[CLUE-Tech] Re: CLUE-Tech digest, Vol 1 #1326 - 9 msgs
Sheeraz akhtar
sheeraz.akhtar at pizzahut.com.pk
Tue Feb 17 22:32:44 MST 2004
Dear all,
This is my first mail on this mail list.Im new in linux so I hope is say
some thing wrrong then plz for gieve me for that.
I just want to know that how we run MSoffice on linux. Can any tell me the
who it work.
Tahnx
sheeraz akhtar
> Send CLUE-Tech mailing list submissions to
> clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> clue-tech-request at clue.denver.co.us
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> clue-tech-admin at clue.denver.co.us
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of CLUE-Tech digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Jeff Cann)
> 2. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Jeff Cann)
> 3. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (BOF)
> 4. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Timothy C. Klein)
> 5. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Angelo Bertolli)
> 6. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Friedman, Jason)
> 7. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Bruce Ediger)
> 8. Re: Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Charles Oriez)
> 9. Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you? (Keith Hellman)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> From: Jeff Cann <j.cann at isuma.org>
> Organization: isuma.org
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:39:13 -0700
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> On Monday 16 February 2004 11:11 am, BOF wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Although I have to say that I really wish someone would update
>> WordPerfect: it got me through two Master's degrees, and I have never
>> found a better word processor. Now it, I would pay for.
>
> WP was (maybe still is?) available for Linux.
>
> Jeff
> --
> http://isuma.org/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: Jeff Cann <j.cann at isuma.org>
> Organization: isuma.org
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:29:46 -0700
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> On Monday 16 February 2004 7:02 pm, Dan Harris wrote:
>
>> Both myself and many of my customers have built
>> some impressive Excel+VBA+SQLServer solutions that are scalable,
>> robust, and powerful.
>
> Scalable is probably not the word I would choose. I can tell you of
> customers at my company that tried to build a replica of our
> (financial) product using your suggested platform. Their financial
> model took 4 days to run. Ours, written in Java, running on Solaris
> and using Oracle could do the same calculations in 10 minutes (I'm not
> exaggerating). Needless to say, they scrapped their 2 years of work
> and bought our product.
>
> I agree on the robust and powerful descriptions. IMHO - Excel is a cool
> product with a lot of advanced features -- few well-documented, but
> many cool ones. I was impressed when I learned how to generate dynamic
> SQL statements from VBA GUI widgets. I don't do much work in this
> realm - this one was a special project.
>
> Plus, Excel is the lingua franca of financial companies. Most have
> millions of dollars of their own intellectual property built into Excel
> spreadsheets, macros and VBA apps. So, it must do the job well enough
> and to get them to move to OO without the automated ability to move all
> of those custom macros and apps is a joke.
>
> But for personal use, I would not run MS Office on Linux -- I'm use OO
> to track product features in spreadsheets -- text formats and some
> simple sales models. Not rocket science, not RDBMS back end. OO and
> Excel are overkill for my personal use.
>
> Jeff
> --
> http://isuma.org/
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:55:43 +0000
> From: BOF <bof at pcisys.net>
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> Jeff Cann wrote:
>
>>WP was (maybe still is?) available for Linux.
>>
>>
>
> WP is no longer available for download, but can be found bundled with
> some books.
>
> It is getting a little long in the tooth --- screen fonts are difficult
> to get a WYSIWYG display, printer support is falling behind, and it
> lacks import/export filters. This makes it hard to use, and so many
> users are going with OO or SO.
>
> I really wish Corel would release the source code so that the FOSS
> community could update it, but I understand that there are many, many
> third party programs with it that make it a licensing nightmare and this
> is why they won't.
>
> BOF
>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:58:28 -0700
> From: "Timothy C. Klein" <teece at silverklein.net>
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> * Jeff Cann (j.cann at isuma.org) wrote:
>> Given this:
>>
>> + http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/02/13/HNlinuxoffice_1.html
>>
>> If MS Office were available on Linux, would you pony up for it? Why /
>> not? How does this affect Linux advocacy efforts to persuade
>> companys to use Linux on the desktop.
>>
>
> I would like to add that while I agree with most posters: I won't be
> buying MS Office, nor any MS product, I do applaud the move from IBM.
>
> Reality is that corporate America has a hell of a lot invested in
> Office. They are not switching to OO anytime soon. And it is MS
> Office, not Windows, that really gives MS their monopoly power these
> days. Businesses absolutely must run Office. And that means they must
> run Windows.
>
> So if IBM makes it easy to run Office on Linux, that could make huge
> strides in breaking up the MS monopoly. Amazingly giant swaths of
> corporate offices could fall to Linux if this were realized.
>
> That is worth it to me.
>
> Go IBM.
>
> Tim
> --
> ==============================================
> == Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net ==
> == Vanity Page: http://tinyurl.com/vkhp ==
> == ---------------------------------------- ==
> == Hello_World.c: 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
> ==============================================
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 09:22:50 -0500
> From: Angelo Bertolli <angelo at freeshell.org>
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> Unfortunately, not everyone has the choice to "not pay for Office" -- I
> recall it came bundled with computers until it became so popular that
> you had to shell out the money for it. I hope IBM doesn't go this
> route: deciding for the consumer that they'd like to have MS Office on
> their linux systems, and provide it. This has always been MS's game in
> the past. Any mom and pop computer retailer only has to pay what? $30?
> $60? for MS Office?
>
> Oh and I know the Linux community has praised IBM, but let's not let
> them play us too far either. EVERY major brand of i386 family vendor
> still says they "recommend Microsoft Windows XP" on their websites for
> desktops. Not that there's anything wrong with that per say, but we
> must realize that IBM's moves are good for IBM--and they certainly do
> not love open source just because it's open.
>
> Angelo
>
>>
>> No, I refuse to buy Microsoft Office (and, for that matter, other
>> MS/Windows products) for a variety reasons: its cost is grossly
>> inflated, MS's ethics are such that I do not want to deal with such a
>> business, MS's poor support policies,its proprietary file formats and
>> the gathering of unnecessary personal data when I am forced to
>> register it.
>>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:09:59 -0700
> From: "Friedman, Jason" <Jason.Friedman at xemkt.com>
> To: <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
> Subject: [CLUE-Tech] Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> Another dissenting opinion here. I would use MS Office on Linux. I'm
> more familiar with the apps, my colleagues are more familiar with the
> apps, and Excel is pretty slick.
>
> The transition to open source need not happen all at once. Samba is an
> example of peaceful co-habitation. MS Office on Linux is better than MS
> Office on MS.
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:13:09 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 at qwest.net>
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Jed S. Baer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:51:15 -0700 (MST)
>> "Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 at qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I see no value in "Word" - it does
>> > weird things on its own with no easily apparent way to turn them off
>>
>> Look for a menu item for "autocorrect", maybe under "tools". Somewhere
>> in the vicinity is also "autotype" (uh, maybe it's called
>> "autocomplete").
>
> Hey! That kind of works in Word 2002 (10.4219.4219) SP-2.
>
> I found some "dancing tabs" modal dialogs under
> "Tools" -> "AutoCorrect Options".
>
> I'm going to stick with my "no easily apparent way to turn them off"
> statement however (and my bitter hatred of "Word"): I had to change
> settings under two tabs (tab 1: "AutoCorrect" and tab 2: "AutoFormat As
> You Type") for some things to take effect.
>
> Up yours, Clippy. I hate you. I hate "Word". I still see no value in
> "Word" and I would not buy it, except under one circumstance:
>
> To get my wife off of Windows XP.
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 10:13:13 -0700
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us, <clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us>
> From: Charles Oriez <coriez at oriez.org>
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] Re: MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> At 08:09 AM 2/17/2004 -0700, Friedman, Jason wrote:
>
>>Another dissenting opinion here. I would use MS Office on Linux. I'm
>> more familiar with the apps, my colleagues are more familiar with the
>> apps, and Excel is pretty slick.
>>
>>The transition to open source need not happen all at once. Samba is an
>> example of peaceful co-habitation. MS Office on Linux is better than
>> MS Office on MS.
>>__________________________________
>
>
> how does this vary from Open Office? why isnt Open Office sufficient?
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:47:34 -0700
> From: Keith Hellman <khellman at mcprogramming.com>
> To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Subject: Re: [CLUE-Tech] MS Office on Linux -- would you?
> Reply-To: clue-tech at clue.denver.co.us
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:57:25PM -0700, Dave Price wrote:
>> speaking of vi... I found something that vi can't do. MS-Word can't
>> either, but if you have emacs (the editor that thinks it's an OS)
>> installed, try:
>>
>> emacs -batch -l dunnet
>
> Sounds like it thinks it's an OS *and* a game console.
>
>
> --
> Keith Hellman #include <disclaimer.h>
> khellman at mcprogramming.com from disclaimer import
> standard
>
> "One World, one Web, one Program." - Microsoft(R) promotional ad
> "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer." - Adolf Hitler
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Tech mailing list
> Post messages to: CLUE-Tech at clue.denver.co.us
> Unsubscribe or manage your options:
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech
>
> End of CLUE-Tech Digest
Sheeraz Akhtar
Network Administrator
Pizzahut Pakistan,
Ph (92-21)4914000
FAX (92-21)4916022
More information about the clue-tech
mailing list