Compile html files to a Windows standard help file!
And why would they do that? Abiword is not a windows exclusive app. And windows help is garbage. HTML is an open standard. Anyone on any computer can view HTML and change the documents for accessibility. i.e. I change background to gray instead of white, and I have custom style sheets. You can't do these things in ms.
There is nothing stopping you from converting it yourself, unlike closed ms help.
People need to stop asking for such and such in ms closed proprietary format. It's annoying!
I downloaded this thing called WordWeb (and NoteTab Light). WordWeb is limited-functionality free. It's not a total replacement for my American Heritage talking Dictionary, but wordweb is more like a really good free thesaurus.
This Abiword 1.0.1 news is not news to me. I think it's been out for more than a week, or at least I think I updated my install on 5-4-02.
Dave_bsr doesn't know what he's talking about. I sent him an e-mail asking him "Why would anyone choose to be gay if it's a choice?" But he has yet to answer.
Companies are taxpayers just like you are. In either scenario, we've all shared the burden of paying for the development. However, if the code is GPL'd, the companies cannot benefit from it. This simply is not fair.
Why is it simply not fair? It doesn't seem all that simple to me.
If we are all going to pay, we should all be able to use.
Why? The government puts tax dollars into lots of things like defense, yet that doesn't mean we should have access to stealth planes and defense projects. Grants go into research all the time but the government doesn't dictate the terms of the license one must use, like drugs and medical research. Tax dollars are placed into public parks and things of that nature, yet one cannot build a house in Central Park. Public School are paid by tax dollars, yet that doesn't make you the principle.
Surely you're not talking about the GPL since everyone IS able to use GPLed software. M$ doesn't want to use GPLed software, they want to own it, fork it, and restrict you from the code so you have to pay for it.
You may not like paying taxes and many people don't, but I'm perfectly happy with my tax dollars going into projects without mandatory freeloader licenses attached. And just because you pay taxes, that may or may not have been used at one time on a project that was GPLed, doesn't give you any more access to it than buying windows would give you a right to m$ code. But then again, GPLed code gives you access to the code already.
If BSD is so good, then why doesn't m$ use it? Why did they invent shared source? The message is BSD is good for our competitors. Micros~1 sells software, not code. They do it by obfuscating code. That's why they want GPL code placed under BSD, so they can sell it. If you think otherwise, then I got some stock tips for you.
Am I the only person thinking that NASA should focus all their efforts into getting humans on mars permanently, lest certain unmentioned Arabs destroy the Earth?? How about it, NASA?
"I'd be astonished if the open-source community has in total done as many man-years of computer security code reviews as we have done in the last two months.
When was the last time that Linux had to do a total overhaul on security? Yet, paradoxically, Linux has continued to be more secure than windows. And how long has m$ put off this important task? A good software developer should plan ahead. M$ is again turning their shortcomings around and accuse their competitors of said deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Compile html files to a Windows standard help file!
And why would they do that? Abiword is not a windows exclusive app. And windows help is garbage. HTML is an open standard. Anyone on any computer can view HTML and change the documents for accessibility. i.e. I change background to gray instead of white, and I have custom style sheets. You can't do these things in ms.
There is nothing stopping you from converting it yourself, unlike closed ms help.
People need to stop asking for such and such in ms closed proprietary format. It's annoying!
I downloaded this thing called WordWeb (and NoteTab Light). WordWeb is limited-functionality free. It's not a total replacement for my American Heritage talking Dictionary, but wordweb is more like a really good free thesaurus.
This Abiword 1.0.1 news is not news to me. I think it's been out for more than a week, or at least I think I updated my install on 5-4-02.
Dave_bsr doesn't know what he's talking about. I sent him an e-mail asking him "Why would anyone choose to be gay if it's a choice?" But he has yet to answer.
http://slashdot.org/~panda88/journal/
It's a miracle. I can finally see again!
I like SlowView better than Irfan View. It's free and has a windows like explorer.
Companies are taxpayers just like you are. In either scenario, we've all shared the burden of paying for the development. However, if the code is GPL'd, the companies cannot benefit from it. This simply is not fair.
Why is it simply not fair? It doesn't seem all that simple to me.
If we are all going to pay, we should all be able to use.
Why? The government puts tax dollars into lots of things like defense, yet that doesn't mean we should have access to stealth planes and defense projects. Grants go into research all the time but the government doesn't dictate the terms of the license one must use, like drugs and medical research. Tax dollars are placed into public parks and things of that nature, yet one cannot build a house in Central Park. Public School are paid by tax dollars, yet that doesn't make you the principle.
Surely you're not talking about the GPL since everyone IS able to use GPLed software. M$ doesn't want to use GPLed software, they want to own it, fork it, and restrict you from the code so you have to pay for it.
You may not like paying taxes and many people don't, but I'm perfectly happy with my tax dollars going into projects without mandatory freeloader licenses attached. And just because you pay taxes, that may or may not have been used at one time on a project that was GPLed, doesn't give you any more access to it than buying windows would give you a right to m$ code. But then again, GPLed code gives you access to the code already.
If BSD is so good, then why doesn't m$ use it? Why did they invent shared source? The message is BSD is good for our competitors. Micros~1 sells software, not code. They do it by obfuscating code. That's why they want GPL code placed under BSD, so they can sell it. If you think otherwise, then I got some stock tips for you.
Am I the only person thinking that NASA should focus all their efforts into getting humans on mars permanently, lest certain unmentioned Arabs destroy the Earth?? How about it, NASA?
"I'd be astonished if the open-source community has in total done as many man-years of computer security code reviews as we have done in the last two months.
When was the last time that Linux had to do a total overhaul on security? Yet, paradoxically, Linux has continued to be more secure than windows. And how long has m$ put off this important task? A good software developer should plan ahead. M$ is again turning their shortcomings around and accuse their competitors of said deficiency.
"MS: So bad we have to remake it. Again!"