Funny. SLES ships with a Go-OO build. Many distros use the Go-OO branch in their stable releases that they advertise for production use.
There is an unstable branch of Go-OO, and there are stable releases of Go-OO. Obviously, I'd suggest you use the stable branch in a production environment.
Do your documents utilize VB macros? If so, you may want to look at Novell's fork of OOo at go-oo.org which improve macro support. Otherwise mainline OOo should open all your MS Office 2000 documents with ease.
The interface of OOo is closer to MS Office 2000, than MS Office 2007's interface is. Training users should actually be easier than training users on MS Office 2007.
When I converted my mother to Linux I told her she'd have to give up MS Office. When I installed openSUSE 11 and OOo 3, she thanked me for giving her MS Office. It looked so similar, she couldn't tell the difference.
The only little bit of advice I'd give you, is to go into the program options and set the default file formats. While I praise ODF, and want the world to adopt it, if you're going to send documents out to the rest of the world, you'll have to save them either in PDF format (which OOo does natively) or save them in MS formats for everyone else.
When you're done, tell your boss how you just saved the company $400 a pop times 50 people, and ask for a raise.
Ubuntu never removed the need for a terminal. Many people still need a terminal to get ndiswrapper working for their wireless cards and such.
And long before Ubuntu was massively popular, other distros were shipping simple installers that didn't require most users to ever touch a terminal.
Linux on the whole has gotten far more accessible. I don't understand why Ubuntu gets all the praise for the work of others, when Ubuntu hasn't contributed much in the way of code to the Linux world.
Cannonical is a well-run company that increases the visibility of Linux, and I praise them for that, but wake me when the contribute major projects back the way Red Hat or Novell has.
I can't ship a DVD across the country for $3. Now, I haven't ordered a Hong Kong DVD since then, and this was about 4-5 years ago, but the other things I've ordered from China (tri-wing screwdrivers, mod chips, etc) have all been really expensive shipping.
I bought pirated X-Files DVDs from China. It cost $30 to ship it here from China, so yes, shipping would all but make up the price difference.
However, it was cost effective for me to buy the pirated DVDs because I bought all 9 seasons for $80 total, plus $30 shipping. (It was $30 for one DVD, or $30 for as many DVDs as I wanted). At the time, individual seasons were going for $110-$120 in the US, and I got all 9 seasons for that price.
Many countries speak English, so release English versions same day everywhere, and localized releases shortly there after. And if people in China, Russia, whatever can buy a pirated copy of that game for $5, then you can't sell a legal copy for $60. In certain countries, they may just have to sell legal copies for $10-$20.
Talk to Orson Scott Card who thinks the only way to settle the gay marriage issue is to criminalize homosexuality.
And this is coming from a guy with a screenname of EnderAndrew. I'm a fan of Orson Scott Card, because his books weren't black and white preachy texts of judgementalism. The Ender's Game series has an awful lot of tolerance and acceptance in them. But even a so-called open mind like his wants to see people put behind bars for sex between consenting adults.
I know you're expressing your personal opinion. My mother is an active advocate in the Christian Coalition. She is against a civil union compromise, as are most Christians I've spoken to. They want homosexuality to be persecuted on some level. Some people have even called for it to be criminalized.
On what grounds may you ask? On the grounds that the Bible labels it a sin. They're specifically calling for legislation by dogmatic law.
As for the semantics of religion, plenty of words (if not most) have multiple definitions, if not also varied connotations. You hold marriage to be a sacrament. To get a marriage certificate, you don't even need to be married in a church. Why not ask to outlaw any marriage that doesn't confine to your view of the sacrament?
Homosexuality is mentioned briefly in the same early books of law that are largely ignored for their lack of relevance in a modern world. Divorce however is mentioned numerous times in the Bible as disrespect to the sacrament of marriage.
Let me know when the Christian Coalition is going to push for divorce to be illegal.
Furthermore, while you have a right to practice your sacrament in your particular faith, so do others. Freedom of religion protects everyone.
Most Catholics insist that only Catholics may partake of communion. That doesn't stop me as a non-Catholic of partaking of communion. I violate their sense of sacrament, but what I do isn't illegal.
On the same grounds, it shouldn't be illegal for two men or two women to be married.
Civil rights isn't about advocating the rights of one group, or protecting one particular minority. It is about advocating equal rights for everyone.
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
Again, I said I know judges have made those rulings. I'm saying I disagree with those rulings. Show me where the Constitution says the 1st Amendment is a sometime thing, or that exceptions should be made.
Judges should not legislate from the bench. They should not have the authority to effectively create new legislation.
The 1st Amendment does not make provisions for what should be illegal. It says that speech is protected, period.
And as I posted to the other person, you can have absolute free speech. If you can prove that something I said caused harm, then you take me to court on the basis of the harm I caused. However you don't make it a blanket statement that it is illegal to say anything that might possibly cause harm.
ie, the right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
The right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
It shouldn't be illegal specifically to say any particular thing. However, if it can be proved that you caused someone harm, then you adjudicate that harm.
It isn't that difficult of a concept. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer into someone's face.
I like to believe that the intent of the 1st Amendment is that free speech is an absolute. The moment you cross that line for any reason, the absolute has no meaning.
Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. The majority wasn't censoring the minority on a large scale like we see in China. It was small groups offended by minute things. They suppressed minor items, a word at a time in the name of decency. Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line?
I know judges have made rulings that indecent material isn't protected, and that hate speech isn't protected. Frankly, I think those judges are wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Actually in a very clear case of your civil rights being violated, you can usually get someone else to foot the legal bill. If not, I get to sue for legal fees.
Sorry, I won't tolerate a slightly less inane censorship bill. It is still unenforceable and unconstitutional. Plus, we've been down this road in 1996.
Even if censorship weren't unconstitutional, the fact that it would be a felony to offend someone is ludicrous. This person should never hold an elected office again.
And while people defended voting for something clearly non-Constitutional by saying Congress doesn't determine what is Constitutional, I think the spirit of the 14th Amendment suggests the government should not pass bills that remove our basic rights.
I will write him a letter and tell him to fuck off. Watch him attempt to prosecute me. I'll fight that all day long and expose him for the idiot that he is.
When you are an elected official in this country, perhaps you should be familiar with the Constitution. There is a growing trend of elected officials who apparently have never heard of the thing.
Driving 100 mph likely wouldn't even land you in jail. Heck, repeat drunk drivers often don't even land in jail. And amazingly enough, I read that Texas allowed over 100 different convicted murders to receive probation in lieu of jail time, because prisons are overcrowded. But saying something offensive is a felony with a possible jail sentence.
If you accept censorship on any level, the free speech does not exist. Saying it is okay to make "anything obscene to any a group or individual" a felony, just because we're talking about minors is ridiculous.
Who defines obscene?
Free speech should be an absolute, protected by the Constitution.
Write a letter to State Senator Ford and tell him to fuck off.
I'm not remotely kidding.
Re:Yeah but KDE doesn't work.
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
What distro are you running? Which version of KDE 4? What video card do you have?
You know what? Send me an email with all that pertinent info, along with your xorg.conf to enderandrew AT gmail dot com and I can probably get you taken care of.
Again, I just installed a KDE 4.2 snapshot on an old laptop with a Geforce 440, and it is running KDE 4 reasonably well.
Re:KDE 4 has major UI issues
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
There is a patch that removes Mono dependency, but that patch isn't utilized by Novell, the company that is pushing Mono.
I just double checked, and Mono is still a dependency of Evolution.
As for proof, the number of projects with Mono as a dependency continues to grow. We're talking about easily verifiable facts, of which Evolution itself is proof.
And despite you claims that Gnome will never depend on Mono (you're not the first to say that) people are actively writing Mono hooks for very core portions of Gnome like GVFS, Nautilus, etc. And while many have suggested these will always be optional, several core apps already depend of Mono.
Should I listen to verifiable facts, or your opinions?
Furthermore, Icaza is a major player in the Gnome community whose prognostications of Mono have so far been accurate. Clearly, your expertise on this matter is more valid than his.
Re:KDE 4 has major UI issues
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
KDE 4.2 will allow you to use the folder view applet as your desktop containment. It will fill your entire desktop, will allow a wallpaper, and will basically operate like a classic desktop, but with added functionality as well. You can get it to display any folder you want, home just $HOME and it will allow you to filter results, even recognizing Nepomuk meta-data.
The new 4.2 RC which just came out today should work.
Re:KDE 4 has major UI issues
on
Qt Becomes LGPL
·
· Score: 1
Evolution's hook isn't optional. Neither is Tomboy's, nor F-Spot's, nor Beagle's, etc. Mono is more embedded in Gnome with every passing month and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the trend will reverse.
All Miguel Icaza talks about is how Mono is the future of Gnome. As a major Gnome developer, I'll take his word over yours.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. SLES ships with a Go-OO build. Many distros use the Go-OO branch in their stable releases that they advertise for production use.
There is an unstable branch of Go-OO, and there are stable releases of Go-OO. Obviously, I'd suggest you use the stable branch in a production environment.
Do your documents utilize VB macros? If so, you may want to look at Novell's fork of OOo at go-oo.org which improve macro support. Otherwise mainline OOo should open all your MS Office 2000 documents with ease.
The interface of OOo is closer to MS Office 2000, than MS Office 2007's interface is. Training users should actually be easier than training users on MS Office 2007.
When I converted my mother to Linux I told her she'd have to give up MS Office. When I installed openSUSE 11 and OOo 3, she thanked me for giving her MS Office. It looked so similar, she couldn't tell the difference.
The only little bit of advice I'd give you, is to go into the program options and set the default file formats. While I praise ODF, and want the world to adopt it, if you're going to send documents out to the rest of the world, you'll have to save them either in PDF format (which OOo does natively) or save them in MS formats for everyone else.
When you're done, tell your boss how you just saved the company $400 a pop times 50 people, and ask for a raise.
Ubuntu never removed the need for a terminal. Many people still need a terminal to get ndiswrapper working for their wireless cards and such.
And long before Ubuntu was massively popular, other distros were shipping simple installers that didn't require most users to ever touch a terminal.
Linux on the whole has gotten far more accessible. I don't understand why Ubuntu gets all the praise for the work of others, when Ubuntu hasn't contributed much in the way of code to the Linux world.
Cannonical is a well-run company that increases the visibility of Linux, and I praise them for that, but wake me when the contribute major projects back the way Red Hat or Novell has.
I can't ship a DVD across the country for $3. Now, I haven't ordered a Hong Kong DVD since then, and this was about 4-5 years ago, but the other things I've ordered from China (tri-wing screwdrivers, mod chips, etc) have all been really expensive shipping.
I bought pirated X-Files DVDs from China. It cost $30 to ship it here from China, so yes, shipping would all but make up the price difference.
However, it was cost effective for me to buy the pirated DVDs because I bought all 9 seasons for $80 total, plus $30 shipping. (It was $30 for one DVD, or $30 for as many DVDs as I wanted). At the time, individual seasons were going for $110-$120 in the US, and I got all 9 seasons for that price.
Many countries speak English, so release English versions same day everywhere, and localized releases shortly there after. And if people in China, Russia, whatever can buy a pirated copy of that game for $5, then you can't sell a legal copy for $60. In certain countries, they may just have to sell legal copies for $10-$20.
Talk to Orson Scott Card who thinks the only way to settle the gay marriage issue is to criminalize homosexuality.
And this is coming from a guy with a screenname of EnderAndrew. I'm a fan of Orson Scott Card, because his books weren't black and white preachy texts of judgementalism. The Ender's Game series has an awful lot of tolerance and acceptance in them. But even a so-called open mind like his wants to see people put behind bars for sex between consenting adults.
Touche.
I know you're expressing your personal opinion. My mother is an active advocate in the Christian Coalition. She is against a civil union compromise, as are most Christians I've spoken to. They want homosexuality to be persecuted on some level. Some people have even called for it to be criminalized.
On what grounds may you ask? On the grounds that the Bible labels it a sin. They're specifically calling for legislation by dogmatic law.
As for the semantics of religion, plenty of words (if not most) have multiple definitions, if not also varied connotations. You hold marriage to be a sacrament. To get a marriage certificate, you don't even need to be married in a church. Why not ask to outlaw any marriage that doesn't confine to your view of the sacrament?
Homosexuality is mentioned briefly in the same early books of law that are largely ignored for their lack of relevance in a modern world. Divorce however is mentioned numerous times in the Bible as disrespect to the sacrament of marriage.
Let me know when the Christian Coalition is going to push for divorce to be illegal.
Furthermore, while you have a right to practice your sacrament in your particular faith, so do others. Freedom of religion protects everyone.
Most Catholics insist that only Catholics may partake of communion. That doesn't stop me as a non-Catholic of partaking of communion. I violate their sense of sacrament, but what I do isn't illegal.
On the same grounds, it shouldn't be illegal for two men or two women to be married.
Civil rights isn't about advocating the rights of one group, or protecting one particular minority. It is about advocating equal rights for everyone.
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
Again, I said I know judges have made those rulings. I'm saying I disagree with those rulings. Show me where the Constitution says the 1st Amendment is a sometime thing, or that exceptions should be made.
Judges should not legislate from the bench. They should not have the authority to effectively create new legislation.
The 1st Amendment does not make provisions for what should be illegal. It says that speech is protected, period.
And as I posted to the other person, you can have absolute free speech. If you can prove that something I said caused harm, then you take me to court on the basis of the harm I caused. However you don't make it a blanket statement that it is illegal to say anything that might possibly cause harm.
ie, the right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
The right to swing your fist extends to the tip of my nose.
It shouldn't be illegal specifically to say any particular thing. However, if it can be proved that you caused someone harm, then you adjudicate that harm.
It isn't that difficult of a concept. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer. It isn't illegal to swing a hammer into someone's face.
I like to believe that the intent of the 1st Amendment is that free speech is an absolute. The moment you cross that line for any reason, the absolute has no meaning.
Fahrenheit 451 is a perfect example. The majority wasn't censoring the minority on a large scale like we see in China. It was small groups offended by minute things. They suppressed minor items, a word at a time in the name of decency. Where do you draw the line, and who draws the line?
I know judges have made rulings that indecent material isn't protected, and that hate speech isn't protected. Frankly, I think those judges are wrong.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Actually in a very clear case of your civil rights being violated, you can usually get someone else to foot the legal bill. If not, I get to sue for legal fees.
Sorry, I won't tolerate a slightly less inane censorship bill. It is still unenforceable and unconstitutional. Plus, we've been down this road in 1996.
Even if censorship weren't unconstitutional, the fact that it would be a felony to offend someone is ludicrous. This person should never hold an elected office again.
His name is listed as the sponsor of the Bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
They already tried it.
And while people defended voting for something clearly non-Constitutional by saying Congress doesn't determine what is Constitutional, I think the spirit of the 14th Amendment suggests the government should not pass bills that remove our basic rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I will write him a letter and tell him to fuck off. Watch him attempt to prosecute me. I'll fight that all day long and expose him for the idiot that he is.
When you are an elected official in this country, perhaps you should be familiar with the Constitution. There is a growing trend of elected officials who apparently have never heard of the thing.
Driving 100 mph likely wouldn't even land you in jail. Heck, repeat drunk drivers often don't even land in jail. And amazingly enough, I read that Texas allowed over 100 different convicted murders to receive probation in lieu of jail time, because prisons are overcrowded. But saying something offensive is a felony with a possible jail sentence.
If you accept censorship on any level, the free speech does not exist. Saying it is okay to make "anything obscene to any a group or individual" a felony, just because we're talking about minors is ridiculous.
Who defines obscene?
Free speech should be an absolute, protected by the Constitution.
* Robert Ford [D]
Developer
Dist. No. 42 - Charleston Co.
(H) P.O. Box 21302, Charleston, 29413
Bus. (843) 813-1777 Home (843) 852-0777
(C) 506 Gressette Bldg., Columbia, 29201
Bus. (803) 212-6124 Home (803) 798-9220
Write a letter to State Senator Ford and tell him to fuck off.
I'm not remotely kidding.
What distro are you running? Which version of KDE 4? What video card do you have?
You know what? Send me an email with all that pertinent info, along with your xorg.conf to enderandrew AT gmail dot com and I can probably get you taken care of.
Again, I just installed a KDE 4.2 snapshot on an old laptop with a Geforce 440, and it is running KDE 4 reasonably well.
There is a patch that removes Mono dependency, but that patch isn't utilized by Novell, the company that is pushing Mono.
I just double checked, and Mono is still a dependency of Evolution.
As for proof, the number of projects with Mono as a dependency continues to grow. We're talking about easily verifiable facts, of which Evolution itself is proof.
And despite you claims that Gnome will never depend on Mono (you're not the first to say that) people are actively writing Mono hooks for very core portions of Gnome like GVFS, Nautilus, etc. And while many have suggested these will always be optional, several core apps already depend of Mono.
Should I listen to verifiable facts, or your opinions?
Furthermore, Icaza is a major player in the Gnome community whose prognostications of Mono have so far been accurate. Clearly, your expertise on this matter is more valid than his.
KDE 4.2 will allow you to use the folder view applet as your desktop containment. It will fill your entire desktop, will allow a wallpaper, and will basically operate like a classic desktop, but with added functionality as well. You can get it to display any folder you want, home just $HOME and it will allow you to filter results, even recognizing Nepomuk meta-data.
The new 4.2 RC which just came out today should work.
Evolution's hook isn't optional. Neither is Tomboy's, nor F-Spot's, nor Beagle's, etc. Mono is more embedded in Gnome with every passing month and I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the trend will reverse.
All Miguel Icaza talks about is how Mono is the future of Gnome. As a major Gnome developer, I'll take his word over yours.