Yes I agree that is a wonderful feature of the windows menus inherited from DOS. Yep score one for Windows, that is a plus.
But that's why I was pointing you to Quicksilver. QS has a function called "Menu bar items" that kicks you over to a version of an application's menu accessable by first letter. So for example if you setup one generic shortcut
cm-space = quicksilver
cm-v = view menu from current application
f = file
sa = save as
Of for enterprise. I agree with you. LO/OO are fine for corporate use for most end users. The real difference is things like sharepoint. There is simply no equivalent to sharepoint / exchange which allows you to have threaded libraries of documents tied to conversations, in a way that is archivable, versionable and searchable. Being able to look at the threaded discussions and get diffs between word documents from years ago is incredibly important in deciding why things were done. For spreadsheet and accounting tieing that can also be gold. Don't forget the spreadsheet is often the UI to the accounting data warehouse in practice.
LO/OO just don't support anything remotely like that.
They aren't going to do that, because there are features of the UI (like notifications) that don't exist in Gnome 2 and can't be added. They want all their applications to support those features.
When you decided to go with a GUI instead of a window manager, you wanted integration. This is the downside of integration. You are more experienced now then you were a decade ago. Maybe next time you go for a window manager.
IMHO a large group of people that learned Unix under Ubuntu are the main people freaked about GNOME 3. Those people have been with Gnome for a decade and are upset. KDE has always been the power user desktop. There are plenty of great options.
Gnome has every intention of losing the majority of their existing user base. That user base is tiny and is going to tie them to a very small market segment.
I've been using office productivity applications at least partially since the mid 1980s, with some computerized interfaces like type writer word processors before that. I'm comfortable with and prefer the ribbon interface. I think it is an upgrade. Essentially it creates complex context sensitive submenus which is a major feature that people have talked about for decades.
Microsoft was ultra conservative. The old Excel was not too much different from Lotus 1-2-3 which had an Ansi based interface and ran on DOS. It is time to rethink the spreadsheet entirely. There are some really cool ideas at research.microsoft.com and yes they are going to force you to learn new stuff to use them.
I'll give you an example my wife is a Word power user.
1) She likes automatic bibliographic integration so the automatic bibliographic integration services she uses.
2) Has to use IPA settings for transcripts in multiple languages. So she needs more full featured IPA.
3) She needs support for both encodings of cyrillic alphabets.
Yes there are people who need that sort of stuff.
Nothing. There were people unhappy with Apple's moves for the last 15 years. Companies have to pick a direction and sometimes individual users don't agree with every choice.
That's not a bug, you disagree with a design decision. I agree with you I'd rather have the additional features and that might pull me towards stepping away from iCal soon.
That is easy to change in preferences. The reason for it is that it makes scrolling on OSX consistent with scrolling on iOS. If you are using a mouse it sucks. If you switch the the magic trackpad it is good. They want to move users over.
You would be much much happier using Unix tools. Many VIM commands still date back to ed (from 1971). Most Unix shells still do many of things from the Thompson shell (1971), and Bourne shell from 1977 is still available.
If you want toolsets that operate across OSes you need to go web and then you aren't going to get consistency year to year. You obviously like the old Borland tools, but it was Borland that ultimately shifted away from the Phillip Kahn model and dropped them. If you want consistency you should switch to Unix tools and use
Mods please mod this one up. Great suggestion!
6 monitors? That is a totally non standard configuration of course things don't work well. OSX was never designed to support that kind of setup. Basically you aren't going to be able to use a mouse as your primary input device and be efficient. Use something like Quicksilver for application control and message passing.
First off all, all mac menus (essentially) are changeable. You can just create your own shortcuts. If you want a more powerful interface try using a launcher like http://qsapp.com/
Please no. Save the screen space. I have one set of menus to deal which allows all my windows to be smaller. Right clicking and keyboard shortcuts work well for most common items so I don't even need to use the menu bar.
Yep. Given your user number you may be too young. It was fairly common before 2001.
When I was using a palm the majority of my coworkers still used physical desk planners. My 12 year is required to use one in school, because they don't like electronics. That ain't 1890.
And frankly my Franklin planner had many advantages over my electronic calendar I still miss. I still can't do things like sequences of meeting with different groups of people on related with associated notes.
DLL hell was a product of different versions of libraries having the same name and path. Just making use of hierarchy or complex names gets rid of 95% of the problem. Which means that Unixes never had it.
Moreover the other part was also much less bad. Because distributions compiled apps from source they frequently caught or even resolved subtle library incompatibilities.