Wine Runs Word 2000 And Excel 2000 371
LLurex writes: "There's a short comment and screenshot on Ian Schmidt's Wine Page about everyone's favourite Windoze Emulator finally running Excel2000 and Word2000 (imho the only really good applications Microsoft ever published)! No more lame excuses, time to switch OS ..." The screenshot of Excel looks pretty much, well, like a screenshot of Excel. With this, two of the most persistent reasons not to run Linux appear to be fading; of course, what's to stop Microsoft from releasing versions that won't work under Wine, ever? That could be a good reason to stick with GNUmeric and pico.
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:5)
Now then, lemme trot out my standard response to this claim, usually made by embittered former OS/2 users.
Microsoft does not control their own platform anymore. Their installed base is spread across 5+ Win32 implementations, including 95/95OSR2/98/98SE/NT351/NT4/2000. Office *has to* run on every single one of those, because many home and business customers don't upgrade their OS much if ever. This plays right into Wine's hands, since Office cannot use any new whizbang features on new MS OSes. They are being slowly strangled to death by their very own market share - it's a beautiful thing, and it goes along with ESR's arguments about DOJ being fun but unnecessary.
Run, Lotus, Run (Score:2)
Hey, let's be fair here. Microsoft is good at screwing competitors, but pre-IBM Lotus was good at screwing itself. Back when 1-2-3 was a DOS and CP/M product, I was working for a Unix boxmaker that was trying to break into the desktop market. Naturally they wanted 1-2-3. Lotus said 1-2-3 needed a lot of low level system hacks to run efficiently -- hacks you can't do on a system with distinct process spaces, such as Unix. Of course, they changed their tune when GUIs started to replace text apps, but that was a little late in the day...
When I was a consultant, I had a client whose main app was DOS WordPerfect with a ton of file management and database plugins. Naturally he kept running agains the 640K barrier. And he had other apps like this that took forever to start up and shut down.
There used to be all kinds of complicated solutions to this problem, but lacking the I-Hate-Bill gene, I went for the one that was simplest and cheapest: Windows 95. The DOS box provided all the address space he needed, and then some, and he could run any number of then at once. There were backward compatibility issues (some of his apps assumed that his printer port was a physical device, not a link to a printing system), but none that didn't have a corresponding Windows tweak. Of course the tweak was often poorly documented....
__________
No kidding -- programs can't create Office2K files (Score:3)
Word 2000 still has nothing on LaTeX, IMO.
In your O and a bunch of others' as well! A huge advantage of the TeX family over the Office family is that arbitrary programs[*] can create valid TeX input, without actually having TeX. My reporting scripts can emit LaTeX on systems that don't have LaTeX, and then email the file to systems that do. Machines with half a meg of RAM can still originate beautiful text. Plus all the other obvious advantages.
[*] Okay, maybe not all arbitrary programs. Only those which can output text. :-)
You are not alone (Score:2)
As a Linux user (and programmer) who has to use NT at work, and occasionally MS Word for specifications, proposals, etc. - I hate having to use Word. There are tons of little features that you never use, and it sometimes haunts you.
Lots of operations depend on the position of the mouse over an area where even moving 1 pixel changes the mouse cursor and the operation. I am very often frustrated trying to get things done (obviously I'd be better with it if I used it everyday, but that's not the point)
Granted, many of these problems are Word's fault, but I think trying to support so many features in a WYSIWYG editor will yield exactly these results. LaTeX is looking better everyday.
Use forbidden under license (Score:4)
Doesn't the Microsoft Office EULA specify that you may only license the software if you own a legitimate license for any of their Windows 9x - NT - 2000 software? Or is this just MSIE?
If so, it would have been nice for the DOJ to cover this .. then again, they may have..
Wrong. MS Access :-). (Score:5)
And just as the Classic Failed Project is the one that tries to develop a word processor to compete with Word, [hex.net] the widely useful thing that few have really seriously tried to do is to construct a "multiplexing data access tool" like MS Access.
Access may suck bad as a data repository, and MySQL and PostgreSQL may have it well-beat in that arena. But you can use Access with those DBMSes, thus obviating that demerit. What they don't offer, and nothing else does, either, is a tool that provides pretty/flexible ways of:
Just one more... (Score:4)
Why? Because my clients need a rock-soild, easy to use, fast, compliant, stable, free browser for our Internet/Intranet applications. That's IE 5.
Until then I will need to run Windows to test my development work. If Wine really runs IE5--then I'm done with dual boot/VMWare/etc. kludges.
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
Uhhh (Score:4)
B) The whole "windoze" thing bothers me. No one has convinced me that Linux is better than NT4, and when I look at my 3D graphics benchmarks, I prove to myself that NT4 is in fact better. So it troubles me that article authors get away with using "windoze." Of course it is to be expected of unwashed masses, but those posting articles should be held to a higher level, don't you think? And I doubt it will fly too well if I start refering to it as "LinSux" from now on, would it?
hypocrites (Score:3)
Wine Is Not an Emulator (Score:3)
--
Ya-freaking-hoo (Score:3)
I'll admit that I just got the latest CVS of Wine yesterday and gave Excel 2000 a shot, though.
Re:Why else would you even have the software? (Score:3)
The EULA doesn't state that you may not use it on NON-MS systems, it merely says that you may not license it (despite the fact that you spent $500 to "license" it, and the media and docs) without "owning" a license to any one of their Windows operating systems.
Second, when used in its most loose context, this licensing practice might just be considered bundling the software in such a way that gives microsoft a competitive edge over their "competitors" (abuse of its monopoly)
Before there was WINE or anything of the like, this provision was not necessary because it was not possible to run Office on anything but windows -- it was implied that windows was required because it was windows software (Not to mention it was *also* expressed on the packaging). Now that there is WINE, an open source implementation of the Windows API, Microsoft must eliminate the possibility that they might lose money to a competing product (Windows/WINE).
Microsoft has created Office as a product separate of Windows. But when it is possible (as proven by WINE) to create an implementation of Windows, requiring the "original" is inappropriate.
c'mon... what does WINE stand for?!?!? (Score:2)
W.I.N.E actually stands for "Wine Is Not an Emulator". Look it up @ winehq.org. (yes, it's true... a virtual black hole of sorts. But hey, what's in a name, right?)
WINE is actually a win32 support layer. If you want an emulator, then get VMWARE.
--Cr@ckwhore
Re:Pico? (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
Take a look at the prototype of the new documentation page here. [codeweavers.com]
Take a look at the items at the bottom of the Wine 1.0 todo list here. [codeweavers.com]
Take a look at the plans for revamping the apps database here [winehq.com]. BTW, we need help. Wanna quit complaining and give us a hand?
However, I do have to agree in one important point - many Wine users have a tendency to get an app up, and then that gets reported to Slashdot. But, the reality is, it doesn't work well, so everyone stampedes to try Wine, and gets disappointed. The key thing we're trying to get to with the new apps db is *honest* and verifiable app reports.
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:2)
Re: Word screenshots (Score:3)
Re:Getting programs to run under WINE (Score:2)
In case you're wondering I do have a licensed copy of windows to run on this machine, I just chose not to install it. However, I did not bother to install it to a fat partition and copy it from there; I used another windows machine. So technically I am probably violating the EULA, even though I have a licensed copy of those DLLs for the machine I installed them on.
IMO, this is one of the best arguments for Free software -- figuring out what you're supposedlly allowed to do with a piece of non-free software gets to be like figuring the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Wine: It gets better with age (Score:2)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
Uhhh...actually I do, which is why I don't bother screwing around trying to run crappy MS apps on Linux when there are better Open Source programs available.
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:3)
It's not embittered, it's, ah, mmmm...never mind.
Their installed base is spread across 5+ Win32 implementations, including 95/95OSR2/98/98SE/NT351/NT4/2000. Office *has to* run on every single one of those, because many home and business customers don't upgrade their OS much if ever.
Updates to the system libraries are a standard event for many Microsoft products, not just Office. Put in one change that uses the system level (ring 0) in an unusual way, and you end up with Wine chasing after compatability for another year. It just has to be a non-obvious and flakey looking implementation of a 'standard' system call that could have been done on the application level (ring 3), but isn't and is for a specific program. Since they have the source, they can build specific versions of each program for each target WinXX version.
Since they're rumored(?) to be moving to 'subscription licencing', they could put it in the TCP/IP stack, and then we'd have quite a bit of work to duplicate.
Re:Yeah, 'windoze' is old, but neither OS is bette (Score:2)
>>>>>>>
I know, I here TEX is really cool. I was just being a jackass
All OSs have strengths for different environments. If, like me, all you ever need is ssh and a browser, then Debian GNU/Linux
is better than NT4. I wish I could run IE, but even without it I prefer Linux for responsiveness and lack of "surprises".
>>>>>>>>
Good for you, but I have to tell you that WinNT is a good deal more responsive than Linux, and I do think it has something along the lines of SSH. But hey, if you're happy, more power to ya!
For games it depends on the game. Benchmarks be damned, I'd rather run Quake on Unix (Linux or BSD).
>>>>>>>
Well, for games, stability isn't a big issue since the game will go down long before the OS will. I wouldn't have a problem if Linux was just a little slower (though given the piece of junk that is Windows, it shouldn't be!) but often the Windows version retains playable fps at a higher res.
For CAD it depends on the app. Some aren't even available for NT.
>>>>>>
For 3D editing, which is what I was talking about, NT cannot be beat. Linux's situation will improve when Maya comes out, (and also the the WildCat 4420 gets Linux drivers which it will soon), but NT still dominates from the tools point of view.
For video editing, depends on the app, NT is probably first choice, or for super high-end, maybe IRIX or something obscure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
If you're doing realtime video editing, check out BeOS. Though PersonalStudio won't do anything for ya if you need Premiere caliber videos, but it can often do more on less hardware than a lot of NT programs.
This debate isn't one which can be answered definitively, any more than you can answer a car debate definitively. I like VWs
for personality. Some Japenese cars get better milage. Some American cars get style or raw horsepower/dollar bonuses. You
get the picture.
>>>>>>>>>
For the midrange, Mitsubishi Ecclipses are undoutedly the most sexy. For the high end, nothing beats an XK8. That IS the truth.
"...I prove to myself that NT4 is in fact better"
Then you're right. NT4 is best for you, hands down. You must be very happy, you've found your "soul operating system".
>>>>>>
Not at all, I think NT is far from my "soul operating system." Linux is farther still, and BeOS, though I love it, is still not there yet. With a couple of tweeks, BeOS could get there (me being a media/graphics person) but its not there yet.
Re:Word screenshots? (Score:2)
Heck, check those scrollbars on that screenshot of Excel. I don't think anyone on the Linux side of things is going to be rubbing salt into any NT user's wounds any time now.
Simon
Bob! (Score:2)
Re:Winword on linux? (Score:3)
Yeah, right.
"WTF happened to the passwd file?!!"
"I thought it would look better in 12-point Times..."
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
A double-edged sword ... (Score:3)
Okay. Let's posit the following:
Keep in mind that this isn't Joe's fault, it's just that MS has done an exceptional job of making it look like there are no alternatives, therefore Joe Average knows MS and that's all.
Therefore, Wine is key to getting people to give Linux a shot in two ways:
I might also add another advantage not specifically related to Joe: A company's systems people can slip a few Linux boxes (configured with fvwm95, Wine and Office) on a few desks, and no one notices the difference until they realize the system hasn't crashed for no damn reason at all for a while :)
So now, Joe Average is willing to consider and possibly even uses Linux, although he may still be running Office on it just because he knows how to use it.
So far, so good. The first side of the sword slices at Redmond nicely.
Now for the other side of the sword.
Unless there is a consistent effort on development of native Linux applications, all that's going to be accomplished here is that MS will gain a foothold in the Linux world and can make our lives miserable.
I know, I know. Development's going on right now, even as we speak. But how many of us look the other way at the limitations of StarOffice or WordPerfect just because we get a warm fuzzy from the fact that it's all MS-free?
If Linux's acceptance comes to hinge on Microsoft software (an oxymoron if ever I heard one, but if the above holds true, not impossible at all), that gives MS an unacceptable wedge over the future path of Linux development -- after all, if we fail to address the needs of MS application users (as defined by the programmers at MS), they can take their apps back to a Windows box.
In my more paranoid moments, I think that this is the reason that Wine hasn't had an encounter with Microsoft's legal division - Wine does, not by design but by result - extend the potential embrace of Microsoft.
What to do, then? Wine is necessary in order to wean current MS users from their digital crack, but at the same time, opens up a whole new playground for MS to lurk in.
I'm not going to propose an answer here, because I don't know what it is. But it's not often that I'm both heartened and chilled by the same piece of news.
Re:Why not use VMWare? (Score:2)
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:2)
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:4)
Add in the fact that many large companies using Windows have at least one piece of custom in-house software. If that software's broken by any tomfoolery, MS again looks bad, and this time in front of a potentially huge corporate customer.
Re:Did MS change their Windows[tm] requirement? (Score:2)
Um, duh, MacOS isn't one of their own trademarked Windows[tm] versions.
There are many groups at Microsoft. The numbers of the departments vary, but are generally along the lines of "Systems," "Applications," and "Tools;" they move the language guys around between Languages, Apps, Tools, and Internet, depending on the prevailing wind.
Inside the groups are Business Units, or BU's. Each product is its own BU, where it makes its own strategic decisions about how and what to develop. Of course there's the Windows platform strategy, since it's had more than 50% of the OS market for the last ten years. Of course it's good business sense to capture the MacOS market or the Linux market, if they look like they'll get significant market share.
There are a lot of cynical borgesque statements floating around. Some are true, some are false. One commonly touted one, Windows ain't done 'til Lotus won't run is false ... in fact, Philippe Kahn of Borland (having already made several portable OS/2+Windows apps) even told the Windows-inexperienced Lotus flacks to stop whining and write some real code.
If a new version of Windows wouldn't run an app that had marketshare, then they'd lose that upgrade market. They had to go to great lengths to fix bugs while maintaining backward compatibility. Windows 3.1 had to create 'apphacks,' which were a list of 3.0 bugfixes that Windows would undo for certain best-selling applications, including Lotus 1-2-3W. If they fixed the bug, Lotus would crash even more than usual. About 1000 applications were analyzed.
Re:Who's to say they weren't trying? (Score:2)
Excel is truely the only decent app they've written.
Tell that to the guy who just called my helpdesk wondering why his Excel document is no longer recognized as such after trying to drop a Word document into it and crashing...
*knock*knock* Hello, Microsoft? Do the words "temp file" mean anything to you? No? Try "do not write the document to disk in a state that you cannot read back". What's that? You'll get it right next time? Oh goody! Can I pay now?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Making compromises (Score:2)
Compromises? Nah. It's just educating the clueless that there's more to life than just Microsoft Word.
I was recently looking for a new job, back in the June-August timeframe. Surprisingly, once I pointed out the fact that there were all these other readable versions of my resume online, a lot of people had no problems accepting text or html.
The really disturbing part is people would see my resume online, which has links to all these versions, and still would call me and ask for a Word copy.
I just made the conscious decision that I didn't want to deal with anyone who couldn't handle ASCII, and I ended up still dealing with everyone who called me and asked about a Word version.
(And the UID is a fluke... I found out about "that slashdot thing" and decided to register about a week later, so I could customize my content.)
--
It's pretty pathetic when karma can drop when you do nothing
Re:Fonts still a problem (Score:2)
There is no excuse in the modern world for a program to have to manage "visuals" or "colormaps". And it is horrible that you have to write many pages of code in Xlib (and allocate many tens of thousands of structures to enumerate every font) to make code that will reliably locate and use the "Helvetica" font on any X machine.
I really propose the entire graphics system be scrapped (and emulated in Xlib). Replace it with a new gc that contains a window id, make it act as though it is True Color always (use server local allocation of colors on old hardware), and replace the entire font system with one where you find the font Helvetica by sending the damn string "Helvetica" to the server! (and of course make it antialias and make it draw UTF-8 encoded text!)
What about the others? (Score:4)
Why else would you even have the software? (Score:2)
Sounds like the sort of thing they'd include in their license, yeah, but so what? Why on Earth would you own a copy of Office (for Windows) if you didn't already have a Windows system to run it on? Hopefully they didn't word the license to prevent you from running it on non-Windows systems, because it probably never occurred to them that anybody would. That will change.
No, no, no. It ain't ME babe,
It ain't ME you're looking for.
It could NEVER happen (Score:4)
ever?
What, indeed?
I mean, Microsoft would never sink so low as to add code to their software to prevent it from running someplace they didn't want it, would they? Such as, oh, Windows x.yy terminating with an error message when run under DR-DOS?
Or, turning things around a bit, "Windows isn't done until Lotus won't run."
No, it could never ever happen.
--
It's pretty pathetic when karma can drop when you do nothing
Re:Use forbidden under license (Score:2)
It's not illegal to make your software do whatever you'd like. What is illegal is introducing such features such that you are no longer competing with anybody because you've just kicked them down 40 flights of stairs where they must once again ascend.
The only option, to complete the analogy, for such a company would be to take the elevator maintained by the elevator engineer at the Top(microsoft) (negotiate with Microsoft to acquire said company).
What about NSFPU? (Score:3)
Yeah, 'windoze' is old, but neither OS is better (Score:3)
A lot of books are produced entirely with *NIX.
All OSs have strengths for different environments. If, like me, all you ever need is ssh and a browser, then Debian GNU/Linux is better than NT4. I wish I could run IE, but even without it I prefer Linux for responsiveness and lack of "surprises".
If, like a lot of people I know, you run proprietary applications that don't exist for Unix, then NT is the clear choice. No argument is possible.
For games it depends on the game. Benchmarks be damned, I'd rather run Quake on Unix (Linux or BSD).
For CAD it depends on the app. Some aren't even available for NT.
For video editing, depends on the app, NT is probably first choice, or for super high-end, maybe IRIX or something obscure.
For medical data manipulation, it depends entirely on the application, but I suspect Unix comes out a little ahead for stability.
This debate isn't one which can be answered definitively, any more than you can answer a car debate definitively. I like VWs for personality. Some Japenese cars get better milage. Some American cars get style or raw horsepower/dollar bonuses. You get the picture.
"...I prove to myself that NT4 is in fact better"
Then you're right. NT4 is best for you, hands down. You must be very happy, you've found your "soul operating system".
No (Score:3)
The whole concept of using it as a porting framework came a while after wine came out. The idea being that if you can do it in real time, you can just use libraries that do it head off, which is a pretty simple (conceptually) thing to do too.
Beg to disagree... (Score:2)
I mostly dislike Access (Score:2)
Though I know most users don't have access to the tools, I can honestly tell you that I can develop just about anything in Delphi and a decent SQL backend faster than I can with Access. I don't really see a large market for Access in and of itself, the way it is now. In my opinion, its limited success is due mostly to the fact that it comes _bundled_ with many systems; the manager, or whomever, doesn't need to run out and buy overpriced software for an application that'll only get a couple hours of use.
That being said, I do think Linux needs an application that _actually_ does the above well. Kylix (Delphi) will certainly be a huge boon for professionals when and if it comes out. Hell, even such an application targeted more at _end users_ for Windows would be nice.....
oh well, g'night
Wine progressing (Score:2)
Re:Just one more... (Score:2)
Oops, typo.
You probably meant rock-soiled [greenpeace.org] browser, didn't you?
What about KOffice? (Score:2)
However, KOffice was just released yesterday, and while it may not entirely meet up to the feature set of MS Office, it may be "Good Enough".
Re:Conspiracy theorists... (Score:2)
Well, since a large part of the WINE effort consists is finding out just what those undocumented API's are, I'm not sure what you need explained. If the Office apps used only documented API calls, they would have been running long ago.
Word screenshots? (Score:2)
Not that I enjoy that sort of thing. Oh, what the heck, yes I do.
So, anyone got screenshots? Might be nice to get a big one with KDE or some other Linux-specific background props around it too
Re:Just one more... (Score:2)
By "free" I mean as in "lunch" (you can drink yours if you want; I'll have a sandwich). My clients do not need a "free" as in "-dom" browser. They have no interest in open vs. closed. Heck, they're interested in getting their job done, regardless of the politics of the developer.
That does not mean I have no need of a "free" as in "born -" OS or development tools. AAMoF I only use "free" as in "- expression" OSes for my backend and middleware servers and for my development tools. Well, mostly (we have a legacy application that uses Acucobol and that's bound and pricey). Anyway, as a developer I respect freedom. As a service provider I hate licensing fees (maintaining and paying). But as users, my clients want a low-cost, reliable solution. That means IE 5 to run our mason/mod_perl/apache application.
So there.
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
Questions (Score:5)
Introduce platform-specific bugs (Score:2)
If they could discover a subtle way to detect most (not even all) of the time when they are on Wine, they wouldn't even need to create an "if WINE" branch. They would probably be able to find ways of getting it to go down the wrong Windows branch on occasion, instead of going down the branch of whichever Windows WINE emulates. That would result in strange, irreproducible crashers that would create FUD around Wine.
This would be a lot more devastating than just preventing it from working at all. It would cast serious doubts on Wine's reliability without making MS look guilty of anything. Even looking at the source code, you wouldn't see any "if WINE" case statements, so it would be hard to pin anything on MS.
I think WINE should go forward as a way to run Win32 apps from vendors other than MS. Other ISVs would love to have the additional revenue stream.
At the same time, I think there have to be some serious open source competitors to the MS-Office apps. Those are important enough that they need to run well natively, and not be hampered by the tradeoffs of an emulator. At the same time, we don't want MS to have another revenue stream from the Linux market.
Re:hypocrites (Score:3)
Because a lot of businesses use Windows Office products, and you might need to share files back and forth. Using the same word processor just makes things easier, and thus makes it more likely that people will start running Office without Windows. This is actually a good thing.
Microsofts products aren't 100% compatible (Score:4)
Re:It could NEVER happen -- but it will (Score:2)
According to http://www.zdnet.com /zd nn/stories/news/0,4586,2644039,00.html [zdnet.com], the next release of Office (Office 10) will only work on Win98 or later.
It appears to me that this is yet another way of trying to make people upgrade. At work, we still use win95 (with a few NT, Win2K, & Linux desktops) as the standard desktop. I can't see management forking over the cash required to upgrade all the PCs just to run Office 10. IMHO, if MS does this, it would be a perfect opportunity for Sun & StarOffice to come in and pick up a lot of ex-Office customers and very well cause Office and OS sales to slow down even further.Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:4)
Wine's ace-in-the-hole is that Microsoft also has to be careful not to break any other commercial applications with it's new version. That even includes all of the applications that the Fortune 500 develop in house. If a new version of Office breaks in-house applications, then it doesn't get deployed until there is a "resolution." There is more to Windows than MS Office, and if Microsoft broke their OSes so that only Office would run they would soon find themselves without a market.
For example, imagine that you were a commercial developer and Microsoft broke compatibility with your products simply because it didn't want Office to run under Wine. Now imagine that you also learned that Wine would allow you to release your commercial application natively under Linux using libwine.
I imagine that there would be a lot of ticked off developers releasing Linux versions of their software.
Microsoft has to be very careful, or they will find they are only speeding up the inevitable.
Re:Uh, hu-hu-hu! (Score:2)
Re:Windoze (Score:2)
Access is bad, but pretty ubiquitous (Score:2)
I've not used Delphi; between it being somewhat pricey, non-ubiquitous, and such, it hasn't been an option. The company I work for got worried a couple years ago over the financial condition of Borland, and basically "nixed" the use of any of Borland's tools for new work. (There used to be quite a lot of Paradox systems.)
If Delphi can't become ubiquitous, it's not too likely to become of great importance, whether renamed to Kylix or not :-).
I keep debating whether or not I should get a copy of Corel Office Deluxe so I can try out Paradox for Linux; it ought to be an option as well.
Office for Mac is a separate product. (Score:2)
I thought there was a version of M$ office for macOS systems also. Obviously you don't need a license for Windows if you are running it on a mac.
As with most Microsoft software packages, the version for Macintosh systems is an almost completely separate (and much cleaner) codebase. Yes, IE5 for Mac is about as good as Mozilla. Yes, Office2K for Mac eats Office2K for Windows for lunch. Yes, Microsoft will lose market share because the licenses say "you may not run this on a free OS."
Angels and pins (Score:2)
Actually, I think it *was* resolved back when it was a serious theological question--though I forget the answer.
hawk
Re:hypocrites (Score:2)
Monday, it actually brought my system down (using the 2.4pre5 kernel). I selected two columns, copied, and my fingers slipped as I tried a paste-special. It may have tried to pasxte them overlapping the original, but it actually overloaded teh vuirtual memory and brought it down (I left it until morning to see if tit returned).
I've also crashed the same kernel by loading a file larger than vm into beav . . .
(and FreeBSD 3.0 could be crashed the same way by middle-clicking on a whole bunch of images at once in netscape).
Windows can do remote login with a GPL tool (Score:5)
Not to mention an OS where you can log in remotely and its like your in front of the machine without a hideous lag of 'move mouse'...'wait for screen to catch up'...'click on icon'...'wait for screen to repaint new window'...'move mouse'...
Remote graphical login is now in the hands of lowly Windows 9x users with Back Orifice 2000 [bo2k.com], released by CDC under GNU GPL. If Back Orifice 2000 is a digital crime tool, then so is PCAnywhere.
Re:Yeah, 'windoze' is old, but neither OS is bette (Score:2)
What do you mean "responsive"? If you want true "real time" response, NT sucks. It's designed around a "human time" response; getting it to respond under 100 milliseconds without a dual CPU is as close to impossible as you can get.
For the midrange, Mitsubishi Ecclipses are undoutedly the most sexy. For the high end, nothing beats an XK8. That IS the truth.
Liar. For the midrange, anything will do, the best is probably a Toyota Corolla. For the high end, the absolute best is a 4WD Porsche Turbo. THAT is the truth.
I think NT is far from my "soul operating system." Linux is farther still, and BeOS, though I love it, is still not there yet.
I do a lot of server work. This means going from one machine to the other, all the time. I can't do this with an eNTirely shitty computer that depends on a built-in GUI. Native Telnet is a MUST for servers, unles you can walk faster than bits do from one console to the other. Or else, you must have a fat stock option with the Tivoli Co.
Then write a GUI that doesn't suck. (Score:2)
THE main reason is all Unix GUIs suck arse compared to Win/Mac
This is why UNIX systems and similar systems come with development tools: so you can write your own GUI if need be. Have you tried GNOME or KDE [8m.com] lately?
except that (Score:2)
Re:What about VxDs? (Score:3)
the reasons aren't fading... (Score:2)
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I've tried WINE, but I doubt the process for installation and setup has varied drastically. WINE is a good project, and I think good things will come out of it eventually for end users, but not for another year or so, most likely.
-lx
Mozilla! (Score:2)
Because my clients need a rock-soild[sic], easy to use, fast, compliant, stable, free browser for our Internet/Intranet applications. That's IE 5.
IE 5 is only "rock-solid, etc." if you run it on a Macintosh system. Mozilla [mozilla.org] is already somewhat more compliant than IE 5 for Windows and has nearly surpassed it in the stability department. Plus, it's both free and Free.
Re:Introduce platform-specific bugs (Score:2)
Word GOOD? (Score:2)
Ok Ok, I'll give Excel credit...it still beats the spreadsheet in StarOffice, but WORD??? No Microsoft product manages to increase my stress level more than Word! Even BSODs in Win98 don't compare! Word is fucking evil! I constantly switch it to the Australian dictionary. After typing a paragraph it switches back to the US dictionary. So I switch it back. So it changes back again. Then there's the painful graphic positioning process...and the little effort where by if you drag a graphic past the bottom of the screen the scroll at first moves at a snails pace, then suddenly jumps all over the document. Then there's that FUCKED UP LITTLE PAPER CLIP that there appears to be no option to disable...you have to uninstall the software using the CD.
Re:hypocrites (Score:3)
Because that perfectly good application isn't Office 2k. Many jobs require the specific use of Word / Excel.
---
Running Windows Programs (Score:4)
--
Re:Access is bad, but pretty ubiquitous (Score:2)
I just don't see a real reason not to use it along those lines. For short and sweet apps, Delphi is by far the fastest and most efficient (in terms of speed of development and the end product)...the long term survivability of Delphi is basically irrelevant. For longer term apps, the odds are that you simply don't want to use something like Access or paradox anyways. The advantages that Delphi offers over VC++ (or even VB) are just too tremendous to ignore, especially when the supposed drawbacks are scrutinized.
Re:Word screenshots? (Score:2)
Try the link below.
Heck, check those scrollbars on that screenshot of Excel
The ones on the Word2k screenshot (with the oddball non-standard scroll utilities) look fine.
home.cfl.rr.com/ischmidt/wineimg/word2k.jpg [rr.com]
You can take a look at all the screenshots by looking at:
home.cfl.rr.com/ischmidt/wineimg/ [rr.com]
--
Evan
Re:Develop more productive things (Score:2)
> You run several thousand Windows applications? Impressive.
Lessee. Assume a mere 5 minutes per application on the average, and that "several" thousand is at least "three" thousand.He's a busy man.
Also, assume $50 per application on average.He's a rich man. Or rather, he was a rich man.
Re:Uhhh (Score:2)
Speaking personally, I've never really been sure what Excel is for. I've seen many people use Excel as a database: they should have been using a database package. The other use one often sees is rapid application development. I would do such things in CGI. Very few people seem to use it as a spreadsheet, because not all that many people need a spreadsheet (except when they're shoehorning the spreadsheet metaphor into something else, such as a database).
As for word processing: simple documents need something simpler than Word. Complex documents need LaTeX. With LyX, you don't even need to learn the markup language. For WYSIWYG, if that's what you want, you want proper DTP, not Word's WYSINWYG (n for "nearly"). Framemaker perhaps?
--
Warning: Zealous Flamebait Ahead (Score:3)
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:2)
Re:Just one more... (Score:3)
http://home.twcf.rr.com/ischmidt/wineimg/ie5.jp
Missing the Point (Score:3)
Verily, the lack of video game support is one of the main reasons that the world has not yet converted entirely to Linux.
:o)
Re:Just one more... (Score:2)
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
Sadly missing the point... (Score:2)
I don't think so.
The point was that Access:
It may do so fairly badly. That does not deny that it does so.
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:2)
This code was only executed in a beta version of Windows, and it's pretty obvious that it was there for the sole purpose of discovering anything else but MS-DOS (e.g. DR-DOS) and halting with a weird error message.
The funny thing is that the actual code was linked in later code, but never executed.
Re:here are a few points (Score:2)
I'm not trolling here, I'm simply pointing out that Linux isn't as great as everybody at
Blind devotion to an OS doesn't get you anywhere. It ultimately serves to kill that OS because nobody has the balls to point out what sucks aobut it.
Re:Pico (Score:2)
I used to know all the keys in TP5.0; they're the same, and I'm only 22...
I *love* rectangular cut-and-paste! That's why I tried to edit stuff in "The Draw" in the first place!
I type in shell script with 'cat'. If it's really complicated, well, I use pico!
Heh.
(a) paste them with cat (Unix: just cat and paste!)
(b) run pico as 'pico -w' (just alias it to 'pico -wb', actually...)
(c) use bash. Oh man do I hate tcsh; and we can't change it, either. At least I'm writing a simple shell for Operating Systems; I implemented pipes tonight!
(d) '/bin/vi' vs. '/usr/bin/pico'? Too scary for me...
(e) That code you sent me was demented. Now I have to replace the typedefs... TELL me no-one writes unions like that!
(f) Go to my SID [slashdot.org] and tell me what my demented code does, and why, and how. Bonus points if you find that it actually might do something else. (hey, what do I know?)
(g) I had to edit a passwd file once in vi on a hosed system. Yuck! Deleting the end of a line is seriously broken; I'm just going to shut up about "HJKL", too. Now I probably would just use sed; it's easier.
later...
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Warning: Zealous Flamebait Ahead (Score:2)
Re:It could NEVER happen (Score:2)
That's not a problem for Microsoft if MS apps are the only ones that use the API to trigger the special ring 0 trickery. No other apps need to use it to screw with Wine...and they don't need to be recompiled. They are in a special situation where they make the apps and the OS and need to show the source to nobody.
Fonts still a problem (Score:3)
Still an area where X lags behinds windows, both the font renderer and the lack of anti-aliasing.
Re:hypocrites (Score:2)
Getting programs to run under WINE (Score:5)
One problem I've found with getting programs to run under WINE is you have to raid a windows box's system directory to snitch the DLLs you need (e.g. the DLLs OLE subsystem). That's not exactly fair game.
I'd be very interested to know if they got Office to run under WINE with no MS intellectual property other than what might be copied to the hard disk by the Office 2K installer.
Re:Introduce platform-specific bugs (Score:3)
So that $150million they paid to Caldera was just out of generosity?
Even better! (Score:3)
2) Classic Environment
3) VirtualPC for MacOS 9
4) Windows NT 4.0
5) LinuxOne Lite (name? You know what I'm talking about.)
6) WINE
7) Word 2000
Or you can wait for the official port, which should be out soon. At least in theory.
Re:Develop more productive things (Score:4)
Re:Develop more productive things (Score:3)
You run several thousand Windows applications? Impressive.
---
Ok. They're key apps, but it's not the biggest.. (Score:4)
Of course, then there's the other 'lost app'. One to which there is no comperable version available for Linux (at least not what that I've found).
MS Project.
Being a manager, I can probably get away with Star Office for a lot of stuff. Hell, most of my stuff is in e-mail anyway. What I really need is a decent project-management package. Something with good task management, GANTT chart support, and maybe even some workload capabilities.
Re:hypocrites (Score:4)
Re:hypocrites (Score:3)
I hate MS, but don't tell me StarOffice is better than Word or Excell 2000. Stick to SO if you like it and have enough memory, but I recommend it so easily, specially to my mother.
--ricardo
Re:Ya-freaking-hoo (Score:3)
It's been almost a seven years now since I was introduced to it, and even though I've had to make LaTeX do some pretty heinous things for people who have gotten used to the horried output of WYSIWYG word processors, it's been a faithful companion. Even when I need to write something up for work, I write it in LaTeX, then either provide
I've even gone so far as to tell headhunters and potential employers, "No, I do not have a Word copy of my resume. If one of text, html, pdf, postscript or dvi isn't readable by you, then I'm not interested." (Yes, I keep my resume in LaTeX too)
Long live LaTeX!
--
It's pretty pathetic when karma can drop when you do nothing
Re:Stability? (Score:5)
Well, you can't on Windows...
Re:the reasons aren't fading... (Score:5)
Part of the Wine 1.0 effort now underway is to dramatically improve the end user experience of Wine.
For example, there is now an easy to use configurator for the .winerc file.
While it's not committed to CVS (yet), you can
download winecfg here [codeweavers.com].
We're working on getting most installers working under Wine; for a lot of installers, you can do the following:
(assuming the app installed an icon to the desktop).
You can see more of the overall Wine 1.0 status at http:/wine.codeweavers.com/status.shtml [codeweavers.com]
Options (Score:5)
Yes- I admit I paid up for VMware...However it was worth a couple of hundred bucks to not have to worry about "what version of CVS wine do I need to run what version of this office suite OR when can wine support this tax manager OR what parts of this program work and what parts do not work". At least with VMware I can keep all of those nasty