You entitled your post "Usability Questions", but most have nothing to do with usability, but "Windows similarity" instead. There is a difference. Do not confuse your familiarity with Windows with usability.
Instead of answering your questions individually, I'll answer them all at the same time with a generic answer: Yes, but it won't be exactly the same as in Windows. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Now some more specific commentary:
Several of your questions are not about KDE at all, but the underlying operating system. Since KDE runs on Solaris, FreeBSD, AIX, as well as several hundred Linux distros, the answer to these is: It depends. KDE is just the desktop. It isn't the OS.
The KDE menu, like all other root menu systems OTHER than Microsoft's, organizes its items categorically. It does NOT dump one hundred applications items into the first menu level. But if that's really what you want, you're free to change it. The KDE menu editor is very good.
Konqueror is both a file manager and web browser. This is a Good Thing(tm). It is a most excellent file manager, and a most excellent web browser. And you might not even realize that they're the same application. For instance, did you realize that under Windows, the Window Explorer file manager is really Internet Explorer in disguise? Really!
Just go try out KDE 3.2. It won't cost your a dime.
Re:Before the trolls come out.
on
Review: KDE 3.2
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sun chose GNOME because they don't have a decent C++ compiler. Redhat chose GNOME because they're funding they damned thing. And Userlinux chose GNOME because it's Debian at it's core, which started the whole KDE-is-illegal brouhaha.
The GPL/QPL license of Qt does not prevent in-house development. And considering the complete lack of commercial proprietary GNOME apps, no one in the enterprise cares about LGPL vs GPL.
Windows is what the managers and sales people at 99.99% of companies use, so you'd best support it.
I didn't say don't support it. I said don't tell everyone else to fsck off and die.
My company is 100% Microsoft. To the point that they tell non-Windows users to take their business elsewhere. Like web applications that require Internet Explorer to view jpg content.
/usr/local is for everything that doesn't belong to the base OS. Additional packages, in other words. It's following the FHS standard. Why should it drop third party configuration files into/etc?
...but don't handicap your business' already statistically slim chances for success by not using a platform most of your customers will!
While it is certainly true that you want to support the platform most of your clients have (English), the converse of deliberately turning away everyone else (Spanish) is false.
Let's say you 5% of your potential customer base will use something other than Windows. You have 10,000 customers this year. By requiring your customers to use Windows, you've just lost 500 customers. You've also lost 500 others that they recommended to your competitors instead. If that lost revenue is greater than the cost difference of support their systems, you're stupid.
Frankly, in this day and age, with well defined HTML, CSS and ECMA standards, requiring your customers to use Internet Explorer is insane.
I love the new rcNG! All of the benefits of SysV without any of the stupidity. Install CUPS and get this cups.sh script. Just drop into/etc/rc.d and you're done! Actually, freeBSD drops cups.sh into/usr/local/etc/rc.d, which is even better. No need to symlink it to death.
But the "old" way wasn't that archaic. Most people arguing on the SysV side seem to think that BSD init scripts got petrified into a single massive script back in 4.3BSD. Hardly!
You really haven't stated why runlevels are useful. I wouldn't need to specify which services run in which runlevel, if I didn't have runlevels.
For the life of me, I can't think of anytime I needed something other than single user or multiuser. (I'm not counting halt or reboot as runlevels). For example, all multiuser X gives you is xdm, so why not just start xdm from ttys if you want it?
Or to put it another way, why are the three to five runlevels all that you need? If they're so useful, why not have fifteen or twenty? One for each user. Or one for each desktop. Or one for administration, one for games, one for word processing, one for development...
Piffle. I had to write a graphical pinball game for the PDP-8. Kind of cool actually. You learned all sorts of useful things, like how to do floating point arithmetic with 16 bit integers, while having fun at the same time.
Taking the car analogy further. If the typical driver were like the typical computer user, this would be the scene at the local autorepair shop:
Driver: My car goes "ching ching ching" and then stalls.
Tech: Let's open up the hood and see what's wrong. Hmmm, funny smell. [checks engine oil] Hey! This isn't engine oil! What did you use?
Driver: I put in four quarts of oil, just like everyone says you're supposed to.
Tech: But this is cooking oil!
Driver: So, oil is oil.
Tech: And what are all these magnets doing taped around the carbeurator?
Driver: I read on the internet that they help improve mileage.
Tech: Geez, I can't believe this. This isn't even a stock Ford engine. What did you do to it?
Driver: Oh, that must have been my eight year old son. He's so smart when it comes to automobiles. Anytime I have a problem I make him fix it. But he's at camp now so I had to come in to you.
Tech: Okay, I can fix this up, but it's going to be expensive.
Driver: Expensive! Why? I thought you enjoyed working on cars. Tell you what. You fix it up, and I'll cook you a nice dinner...
Mostly that means running a decent virus checker and being prudent about attachments.
If we could get to that level, the world would be a much better place.
Instead, IT sends out a memo saying DO NOT open attachments from emails claiming to be Microsoft or Dell. Twenty minutes later four users have already been infected. IT escalates the matter by wrapping all emails with attachments inside a zip file with a warning not to open the zip file without confirming from the sender that it was indeed sent. Thirty minutes later another user is infected.
Users will not be prudent. My company has quarterly classes on how to use Word and PowerPoint. Such a waste of time. Instead they should have mandatory weekly classes on computer citizenship.
At one point, I sort of assumed that anybody could sit down and figure out a computer if they got past the intimidation factor and just took time to understand the basic paradigm by which things happen. I don't think that anymore -- instead, I've glommed onto the more cynical viewpoint that many people reach a certain age beyond which they're just basically incapable of picking up new things.
Your initial assumption was correct. Your newfangled cynicism is what's wrong. While people tend to get set in their ways, they are still capable of learning new things. Unfortunately, getting set in your old ways is a barrier to learning.
Once you get the old farts (like me) past the hurdle of not WANTING to learn something, they can do it.
Using the 3.2.1 noncommercial version for Windows, the look is indeed native. Either "classic" or XP. In fact, the XP version uses the native rendering stuff.
I had a teacher in high school who came from the remotest part of Arkansas imaginable. He said in his day he used three corncobs. Two red cobs and one white. You used a red one. Then a white one to see if you needed to use the other red one. True story, or was he making it up? I don't know, but my uncle used to keep up a bucket of corncobs in the outhouse.
Completely off topic: Speaking of outhouses, my great uncle once nailed a whole stack of pages from Life magazine on the outhouse wall. He carefully selected the pages, so that each had a nice picture of Hitler on it.
Not quite. I work next to several people in legal, and they all have Selectrics, and use them. I'm guessing that typing onto legal forms is still easier than trying to get your LaserJet to print just in the right form locations.
Having received that $39 book this week, let me offer a quick review of the enclosed Qt for Windows.
The Non-Commercial Qt 3.2.1 for Windows is fully functional. You don't get source code, but you do get binary libraries for VC 6 and.NET, and Borland 5 and 6. Included is the Borland 5 compiler. Compare this to the earler noncommercial 2.3 version which only supported VC6. The library is a DLL, so you can't statically link. I don't think this should be much of a problem for most people, though.
Functionally, it is identical to the Free Qt. Nothing has been removed. OpenGL, XML, tables, etc. Everything you're used to with the X11 Qt is there. The database component only supports SQL-Lite (included), and not OBDC or MySQL. Not being a database developer, I don't know how much of a problem this is. One might be able to create db plugins with the x11-free source code.
Licensing-wise, it's the standard noncommercial license. Your resulting applications must be freely redistributable and source code available. And they have to be strictly non-commercial. Any Open Source license is satisfactory, though you might need to add an exception if you use the GPL. The DLL is freely redistributable WITH your open source application. The license does stipulate that your app must not be a mere wrapper around Qt, so as to export its functionality.
This version does stick a "[Non-Commercial]" string in front of your title caption. This is the only functional change from the GPL/QPL version that I could find anywhere.
The upshot: If you intend to write noncommercial Open Source software for Windows, this version of Qt is far from onerous. If your purpose is to provide Windows versions of your X11 or Mac Qt software, this will more than meet your needs.
The standard underlying argument over LGPL-GTK versus GPL-Qt, is that proprietary software developers are scared off by the GPL. But the reality shows that there are few or no proprietary GTK apps, but plenty of proprietary Qt apps.
That's the general argument. Your specific argument related to shelling "out lots of cash" for a commercial Qt license. Is this a problem? Again, the reality says no, since there are more proprietary software developers willing to shellout lots of cash, than there are willing to use free beer GTK.
In summary, Qt is free-as-in-free for all Open Source developers, but proprietary for proprietary developers. The people most affected by the latter seem to be the ones least concerned about it.
Re:What does it do that's so special?
on
KDE 3.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
So what does KDE do you for?
In comparison with Windowmaker:
1) The core of the desktop (any desktop, BTW), is the file manager. Everything in the file manager is an object you can manipulate. Click on it to open it, drag it over to an application to open it, drag it onto another open object to insert it, etc. Ripping CDs? Just insert the CD and drag-n-drop your MP3s to wherever you want them.
2) Everything is integrated. Someone sends you a photo in email, you simply drag the photo out of your message to save it. Ditto for other attachments. Browsing the web and see a link to a file? Just drag it out of there! In Windows, Mozilla is not integrated, so you can't do this in an easy way.
3) Even the command line is integrated. Open up a konsole panel in the file manager and start doing all sorts of wonderful things. Control application behavior at runtime through the command line.
Not everything is drag-n-drop. I typically work with several konsole windows open. But why ignore the mouse? It's another tool you can use, so use it. Heck, you're already using it in Windowmaker, so put it to more use, instead of always moving your hand back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse. The CLI is more powerful and faster... if you're using all those handy command options I'm sure you have memorized. But for simply launching a GUI application, why not use the GUI?
I'm an XEmacs guy, personally, but with KDE 3.2 I'm going to start trying out Kate, simply because XEmacs isn't integrated into KDE. And I really do wish a native image processor like Gimp would show up for KDE for the same reason.
I do like Windowmaker, but it's not a desktop. Maybe combined with a near future release of GNUstep it might be. But not quite yet.
So where are all the proprietary GNOME/GTK applications? Just off the top of my had I can think of five proprietary KDE or Qt apps, but no GNOME or GTK apps. Why is this?
Other people have replied from the Linux side. Now my turn from the FreeBSD side...
works out of the box (possibly given a visit to Windows Update)... autodetects all your hardware (some Linux distros do this yes, but not nearly as well)
FreeBSD works out of the box on the three primary systems I use (work, home, laptop). Two of these are less than six months old with current hardware. Everything that is supported is "autodetected." The only exception to "out of the box" is sound, because that's turned off by default. Enabling it is trivial.
What is interesting is the laptop. Since I repartitioned this to support multiple operating systems, I couldn't use the disk image recovery disk. So I had to reinstall Windows XP. FreeBSD supported all of the laptop's hardware, while Windows still required an update plus some manufacturer supplied drivers.
does NOT get you rooted because the security is there if you know how to use it (and not use IE/Outlook)
You have to perform significant post-installation administration to get any level of security in Windows. FreeBSD is secure "out of the box". Not as secure as OpenBSD, but pretty damned close.
does have free and competent technical support available which does not have "STFU NOOB" in its vocabulary
Windows has this kind of free competent support? I didn't know that! Usually I'm stuck on hold with Dell...
Anyway, you can get professional support for FreeBSD, but like with any professional support, you have to pay for it. Free support is available in numerous places, but like the free online Windows IRC help channels, you're going to have to put up with some rude comments. But the freebsd-questions list is quite good.
does not require me to devote a significant amount of my free time just to get it installed and working semi-well.
If you're willing to read the Handbook, and understand the basics of UNIX administration, then it won't take a significant amount of time to install and administer. I can get a FreeBSD box up and running, with the configuration I want, in about an hour. Then I never have to touch it again.
The reason you hear stories about the hours it takes to tinker with Linux, is because people who like tinkering with stuff are attracted to Linux. But it's not a requirement of Linux, nor is it of FreeBSD.
I'm running FreeBSD on a couple of old 100MHz Pentium at work. Everything is smooth and responsive. As a lab X11 workstation, not a server. Just don't load it down with a thousand different panel applets while trying to run OpenOffice!
What does a Penguin have to do with Linux? What the hell is the association there?
Besides the obvious similarities between Linux users and penguins, such as the propensity towards pear-shaped anatomies and strict black-and-white orthodoxies about software licenses, there's also something very fishy about them waddling around talking like Burgess Meredith.
Slashdot Mirror
You entitled your post "Usability Questions", but most have nothing to do with usability, but "Windows similarity" instead. There is a difference. Do not confuse your familiarity with Windows with usability.
Instead of answering your questions individually, I'll answer them all at the same time with a generic answer: Yes, but it won't be exactly the same as in Windows. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Now some more specific commentary:
Several of your questions are not about KDE at all, but the underlying operating system. Since KDE runs on Solaris, FreeBSD, AIX, as well as several hundred Linux distros, the answer to these is: It depends. KDE is just the desktop. It isn't the OS.
The KDE menu, like all other root menu systems OTHER than Microsoft's, organizes its items categorically. It does NOT dump one hundred applications items into the first menu level. But if that's really what you want, you're free to change it. The KDE menu editor is very good.
Konqueror is both a file manager and web browser. This is a Good Thing(tm). It is a most excellent file manager, and a most excellent web browser. And you might not even realize that they're the same application. For instance, did you realize that under Windows, the Window Explorer file manager is really Internet Explorer in disguise? Really!
Just go try out KDE 3.2. It won't cost your a dime.
Where are the fresh ideas?
It's a minor release. What did you expect?
Sun chose GNOME because they don't have a decent C++ compiler. Redhat chose GNOME because they're funding they damned thing. And Userlinux chose GNOME because it's Debian at it's core, which started the whole KDE-is-illegal brouhaha.
The GPL/QPL license of Qt does not prevent in-house development. And considering the complete lack of commercial proprietary GNOME apps, no one in the enterprise cares about LGPL vs GPL.
Windows is what the managers and sales people at 99.99% of companies use, so you'd best support it.
I didn't say don't support it. I said don't tell everyone else to fsck off and die.
My company is 100% Microsoft. To the point that they tell non-Windows users to take their business elsewhere. Like web applications that require Internet Explorer to view jpg content.
/usr/local is for everything that doesn't belong to the base OS. Additional packages, in other words. It's following the FHS standard. Why should it drop third party configuration files into /etc?
...but don't handicap your business' already statistically slim chances for success by not using a platform most of your customers will!
While it is certainly true that you want to support the platform most of your clients have (English), the converse of deliberately turning away everyone else (Spanish) is false.
Let's say you 5% of your potential customer base will use something other than Windows. You have 10,000 customers this year. By requiring your customers to use Windows, you've just lost 500 customers. You've also lost 500 others that they recommended to your competitors instead. If that lost revenue is greater than the cost difference of support their systems, you're stupid.
Frankly, in this day and age, with well defined HTML, CSS and ECMA standards, requiring your customers to use Internet Explorer is insane.
I love the new rcNG! All of the benefits of SysV without any of the stupidity. Install CUPS and get this cups.sh script. Just drop into /etc/rc.d and you're done! Actually, freeBSD drops cups.sh into /usr/local/etc/rc.d, which is even better. No need to symlink it to death.
But the "old" way wasn't that archaic. Most people arguing on the SysV side seem to think that BSD init scripts got petrified into a single massive script back in 4.3BSD. Hardly!
You really haven't stated why runlevels are useful. I wouldn't need to specify which services run in which runlevel, if I didn't have runlevels.
For the life of me, I can't think of anytime I needed something other than single user or multiuser. (I'm not counting halt or reboot as runlevels). For example, all multiuser X gives you is xdm, so why not just start xdm from ttys if you want it?
Or to put it another way, why are the three to five runlevels all that you need? If they're so useful, why not have fifteen or twenty? One for each user. Or one for each desktop. Or one for administration, one for games, one for word processing, one for development...
Piffle. I had to write a graphical pinball game for the PDP-8. Kind of cool actually. You learned all sorts of useful things, like how to do floating point arithmetic with 16 bit integers, while having fun at the same time.
Taking the car analogy further. If the typical driver were like the typical computer user, this would be the scene at the local autorepair shop:
Driver: My car goes "ching ching ching" and then stalls.
Tech: Let's open up the hood and see what's wrong. Hmmm, funny smell. [checks engine oil] Hey! This isn't engine oil! What did you use?
Driver: I put in four quarts of oil, just like everyone says you're supposed to.
Tech: But this is cooking oil!
Driver: So, oil is oil.
Tech: And what are all these magnets doing taped around the carbeurator?
Driver: I read on the internet that they help improve mileage.
Tech: Geez, I can't believe this. This isn't even a stock Ford engine. What did you do to it?
Driver: Oh, that must have been my eight year old son. He's so smart when it comes to automobiles. Anytime I have a problem I make him fix it. But he's at camp now so I had to come in to you.
Tech: Okay, I can fix this up, but it's going to be expensive.
Driver: Expensive! Why? I thought you enjoyed working on cars. Tell you what. You fix it up, and I'll cook you a nice dinner...
Mostly that means running a decent virus checker and being prudent about attachments.
If we could get to that level, the world would be a much better place.
Instead, IT sends out a memo saying DO NOT open attachments from emails claiming to be Microsoft or Dell. Twenty minutes later four users have already been infected. IT escalates the matter by wrapping all emails with attachments inside a zip file with a warning not to open the zip file without confirming from the sender that it was indeed sent. Thirty minutes later another user is infected.
Users will not be prudent. My company has quarterly classes on how to use Word and PowerPoint. Such a waste of time. Instead they should have mandatory weekly classes on computer citizenship.
Seems like there is too much blaming the victim going on here, and not enough protecting them.
Gee, and all this work we did writing Linux, BSD, KDE, GNOME, etc, to protect the user from stuff like this, and they still insist on using Windows!
At one point, I sort of assumed that anybody could sit down and figure out a computer if they got past the intimidation factor and just took time to understand the basic paradigm by which things happen. I don't think that anymore -- instead, I've glommed onto the more cynical viewpoint that many people reach a certain age beyond which they're just basically incapable of picking up new things.
Your initial assumption was correct. Your newfangled cynicism is what's wrong. While people tend to get set in their ways, they are still capable of learning new things. Unfortunately, getting set in your old ways is a barrier to learning.
Once you get the old farts (like me) past the hurdle of not WANTING to learn something, they can do it.
Using the 3.2.1 noncommercial version for Windows, the look is indeed native. Either "classic" or XP. In fact, the XP version uses the native rendering stuff.
I had a teacher in high school who came from the remotest part of Arkansas imaginable. He said in his day he used three corncobs. Two red cobs and one white. You used a red one. Then a white one to see if you needed to use the other red one. True story, or was he making it up? I don't know, but my uncle used to keep up a bucket of corncobs in the outhouse.
Completely off topic: Speaking of outhouses, my great uncle once nailed a whole stack of pages from Life magazine on the outhouse wall. He carefully selected the pages, so that each had a nice picture of Hitler on it.
Not quite. I work next to several people in legal, and they all have Selectrics, and use them. I'm guessing that typing onto legal forms is still easier than trying to get your LaserJet to print just in the right form locations.
Having received that $39 book this week, let me offer a quick review of the enclosed Qt for Windows.
.NET, and Borland 5 and 6. Included is the Borland 5 compiler. Compare this to the earler noncommercial 2.3 version which only supported VC6. The library is a DLL, so you can't statically link. I don't think this should be much of a problem for most people, though.
The Non-Commercial Qt 3.2.1 for Windows is fully functional. You don't get source code, but you do get binary libraries for VC 6 and
Functionally, it is identical to the Free Qt. Nothing has been removed. OpenGL, XML, tables, etc. Everything you're used to with the X11 Qt is there. The database component only supports SQL-Lite (included), and not OBDC or MySQL. Not being a database developer, I don't know how much of a problem this is. One might be able to create db plugins with the x11-free source code.
Licensing-wise, it's the standard noncommercial license. Your resulting applications must be freely redistributable and source code available. And they have to be strictly non-commercial. Any Open Source license is satisfactory, though you might need to add an exception if you use the GPL. The DLL is freely redistributable WITH your open source application. The license does stipulate that your app must not be a mere wrapper around Qt, so as to export its functionality.
This version does stick a "[Non-Commercial]" string in front of your title caption. This is the only functional change from the GPL/QPL version that I could find anywhere.
The upshot: If you intend to write noncommercial Open Source software for Windows, this version of Qt is far from onerous. If your purpose is to provide Windows versions of your X11 or Mac Qt software, this will more than meet your needs.
try to understand that it is not open source if it is not buildable or runable without those binaries
It might not be GPL "compliant" if those binaries aren't standard system binaries, but that doesn't mean it isn't open source.
The standard underlying argument over LGPL-GTK versus GPL-Qt, is that proprietary software developers are scared off by the GPL. But the reality shows that there are few or no proprietary GTK apps, but plenty of proprietary Qt apps.
That's the general argument. Your specific argument related to shelling "out lots of cash" for a commercial Qt license. Is this a problem? Again, the reality says no, since there are more proprietary software developers willing to shellout lots of cash, than there are willing to use free beer GTK.
In summary, Qt is free-as-in-free for all Open Source developers, but proprietary for proprietary developers. The people most affected by the latter seem to be the ones least concerned about it.
So what does KDE do you for?
In comparison with Windowmaker:
1) The core of the desktop (any desktop, BTW), is the file manager. Everything in the file manager is an object you can manipulate. Click on it to open it, drag it over to an application to open it, drag it onto another open object to insert it, etc. Ripping CDs? Just insert the CD and drag-n-drop your MP3s to wherever you want them.
2) Everything is integrated. Someone sends you a photo in email, you simply drag the photo out of your message to save it. Ditto for other attachments. Browsing the web and see a link to a file? Just drag it out of there! In Windows, Mozilla is not integrated, so you can't do this in an easy way.
3) Even the command line is integrated. Open up a konsole panel in the file manager and start doing all sorts of wonderful things. Control application behavior at runtime through the command line.
Not everything is drag-n-drop. I typically work with several konsole windows open. But why ignore the mouse? It's another tool you can use, so use it. Heck, you're already using it in Windowmaker, so put it to more use, instead of always moving your hand back and forth between the keyboard and the mouse. The CLI is more powerful and faster... if you're using all those handy command options I'm sure you have memorized. But for simply launching a GUI application, why not use the GUI?
I'm an XEmacs guy, personally, but with KDE 3.2 I'm going to start trying out Kate, simply because XEmacs isn't integrated into KDE. And I really do wish a native image processor like Gimp would show up for KDE for the same reason.
I do like Windowmaker, but it's not a desktop. Maybe combined with a near future release of GNUstep it might be. But not quite yet.
So where are all the proprietary GNOME/GTK applications? Just off the top of my had I can think of five proprietary KDE or Qt apps, but no GNOME or GTK apps. Why is this?
Other people have replied from the Linux side. Now my turn from the FreeBSD side...
works out of the box (possibly given a visit to Windows Update)... autodetects all your hardware (some Linux distros do this yes, but not nearly as well)
FreeBSD works out of the box on the three primary systems I use (work, home, laptop). Two of these are less than six months old with current hardware. Everything that is supported is "autodetected." The only exception to "out of the box" is sound, because that's turned off by default. Enabling it is trivial.
What is interesting is the laptop. Since I repartitioned this to support multiple operating systems, I couldn't use the disk image recovery disk. So I had to reinstall Windows XP. FreeBSD supported all of the laptop's hardware, while Windows still required an update plus some manufacturer supplied drivers.
does NOT get you rooted because the security is there if you know how to use it (and not use IE/Outlook)
You have to perform significant post-installation administration to get any level of security in Windows. FreeBSD is secure "out of the box". Not as secure as OpenBSD, but pretty damned close.
does have free and competent technical support available which does not have "STFU NOOB" in its vocabulary
Windows has this kind of free competent support? I didn't know that! Usually I'm stuck on hold with Dell...
Anyway, you can get professional support for FreeBSD, but like with any professional support, you have to pay for it. Free support is available in numerous places, but like the free online Windows IRC help channels, you're going to have to put up with some rude comments. But the freebsd-questions list is quite good.
does not require me to devote a significant amount of my free time just to get it installed and working semi-well.
If you're willing to read the Handbook, and understand the basics of UNIX administration, then it won't take a significant amount of time to install and administer. I can get a FreeBSD box up and running, with the configuration I want, in about an hour. Then I never have to touch it again.
The reason you hear stories about the hours it takes to tinker with Linux, is because people who like tinkering with stuff are attracted to Linux. But it's not a requirement of Linux, nor is it of FreeBSD.
I'm running FreeBSD on a couple of old 100MHz Pentium at work. Everything is smooth and responsive. As a lab X11 workstation, not a server. Just don't load it down with a thousand different panel applets while trying to run OpenOffice!
What does a Penguin have to do with Linux? What the hell is the association there?
Besides the obvious similarities between Linux users and penguins, such as the propensity towards pear-shaped anatomies and strict black-and-white orthodoxies about software licenses, there's also something very fishy about them waddling around talking like Burgess Meredith.
FreeBSD doesn't exactly gives woodies to anyone does it?
If you get a woody thinking about Linux, then you have a serious problem...