| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
OpenOffice.org--as good as Microsoft Office? | |
|
||
| Time: 12:32 EST/17:32 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
It's so hard to let go. Even those IT managers who want to make the break from Microsoft to Linux can't find the strength to let go of Microsoft Office. They can't imagine something that could replace it. So they certainly can't imagine that there is a package out there that can not only replace Microsoft Office but can replace it for free. OpenOffice.org is the powerhouse suite that is raising the ante in the battle for office space. Here's an overview of this product so that you can judge whether it would work in your enterprise. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 218 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:29:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/4/2002 1:48:45 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 2:28:19 PM |
|
Here's how you install most Unix open source applications
1. download source tarball to machine 2. gunzip tarball 3. tar xvf tarball(unless you have GNU tar then it'll gunzip as it extracts) 4. cd to directory created 5. ./configure (unless they didn't use autoconf, then you have to edit header files and makefiles) 6. make 7. go back in an edit makefile and source where it fails to compile correctly 8. doublecheck makefile to see where it's going to install to 9. make install 10. modify your .bashrc file to include environment settings for this new app I'm probably missing a few steps, step 7 can take hours sometimes. So yes, from that standpoint it is much easier! :) |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/4/2002 3:01:47 PM |
| Likely story. We all have access to them.... |
| #4 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/4/2002 3:15:45 PM |
|
bas: I've not used a recent version of Linux (Mandrake 8 was the last Linux distro I touched), however, I do know that what Soda said was 100% true.
In my opinion, I think it's very lazy for the developers to not package the software in a simple install routine where the user doesn't have to do anything (except for customizing what the particular user wants installed, where to install it to, etc...) other than type ./install or double-click the install icon. |
| #5 By 4209 (67.97.216.252) at 12/4/2002 4:00:00 PM |
| It does not matter how many steps it takes. The average MS or any Windows install is to put the CD in the drive and it auto-starts. Or double click Setup.exe or whatever it is called and it starts up. This untar, unzip and find a directory, merge the file do this do that crap is why I got rid of Linux, and also the reason it is not mainstream. The average user wants to put a CD in or download the program and double-click a file. That is it. I am an Admin and I have users that can barely turn on a computer let alone go through all that BS. The day Linux becomes simple to use for the end-user ( Joe Six-Pack) it will be viable. |
| #6 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/4/2002 4:04:39 PM |
|
to install OpenOffice on Gentoo Linux from source type:
# emerge openoffice to install OpenOffice on Gentoo Linux from a binary package on Gentoo Linux type: # emerge openoffice-bin If you haven't used Gentoo then you haven't used Linux |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 4:29:46 PM |
|
bas - "huh? i've been using GNU/Linux for 3 years now and i've never encountered anything without using autoconf "
Well there's your problem. I've been using Unix for 10 years now and I've encountered plenty of them. Also you'll note I said Unix, not Linux... Many times newer open source apps use proprietary extensions of GNU or Linux pieces, which makes them damn near impossible to compile on other Unix variants. "_bullshit_ i've never touch 'em while compile && installing software on my GNU/Linux machines. " Like I said, you obviously have very little experience. "anti-Linux anti-Open Source anti-GPL anti-*anything not on microsoft platform* pro-Microsoft pro-DMCA pro-DRM pro-Palladium" I'm anti-Linux and anti-GPL, but definately not anti-Open Source, pro-DMCA, pro-DRM or pro-Palladium. |
| #8 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/4/2002 4:36:34 PM |
|
Parker:
Why should i tell you when Linux hits the 1000 distro mark? do you really care? I surely don't. Btw, what does it matter how many different distro's there are? Does it bother you? Does it confuse you? Btw, in NO way is OpenOffice better than MS Office. However, for Joe the average user who uses only 10% of Microsoft Office functionality, OpenOffice might just be enough. Also, its not just important where OpenOffice 1.0 is compared to MS Office 10, but where OpenOffice 1.0 WILL be when MS office updates their version. This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, December 04, 2002 at 16:49. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 5:00:11 PM |
|
tgnb - Uh oh. You have to name the 10% of functionality that Joe user uses in office. It's a requirement for using the claim.
bas - No, I'm fairly ambivalent about DMCA, DRM and Palladium. I can understand the issues driving them, and don't have a problem with them unless they get in my way. For instance DVDs include a type of DRM, and I don't care because it does not get in my way. When the technologies get in the way of me reasonably using a computer, then I will not purchase them such as the DRM protection of audio CDs. I'm neither anti or pro, and don't see any reason why I need to be. |
| #10 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/4/2002 5:05:58 PM |
|
bas:
Yes, I have heard of RPM packages, but not all software is packaged into RPMs (actually not very much is compared to the amount of software out there). What makes you say I'm in no position to say what I did? Because the latest version of Linux I've used is Mandrake 8? That makes no sense at all. And no, what soda said are NOT lies. jvmahon: Yes, there are many versions of Windows, but all those versions you mentioned are for different devices, you don't run them all on the same type of device, and thus is not comparable to Linux distros. |
| #11 By 6859 (204.71.100.217) at 12/4/2002 5:14:52 PM |
|
Geez, looks like the linux-nazi's are out again. Oh well....
At any rate, I've used both Office (since Office 95) and OpenOffice (back to really early versions, like 0.50 or something like that..) And I can tell you that OpenOffice is not as fast, as stable, or as polished as Office on the same hardware (I use a test setup for all this testing...and by the way, Windows Server .NET 2003 runs damn good on it.) Sure OpenOffice opens (some) of the same file formats that Office does, and as a more advanced freeware program it's pretty good, but it's nowhere near the quality that Office has. Bas has only been using Linux for 3 years? There's the problem, lack of experience. I've seen all sorts of things not compile properly. And since I care not to mess with the configs (particularly on a specific distro that the software was "made" for), I just do what most people would do: say "screw it" and move on. There are 2 linux distros worth anything: Gentoo and Slackware. All the rest are crapola with pretty installers. On Gentoo, installing just about antything is 2 words typed. On Slackware, it's a little more annoying (see sodablue's quote from above). If Slackware were to steal the portage system (or make their own) that Gentoo has then all, and I mean all , other linux variants would die overnight. How many distros have I used? Oh, at least a dozen, don't really know. Are any of them as good as, say, Windows 2000 (IMO)? No, mainly becasue of issues ranging from lack of application support, to stupid methodology in the setup. (This is why I think something like United Linux will do well--one standard upon which to work.) Personally, I see no reason to have a /bin partition, a /var partition (unless you are doing lots of logging), and a /proc partition, but some distributions demand them. Gentoo has 3 (boot, root, and swap), Slackware needs at least 2 (root and swap--but you can make more.) Does linux have a future? Sure. Will it ever take the desktop from Windows? No. Not unless the whole X system is completely reworked. ...and notice how bas calls it GNU/Linux? Another Stallman convert, which explains a lot about bas' actions here... |
| #12 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/4/2002 5:16:12 PM |
|
it ain't worth it This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, December 04, 2002 at 18:03. |
| #13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 6:04:39 PM |
|
It sounds as though this Gentoo is using the FreeBSD ports system. So yes, in those specific instances it's going to be relatively easy. For open source apps that haven't taken the time to build emerge scripts or RPMs and such, we go back to the process I described. :(
It is interesting, as Linux has become more popular, more and more open source software moves to it's paradigm and begins breaking the whole cross-platform notion. Yet the Linux-nazis haven't figured out exactly why that is, and why the same universal truth also holds as to why Windows is popular.(They think it's marketing that drives it) |
| #14 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 8:16:49 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "This Linux-Nazi is confused by your claim."
I have a Sparcstation at home. Try to compile some of the recent open source projects under Solaris. Good luck! |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/4/2002 8:18:34 PM |
|
Ok, this is just too funny for words and I had to share...
http://www.linuxprofessionalsolutions.com/pavlicek/tv.html This is an example of a Professional Solution deployed using Linux. :-) Read the text and see just how many quirks this solution has. |
| #16 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/4/2002 8:43:56 PM |
| #38 The XML based solution is pretty pathetic in my view. The short answer to the question is: no, there isn't a db in OpenOffice.org (stupid name!). |
| #17 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 12/5/2002 1:41:17 AM |
|
bas: I hate to inform you, but some people are actually sane and don't take sides in such a trivial matter. I use what is best for the occasion.
There is one major reason I do not use Linux: it's too much of a PITA to be worth my while.... why should I use something that lowers overall productivity and doesn't play my games? Now if I were setting up just a firewall, then sure, I'd use Linux, actually OpenBSD (both are a PITA to mess around with). Or just as an underlying OS for something such as a TiVo. That works fine, since I'm only seeing the TiVo interface, and not the BS that it behind it. Just in case that wasn't enough to get the point across: Just because I don't want Linux on my desktop, and in general hate how LAZY the developers for Linux are doesn't make me an anti-Linux zealot, it means I think that I don't want Linux on my desktop. |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/5/2002 10:51:43 AM |
|
linuxhippie: Actually OpenSSH is an example of one project that is difficult to compile and configure on Solaris.
I gave up on it and installed the commercial SSH version from ssh.com. That was a breeze. It was sort of like the difference between buying a Ford and building one up from the parts counter. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 218 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:29:36 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
