Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Corel

Corel Shuts Down Open Source Development Site 198

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the no-surprise-there dept.
evil_one writes: "The end is finally here for Corel, who released a Debian based linux distro a couple years ago (now owned by Xandros) Has announced that they are shutting down their Open Source Development web site as of March 1st. As many readers already know, Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect. It's sad to see this, especially with the amount of work that Corel has put into Wine and their other projects, which include add-ons to KDE." Guess I can retire this topic icon ;)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Corel Shuts Down Open Source Development Site

Comments Filter:
  • The icon (Score:2, Funny)

    by theancient2 (527101)
    The icon is actually a year out of date anyway. :-) They have a new logo now.
  • Could someone who has seen Corel Linux tell me if any of the UI tweaks to KDE components (described on the Open Source Projects page [corel.com]) actually made it into a shipping product?

    I know there's some work being done on improving the interface to kscd, and while their mockups are nice, code would be even better.

    • by IceFox (18179)
      Kscd had a bunch of work done to it and is improved for KDE 3.0 just to let you know.

      The kde usability group http://usability.kde.org itself has been going through kde applications and writing up reports on applications (both ui and bug reports). (We don't just sit down in a room with 10 mom's and do ui studies.) So even though Corel is no longer sending in reports kde still has someone working on improving the ui.

      We have also started an app of the week on the mailinglist. So come every Monday we all take a look at one of the kde applications and begin to make up a lists of changes that should be implimented to make the application better. By the end of the week the majority of these changes have been handed off to someone who will get them into cvs. If you are interested in helping out in this effort or just interested in writing up a list of things in an application that don't follow the ui standard head on over to the website and join the mailinglist. Can't code, but want to help out in kde? This might be a perfect spot for you to contribute.

      We are also working on improving the website to allow for usabity reports to be given just like the current kde bug report system so you can submit items with minimal effort.

      -Benjamin Meyer
    • How about they improve the part where when you attempt to get a directory listing and the kernel crashes? hmm hmm? Thats what happened to me anyways.
  • Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by johnburton (21870)
    [quote]Guess I can retire this topic icon [/quote] Corel aren't going away as far as I know. Just not doing open source any more. Many people think that non-open source is just as important as open source software. In fact probably more so.
    • by el_nino (4271)
      Corel aren't going away as far as I know.

      No, they seem to be continuing operations on the dark side [corel.com].

    • by FFFish (7567)
      Thank goodness they're giving up on the open-source/Linux market!

      The primary characteristic of the open-source/Linux companies seems to be cash flow... out of their pockets. Open/Linux companies that operate in the black are few and far between in comparison to the number that are in the red.

      Corel is a business, and it's been around for a good number of years. Now that that flakey Cowpland is gone (and good riddance!), and they've got a sensible, tech-savvy guy at the helm, there's a good chance that they're going to do quite well.

      Eliminating the parts of their operation that show no promise of ever becoming revenue-generating is a great first step.

      What's especially cool about Corel right now is that Derek Burney, new CEO, comes from the rank-and-file techies. He understands the challenges of programming and of working in programming teams. And he also understands the importance of finding out what customers need. And he's smart enough to realize he doesn't know everything, and seeks out people who have the knowledge he needs to make good decisions.

      I've always been impressed with the functionality and design of Corel products. I think things are looking pretty damn rosey for Corel... and, ultimately, for us consumers.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fmaxwell (249001)
        I think things are looking pretty damn rosey for Corel... and, ultimately, for us consumers.

        If, by "consumers", you mean people who purchase quality software, I agree with you. But there are the incalculable number of people in the "open source movement" who have never contributed to any open source project, couldn't compile code if their lives depended on it, and just want free software. Those people will be up in arms and decrying Corel's sound business decision as traitorous and tragic.
      • I've always been impressed with the functionality and design of Corel products.

        Since day one, I've always been underwhelmed by the functionality and design of Corel products.

        Back when Corel Draw 3 was the hot toot-n-toot I was using Micrografx Designer. At the time, they cost about the same price retail.

        Now you can buy the Micrografx 'ABC Graphics Suite' in a boxed set, which includes Designer, Picture Publisher, ABC Flowcharter, etc. for fifty bucks at CompUSA.

        I fail to see any reason why Corel can stay in business in that market, except for the fact that there seem to be a lot of Corel Draw customers who've never tried a competing package.
      • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Znork (31774) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @02:42PM (#3022310)
        Oh, yeah, a rosy future as, maybe, Microsofts 'token' competition. They're still bleeding money, and are only alive because it was worth Microsoft $135M to get them out of producing Linux software.

        Corel has written some nice products, but the mass consumer productivity software industry is dead. On one hand you can sell to corporations and the only way you can do that is if your name is Microsoft, or on the other hand you can try selling to endusers, but they're either on the windows or mac platforms making (illegal) copies of MS Office and you'd have to pay them not to, or they're on Linux and have so many free alternatives that you'd again have to pay most of them to use something else. In the end, they could make the best products in the universe and it wont matter because there isnt anyone who will buy them.

        So Corel knows this too, and are shifting away from their dead markets, and into 'technical illustrations', 'Enterprise Process Management' and 'XML Content Solutions. Well, for technical illustrations Corel is lowend, and unlikely to reach the profitable customers, and the other two fields are buzzword intensive fields with strong established players where they again arent exactly playing in corporate space.

        I cant really imagine what rosy future you see for either consumers or Corel in this situation.


      • People always complainn about the failures in the Linux community, however the percentage of success in the linux community is greater than the Windows community.

        You see, in all industries most businesses fail, in the technology industry most businesses have failed, all the dot coms that went down, all the software companies that Microsoft put out of businessl, you honestly think Linux companies are abnormal because most of them are inn the red? Most companies period are in the red.
  • Open Source Theory (Score:1, Interesting)

    by IgD (232964)
    I think open source is a great idea just like free love but I don't think it will ever really succeed. I think that a lot of open source sites are headed in the same direction as Corel's. The problem you can't make money off of open source. You can't survive in a capitalist society if you can't make money.

    My theory about open source is that Linux in particular is being privately funded by IBM, Sun, AOL and other big companies with the sole intention of breaking up Microsoft. I have no doubt that Linux will be sucessful in eventually becoming the predominant desktop OS. After all, how can Microsoft even with it's monopoly power compete with a product that is free that has similar or better performance?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Not quite true. People believe in the all or nothing money philosophy. What about the original darpa net, all that cable and those packet switches. written off as a loss etc. I'd say there was a great return on investment to the world in only a few years. don't look at the instant bottomline returns. Besides that is the open source and (ducking RMS flames) GNU philosophy, So Corel backs out. The work is not lost, it can continue, with very little ground lost. So my condolences to Corel's official decision, hope to see them again in the future. (and yes anything they did binary only is just another example of why we need to stick to the "source" guns)
      • by ipfwadm (12995)
        What about the original darpa net

        The one built by DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency? Defense as in U.S. Department of Defense? Somehow I doubt the US government "wrote off" its expenses, considering it doesn't pay taxes to itself. And the government spends extraordinary amounts of money on countless research projects just like darpanet, expecting a return on investment on only a few of them. The government can do that. Corporations can't, unless there is a reasonable expectation for success. And judging by the number of failed/failing open source companies out there right now, why should there be any expectation for success in that field?
        • by Kiwi (5214)
          And judging by the number of failed/failing open source companies out there right now, why should there be any expectation for success in that field?

          Let's pretend we are in 1983. Someone may write the following:

          And judging by the number of failed/failing video game companies out there right now, why should there be any expectation for success in that field?

          For people not familiar with the history of video games, Atari was really big between 1980 and 1982. Then, in 1983, something happened: Too many video game companies were out there, and companies, in the false expectation of the market continuing its exponential growth, were spending more money than they were making. A familiar story to anyone who watched the .com madness.

          Just like the .coms in 2001, the video game industry in 1983 had a big crash, resulting in an economic slump in the tech industry.

          However, the Favicon NES came out in 1983/1984, and, with Super Mario Brothers, was able to make video games sucessful again. By 1987, the video game industry was thriving again, but this time with more reasonable expectations.

          While a number of open source companies are no more (hello, Eazel), a large number of open-source companies are still alive and thriving (RedHat, in particular, is incredibly sucessful).

          People thought video games were a dying fad in 1984, like the Rubic's cube and Espirt clothing. People think open source is a dying fad in 2002, like N'Sync and that special effect moving the perspecive while the action is frozen. Just as video games are alive and well today, open source will be alive and well in 20 years.

          - Sam

    • by Leinies (112854)
      I think that you need to take a look at all of the great GPL projects (at gnu.org or freshmeat.net). Many of these projects have no corporate affiliation and are just groups of people interested in helping other people.

      Another large source of funding for free software (Stallman doesn't like the term "open source") or open source is the US government. Many large scientific software projects are at least open source. The DOE funds programs like Globus.org, CDAT and Vis5d. Also, most large scientific modeling projects are open source.
    • <i>I have no doubt that Linux will be sucessful in eventually becoming the predominant desktop OS.</i>

      The problem with your prediction is that Linux lacks unity. It isn't possible to take over the desktop market until development can procede in one direction! The problem with Linux is that you have your Gnome people, you have your KDE people. Still deeper your RedHat, Debian, SuSE, and Mandrake people.

      How do you expect Linux will take over the desktop if there are not professional applications available for it?

      There is no doubt that it's making tremendous headway in the server market, but I think your prediction is little more than a pipe dream.
    • by VAXman (96870)
      My theory about open source is that Linux in particular is being privately funded by IBM, Sun, AOL and other big companies with the sole intention of breaking up Microsoft.

      Why would IBM have any interest whatsoever in breaking up Microsoft? IBM needs for there to be a strong desktop presence in order to drive its core business (enterprise servers), and Microsoft does that better than anybody. I don't think IBM is particularly interested in entering the mass-consumer/business desktop software market. IBM even ships Microsoft software on their low-end server and desktop products.

      Sun is dead. They'll go the way of DEC by the end of the decade. They picked up on Linux way too late.

      AOL is probably the most direct competitor of the three, though it is hard to imagine how embracing Linux would help them gain any sort of advantage in the ISP market. AOL already comes pre-installed on practically every computer anyways. Again, AOL greatly benefits from a mass-produced, easy-to-use desktop. Would AOL be around if Microsoft (and Intel) hadn't created the commoditized PC? It's hard to imagine how.
      • Why would IBM have any interest whatsoever in breaking up Microsoft? IBM needs for there to be a strong desktop presence in order to drive its core business (enterprise servers), and Microsoft does that better than anybody. IBM doesn't really care about it's desktop presence. It's been a money losing area for them for years and they have recently decided to stop manufacturing their own desktop computers. You will continue to see IBM-branded desktop computers but they will be made by somebody else.
        • IBM doesn't really care about it's desktop presence. It's been a money losing area for them for years and they have recently decided to stop manufacturing their own desktop computers.

          Exactly. Microsoft owns the desktop, and IBM doesn't want it. So what exactly is this perceived conflict between Microsoft and IBM?

          The tension between Sun and IBM is much greater since they are going after the same market. They're going after each other much more than they are going after Microsoft.
      • Sun is dead. They'll go the way of DEC by the end of the decade. They picked up on Linux way too late.

        Sun's problem really is, that where it supports Linux, it still has it's own OS to sell. After all, Solaris probably is the number one, non-MS, "non-free" OS when you look at new installs.

        Where MS's futher success cut's down Sun's share of the cake, Free Software is usually written for Unix like systems and therefore often run on Solaris too. As long as Sun can still sell it's own systems, Open Source is beneficial to it.

        I mean, how many people actually use Sun's own shell on Solaris these days ? Anyone of you have bash, gcc, GNU grep, GNU tar, gzip, less, etc installed on their Solaris boxes ? I'd say quite many.

        Solaris is known as stable platform by management people and you can use most of the great opensource apps on it. Why not ?

        Also, if desktops run UNIX-like systems (like GNU) it becomes much easier for a UNIX company like Sun to make products that work together with other products. What I mean is that UNIX is much more open in design also than MS-Windows. In UNIX you can go ahead and try writing a superior MTA, but with MS you're pretty much stuck with Exchange, and you can't even replace the Exchange with some UNIX MTA because Outlook is so heavily integrated with Exchange that end users will start complaining about missing features (that depend on Exchange). Same goes for most of the other things.

        Only problem is that when FreeBSD (or GNU/Linux) starts to gain more space in serverspace, it might mean that Solaris sales drop and Sun will become weaker to help us.

        • Exchange is allegedly moving away from their own protocol towards WebDAV (mostly so that other apps can easily store documents in "public folders") but I agree it's unlikely Outlook will be allowed to interop well with a competing mail server.

          Does Sun make a lot of money on Solaris licenses? I thought they were pretty much staying in the hardware business.

        • Also, if desktops run UNIX-like systems (like GNU) it becomes much easier for a UNIX company like Sun to make products that work together with other products.

          Desktop Unix is dead. Sun lost that battle ten years ago.

          Only problem is that when FreeBSD (or GNU/Linux) starts to gain more space in serverspace, it might mean that Solaris sales drop and Sun will become weaker to help us.

          But this is inevitable, right? Everybody is moving their servers to Linux, so where does that leave Sun with its expensive, proprietary products? I think the comparison to DEC is appropriate; DEC supported Unix when it exploded in the 80's, but only just. It really wanted to sell you VMS. Sun is supporting Linux, but really they want to sell you Solaris.
          • OS vs hardware (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Tony (765)
            Sun doesn't give a damn about selling Solaris. They care about selling hardware; and they make fucking *great* hardware. If Linux ran as well on high-end hardware as Solaris, Sun would be... well, maybe not *happy* to get out of the OS business, but *willing.*

            They don't make money off their OS. They make money off their hardware. Linux does not yet scale as well to multi-processor machines (that is, hardware with *dozens* of processors). When Linux *does* support this class of machine as nicely as Solaris, Sun will most likely offer Linux on the high-end, as well.
          • Desktop Unix is dead. Sun lost that battle ten years ago.

            I think this statement is premature. Desktop Unix isn't dead. Maybe GNOME and KDE aren't ready for the mainstream, but Mac OS X certainly is, and it's indisputably a Desktop Unix system...

    • My theory about open source is that Linux in particular is being privately funded by IBM, Sun, AOL and other big companies with the sole intention of breaking up Microsoft. I have no doubt that Linux will be sucessful in eventually becoming the predominant desktop OS


      I really don't think any of those really expects to replace windows on the desktop with linux. I don't think they should either. IMHO, Linux's place is, and always should be in the server market. It may be early enough in the PDA game to compete with M$ and Palm OS but that remains to be seen.
    • by dbmacg (527469)
      Isn't this a shortsighted view? We really have to be more adaptable to different models. The proprietary model is not required to make money. Other business models work as well. For example, generic products can be sold profitably. 'Bayer Aspirin' is sold profitably beside generic 'Aspirin' and ASA tablets. Also as an example, many people make money by using the English language well. They do not own it, but they teach it, they write it, they help people with it, they package it, they use it. And they profit from it. Also, Patents and copyrights run out, and then the intellectual property flows into the public domain. The way in which you make money changes, and models change too.
    • You can't survive in a capitalist society if you can't make money.

      mmm 'K ... but uhh "capitalism" can't survive without vast public investment, without selfless non-profit oriented labour (like raising kids, reproducing, etc). When will people learn that what they think of as "capitalism" (it's not clear what most people think this is ...) is not some kind of "reality" that all social and economic activity must deal with ... it's just a way of organizing society (i.e. commercial and adminstrative law, the division of wealth, access to poltical power, etc.). Whole societies and eras of history were organized completely differently - around religion, tradition, etc. They came and went ... so will "capitalism".

      Capitalism is unique only in its quality of being highly "productive" by some raw measures (but it's destructive and wasteful too ... its productivity allows for plastic Disney characters that are manufactured in China to be shipped by airplane to air conditioned McDonalds in Texas - wow what an accomplishment!). The other unique thing is that it is currently the predominant legal and economic system of most (not all) societies - it is layered over many other traditional forms of of social relations of course, on which it depends in various ways. Because we live in a temporal universe and capitalism exists "now", many (especially the young and those averse to analysis) believe that it is the "end" of history, or the "last and best" system. They seem blinded to the massive changes that capitalism has itself undergone in the last 50 years or to the tension and contradiction inherent in a hyperproductive system which does not distribute wealth (or opportunity) in a politically sustainable way.

      BTW historically speaking the software industry was essentially a creation of government, as well, money is the creation of government, the legal system on which economic activity rests is maintained by government. In fact all the things that are of importance to social life where one cannot "make money" fall outside of the purview of capitalism.

      Of course some argue that the ability to profit in certain domains (e.g. by raising children or treating the ill) is simply a function of the relative "freedom" afforded by given societies to do so (and that capitalism and this freedom go hand in hand). But whether one society chooses to allow more or less of this "freedom" is completely arbitrary and is not related to some fundamental quality of human beings or human societies. Denmark and the U.S. have different health care systems. Danes are free to worry less about their aging parents affecting their bank accounts, Americans are free form corporations that are more competitive than existing firms and thus to make money caring for the elderly. Maybe Danes are worse off than Americans ... it's hard to measure these kinds of things. It's clear Danes and Americans are both better of than the people of Mali and that capitalism hasn't functioned too well in terms of closing the gap between Mali and developed countries. I wonder how long it will take ?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17, 2002 @12:46PM (#3021915)
    The benefits to Wine aside, one of the most unique parts of the Corel Linux distro and the apps is that, not only did it improve relations with the mainstream users used to M$ office suites, but it was one of the few distros that you could actually keep your Windows partition and still have Linux functionality (albeit in one huge honking file). All you had to do was double-click a Windows icon, and Windows disappears to be replaced by a user-friendly X desktop, and then back again when you're done.

    This would've gone a long way had it been better promoted and developed, to expose the masses or attract the curious and adventurous Windows folks into the realm of Linux and its other software. Sad, but I hope someone else picks this idea up and markets an easy-to-use distribution just for Windows users.
    • I believe Mandrake could do this in the past - I still have a copy of 7.2 on my Mum P200. My experience was that the system would run too slowly (even the swap was a file) for people to be bothered to use it regularly. Oh yeah, SUSE have a run off CDROM distro that does something similar. Add to this that they tend to only work with FAT (I believe NTFS writing is still unstable) and you realise that this isn't such a viable solution after all.
  • Open source or not, working and then giving away your work will not give you money, and won't make a software company work...
  • Is it because they no longer consider Open Source viable or have they run starch dry of any funds, and consider it wasteful to be spending on something they feel is not going to give them a good Return of Investment in the short run.

    Also, what becomes of the employees in the Open Source wing? It would be awful if they're left high and dry... probably other companies like IBM and VA Linux should try absorbing them. Gee.. I always thought Corel with its eye-candy would be a great enticement for Linux. Ah well...
  • I'm sure this had nothing to do with the $135 million investment from Microsoft Corp, not.....

    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-525751.html?legacy= zd nn
    • by aussersterne (212916) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @01:02PM (#3021983) Homepage
      I'm sure this had nothing to do with the $135 million investment from Microsoft Corp, not.....

      It doesn't. If you have called Corel to try to order any of ther Linux products, you will find that they are all "out of print" and are not available for purchase. If you ask why, you will be told that there was absolutely no demand -- not enough interest in the products even to justify keeping a few copies around for sale.

      Linux users just don't by software (except me, who bought WordPerfect Office for Linux and Corel Draw for Linux during the brief moment when they were available, and use them every day).
      • I disagree. Corel may tell you that there was "no demand". But, I think a better way to put it would be:

        There was enough less demand for their Linux products that Corel would not have made $135 million on profit on them.

        Risky projects like Corel's Linux initiatives are the first to go when lean times come. But saying that Microsoft's investment wasn't involved is silly -- if the investment came without strings attached, they would have been able to continue their Linux operations. Or, at least they would still have some support for those products! I used WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS well after the release of Win95, and still got fantastic support for it. But just try and get support for one of their less-than 2 year old Linux products!

        > Linux users just don't by(sic) software (except me ...

        Actually, very few people buy all the software they use. I also bought WordPerfect for Linux, and would have bought Corel Draw! for Linux except that I didn't hear about it until it had already been discontinued. I know about 10 people who used Corel's Linux products, and at least 8 of them paid for legal licenses.

        IIRC, a similar thing happend a few years back when Apple was still early in the process of incorporating the NeXT tree into what would become OS X. At that time, Apple was talking about the possibility of selling "Rhapsody" (sp?) for x86 hardware in addition to Macintoshes. Some money was transfered (I don't know the specifics) from Microsoft to Apple, and all talk of MacOS running on x86 PCs vanished.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Sorry, not the case.

        They never advertised, and finding a dealer was near impossible.
        I tried for almost 4 months to buy corel draw for Linux.
        They couldn't get me to anyone that would take my credit card number and ship me the actual product.

        Corel is ran by a bunch of morons to begin with, Adobe has them beat hard in every facet of their business... and Corel will become nothing more than a footnote in business books on how not to do business.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This shows that open source as a concept needs to be refined. The success or failure of open source all depend on companies supporting it. Sure, the nerds will use it anyway but for wide-spread usage company support are vital. We will not see success if money can't be made, thats just the way it is.

    I like the idea of having the source-code and beeing able to modify it, but maybe a compromise is needed anyway?
    • The success or failure of open source all depend on companies supporting it. Bullshit Open Source existed long before the .com boom and the hype over all things linux. It won't die now because the big corporations start pulling out their funding. You need to realize that the whole OS/FS development is not motivated by money, it's motivated by the desire to make something better that what M$,Apple, and IBM are putting out. I know it's hard for some people to comprehend, but there are other reasons for writing software than immediate financial gain.
  • by BreakWindows (442819) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @12:50PM (#3021936) Homepage
    As many readers already know, Corel has helped the community on a huge scale, providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.

    Linux community != Open Source community.

    As far as I know, there were never open source or free (libre) versions of Draw or WordPerfect. Releasing a linux binary is not contributing to the open source community.
    I am aware they contributed some other packages, but the big two were never offered.

  • by 1nt3lx (124618)
    This seems to be the trend now that the novelty and excitement surrounding Linux has died out.

    It is not a sound business model to develop apps and games for Linux for several reasons.

    1: Linux doesn't control enough of the desktop market.

    2: Most users of Linux apt-get (or the RedHat equivalent) their software. (eg: aren't going to pay for much)

    3: It's difficult to develop for every distribution. Most commmercial software is made to run on RedHat. I use Debian. I'm SOL.

    4: Those who use RedHat and consider buying software worry about products being discontinued, like this.

    Same thing happened to Loki. They did a really good job porting games to Linux, but sales were pathetic.

    I remember going into Electronics Boutique a year ago. They had a rack with the $50 Linux software right in front of the store. I went into the store last week all the software was gone. Was it sold? No. It was moved to the back of the store and marked down to $9. I bought Loki's release of Quake II for the tin it came in.

    I wouldn't buy software when a semi-working version is available for free. Especially if I thought it would be discontinued.
    • I own tons of Microsoft Windows software from companies that have disapeared and gone down the tubes. This "risk" exists for all platforms.

      About the only thing I see having gone from the Linux world are all the make-money-fast-and-get-rich startups. Loki didn't succeed but, dare I point out, lasted longer than a large number of Windows gaming companies I know.

      There are lots of significant developments in our community happening that have interesting potential for the longterm.

      Finally, let me assure you that the novelty is not over for those looking for a platform that isn't controlled by a single company that forces upon its customers a paradigm shift every two years.

      Sure a lot of air bags got deflated last year, but thats a good thing in the long term for Linux-- not a bad thing.
      • Windows hasn't had a paradigm shift since, roughly, 1989. Some might say 1995. The latest must-have new version of Windows is generally a batch of bug fixes wrapped around some superficial user interface changes.

        Also, Windows is far better than Linux in terms of binary backwards compatibility. I can take pretty much any binary written for pretty much any version of DOS or Windows, and run it on my current Windows machine. Linux distributions typically care more about source compatibility, and are much more willing to break binary compatibility.

        So in the case of Loki games, consider this: I can buy a binary-only game for Windows today, and if the company that makes it goes out of business, I can be reasonably certain that I can continue to play it for several more years. However, if I buy a binary-only game for Linux today, I can be reasonably certain that within a year, I will have to start adding non-default cruft to my Red Hat install for it to still work, and within two years it will probably become hopeless. Three at the outside.

        Think about it: Suppose you have a binary that was developed for Red Hat 5.2 or 6.0 today? What can you really do with it except demand that the vendor recompile for 7.2? On the other hand, do you expect Windows software from 1998 to run on your current box?

        -Graham
  • Sales figures? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Forkenhoppen (16574)
    Anyone have any idea what the sales figures were like on their Linux division products?
    • Re:Sales figures? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by aussersterne (212916) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @01:05PM (#3021996) Homepage
      Very poor. This is the reason for WordPerfect Office for Linux and Corel Draw for Linux being effectively pulled after the initial production run.

      To make matters worse, tech support needs for Linux products were greater, apparently because the few users they did manage to sell their Linux products to were "newbies" rather than Linux veterans, who don't seem to buy software at all.

      This info comes from my calling Corel's sales and tech support to inquire about the Linux products line in the process of writing an article.
      • WordPerfect Office for Linux and Corel Draw for Linux being effectively pulled after the initial production run [...] the few users they did manage to sell their Linux products to were "newbies" rather than Linux veterans, who don't seem to buy software at all

        Linux people do buy software. Myself, I recently bought Eagle [cadsoft.de] and Qt [trolltech.com] (commercial license).

        The problem is with products themselves. It is virtually out of question to buy WP into an office that is built around MS Word or StarOffice formats. CorelDraw may be good, I used it very long time ago, but Corel is dwarfed by rows and rows of Adobe products; basically Adobe Illustrator is the #1 in vector graphics, while Adobe Photoshop became a de-facto standard (and a platform) for raster images. Corel lost the market on its own, and Linux sales, targeting new customers, only reflect that.

      • To make matters worse, tech support needs for Linux products were greater, apparently because the few users they did manage to sell their Linux products to were "newbies" rather than Linux veterans, who don't seem to buy software at all.

        First of all Corel targeted Linux newbies for their distribution from the start. So the tech support requirements were a direct reflection of how well their product met the needs of their target market. Which is to say not at all.

        If sales were poor and tech support needs were too great the reason is simple - they could have filled the boxes for every Linux product Corel ever released with five pounds of dog crap and there would have been no apparent difference to the end user experience.

        I have never encountered a worse case of buggy, incomplete and just plain useless software being rushed to market and sold as a finished product.

        With so much good free software available I have no doubt that Linux users are less apt to buy software than their Windows or Mac counterparts. It's a small market to begin with and the bar for creating a product compelling enough to buy is set pretty high.

        Anyone who thinks that Linux or Open Source are bandaids that can be slapped on a problem and fix it overnight are misguided and should just stay away. They're not doing us any favors.

        Microsoft threw Corel a bone because they couldn't afford for another major competitor to go belly up during the anti-trust proceedings. Once those proceedings are over look for Microsoft to put the knife in and finish them. With luck maybe their few remaining worthwhile products will be picked up by a company with vision that extends beyond their nose.

      • Re:Sales figures? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Alan Shutko (5101) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @05:34PM (#3023070) Homepage
        The tech support needs were greater for Linux products because their Linux products were extremely buggy and were never patched.

        There were a number of non-newbies who bought their software. But many advertised features were still broken. Many features of the Windows suite were not available in the Linux version because of WINE limitations, even something as simple as loading a document in a running instance of WP (ie, from a browser). It had varied problems with things like window management with different window managers, font difficulties caused by interactions between their font server and other font servers....

        The only way to get a fairly stable WPO2k/Linux or Draw/Linux installation was beyond most users, as it required downloading an unsupported CVS version of corelwine and recompiling it (twice to work with both Draw and WPO2k). And when you did that, you broke the online help.

        In other words, sales figures were poor because the software was not worth buying. I have both WPO2k and Draw for Linux, and don't have either installed, because they aren't worth using.
  • Half assed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JohnBE (411964) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @12:55PM (#3021959) Homepage Journal
    Corel Draw and others were practically emulated through the Wine libraries. If they mean business they should have made native Linux apps. The idea of having CMYK support under Linux is a bit of a wet-dream at the moment...

    They did however give out free CD's at Defcon and other interesting conferences (I've still got a few). So to say that they were entirely half assed is wrong, they did actively pursue support. Their distros were not all that though.

    Corel Ventura would have been excellent for Linux, because it is a pretty neat DTP solution and Linux really needs some heavy duty DTP software that can be used in production environments.
    • Corel Draw and others were practically emulated through the Wine libraries. If they mean business they should have made native Linux apps.

      Um, wasn't WordPerfect Suite simply recompiled against WineLib? If I'm correct on that, it's not really fair to call it emulation (even though the suite was built off the Win32 API). Using WineLib undoubtedly saved Corel a hell of a lot of development time, and hardly means they weren't serious about Linux apps.

      I should probably also make some nitpicky remark like "Wine Is Not an Emulator"...

    • Older versions of Word Perfect for Linux were true X apps. It looked nothing like their Windoze stuff and ran very well. I thought that they had ported to Solaris etc first then to Linux. I've still got the CD of their "Personal Edition" of Word Perfect 8 that I got from Linux Central. The Wine stuff that was their 2000 suite was insane as it made their linux ports dependent on M$ whims. If Wine was not perfect all the time, all else would be painful. If it really was running under wine, it fooled me.

      Corel dropped a big advantage. I can use that old CD to install under an older version of Red Hat and ship .wp documents to most government offices. Those same offices won't touch unstable MicroSquish formats. You would think that they could have sold plenty of this. How on earth did they let such a huge advantage slip away like that? My siser is a lawer, she curses her desktop daily.

  • by rlowe69 (74867) <ryanlowe_AThotmailDOTcom> on Sunday February 17, 2002 @12:55PM (#3021960) Homepage
    Guess I can retire this topic icon ;)

    I know you're kidding, but Corel is still doing interesting things in the Unix community that the Slashdot crowd will probably be very interested in, particularly the port of .NET to FreeBSD [com.com], which is a very big deal. Don't write Corel off just yet. ;)

    DISCLAIMER: I work for Corel, but I do not speak on their behalf. My opinions are my own.
    • I know you're kidding, but Corel is still doing interesting things in the Unix community that the Slashdot crowd will probably be very interested in, particularly the port of .NET to FreeBSD [com.com], which is a very big deal.

      If Corel has jumped on the .NET bandwagon, it, like Gnome, can IMHO indeed be written off, at least as far as the free software world is concerned.

      As others have pointed out, the only way to win Microsoft's game is not to play ... and to offer a free, unencumbered alternative. You cannot do this if you are chasing standards Microsoft sets ... the target will move constantly (and deliberately, as the last 10 years of history has shown) and you will never catch up.

      Corel blew it a long time ago ... I'm just glad I sold all those shares at $20.00 (and wish I'd sold 'em at $40.00).
      • by rlowe69 (74867) <ryanlowe_AThotmailDOTcom> on Sunday February 17, 2002 @02:44PM (#3022317) Homepage
        I think your view of .NET is a little clouded by the fact that Microsoft is involved. Sure Microsoft has demonstrated monopolistic practises, but when is the last time they released a standard to ECMA [www.ecma.ch] and then purposely broke it?

        You cannot do this if you are chasing standards Microsoft sets.

        The standards are now in ECMA's hands to maintain. Sure, Microsoft can change libraries they don't release to standards organizations, but I believe that the benefit of the .NET runtime will be seen in the open source community without those libraries anyway.

        So write of GNOME (Ximian's Mono Project, to be more specific, GNOME hasn't decided to incorporate Mono yet) and .NET if you want to, but you're doing it at your own peril.
        • Without Microsoft's proprietary classes, .NET offers nothing you couldn't already do with JDK1.1 for years (unless you want to embed whitespace and comments in your RPC messages).

        • I think your view of .NET is a little clouded by the fact that Microsoft is involved. Sure Microsoft has demonstrated monopolistic practises, but when is the last time they released a standard to ECMA [www.ecma.ch] and then purposely broke it?


          That would be the ECMA standard for the Windows operating system. As someone pointed out on
          Linux Today [linuxtoday.com] during the deIcaza/.NET furore the other week, this ECMA standard didn't help the Wine developers much.

    • From the article news.com article:

      The companies will produce two versions of this software that researchers and others may scrutinize and put to noncommercial use

      I doubt this will get much attention if it's only available for non-commercial use. Especially when two Free implementations are under development.

    • I think it's cool that Corel is still developing products for the unix world. However, they do not seem to continue selling the ones they have created! This link [corel.com] says that Corel no longer sells CorelDRAW 9 for linux. I've been a loyal CorelDRAW fan for years and I want to buy the linux version. What's going on here?
  • I recently converted to Debian and was glad to see distributions such as Corel and Progeny that are based on Debian actually give back to the community. Unfortunately I never tried their versions because I knew that just this sort of thing would happen. While giving back to the community is a good thing, the focus must be on making the product generate cash flow. Sometimes it seemed to me that the project leaders had more religious zeal than business acumen. That's great as long as the money's there, but now it seems these companies have bled all their cash away, leaving the community right where it was before.
    • That's great as long as the money's there, but now it seems these companies have bled all their cash away, leaving the community right where it was before.

      ...except from all the money that they pumped in of course.

      The community only grows stronger when a business joins us. When a business leaves us, we _haven't_ lost anything, we have merely stopped gaining from them.

      Corel has left, but the work that they put in remains and will be built upon. That is the crowning achievement of free software.

      Wordperfect for linux isn't free software, and hence doesn't fall under the argument I just proposed :-)
  • they actually had ported their programs to Linux. I suspect we wouldn't be mostly using staroffice/openoffice if they'd done a native port.
  • Perhaps they are cutting out this site to preserve the little cash they have?

    In the fiscal quarter ended 11/01, they lost 12 cents per share, and in the three quarters prior thereto they had profits of 1, 2, and 2 cents per share, respectively. The per-share loss for fiscal year '02 (ending 11/02, based on two analysts' estimates) is exepcted to be 22 cents per share. In FY '03 they are expected to make only 6 cents per share.

    Having a profitable company give back to the community by supporting an open source web site is a good gesture, but Corel needs to focus on more important things at the moment.


    • Having a profitable company give back to the community by supporting an open source web site is a good gesture, but Corel needs to focus on more important things at the moment.


      Remember way back when "giving back to the community" meant feeding the homeless or supporting the United Way?

      Andrew
  • by reemul (1554) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @01:22PM (#3022038)
    ...to save Linux from the deadly Word Perfect virus. Everything that Word Perfect has touched since MS first brought out Office has died a horrible pathetic death. The original corporation died quickly, and sold the product to Novell. They were a monster, kicking serious MS butt in the network. All but irrelevant now, alas, they've pretty much disappeared since buying the Cursed Code. Now Corel is the latest victim, going from a strong company making great products to a confused drifter with decent ideas but a total failure of execution. If we're lucky, Corel broke it's ties to Linux before the WP curse could spread to it. Otherwise, Linux would be doomed to bloat, lack of direction, costly failed attempts to expand presence on users desks...oh, damn, too late. Maybe there's still time to fix it, though.

    Come to think of it, everything that the original Office competed with died messily, with huge collateral damage to everything close to it. 123 didn't go alone, even Lotus is now just a division of IBM. God help us all if Bill G can find the phone number of the sorcerer he hired for that job again. Yikes.
  • Business Case (Score:3, Insightful)

    by frank249 (100528) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @01:23PM (#3022042)
    The paranoid might see a conspiracy as Microsoft now owns 25% of Corel but Corel CEO, Derek Burney, said recently that they are still looking at selling the Linux apps. Since their recent cash problems they have had a razor sharp focus on not offering products unless they can make a profit. Some have said that they should still offer them even if it was only a software download off their web site or CDs with pdf manuals. Burney said they are looking at that but then there are the support costs to consider. Copies of WordPerfect8 are still around and since it is native to Linux it still runs on all distros. WordPerfect 2000(L) is available for download on Morphious. It has the full suite but since it runs on WINE it can be a bit harder to install. I remember when I had it installed at work. A secretary who had never heard of Linux before sat down and started to use it with no problems since it was identical to the windows version. Corel was criticised at the time for trying to imitate windows and not being Linux enough but when it comes down to it you want something people can easily use if you want to get companies to switch over. I hope they can get back to selling it in the future.
    • WordPerfect 2000(L) is available for download on Morphious. It has the full suite but since it runs on WINE it can be a bit harder to install. I remember when I had it installed at work.

      And this, folks, is why WordPerfect Office for Linux and Corel Draw for Linux are no longer available. Linux users shooting themselves in the foot by not buying (see my other posts on this story). Shame, too, because WordPerfect Office for Linux is a great product and I wouldn't be without it -- best $150 I ever spent on software, even if it hasn't been supported with service packs (and has therefore become more and more difficult to install with each successive Red Hat release).
    • Dude. MS Sold their shares of Corel stock long ago. They were being pressured to sell them soon after they were acquired due to the anti-trust trial.
      • Dude. MS Sold their shares of Corel stock long ago. They were being pressured to sell them soon after they were acquired due to the anti-trust trial.

        Sorry. They are preferred non-voting shares. Microsoft applied to have them changed to common shares but only when they sell them. Part of the deal was they would not hold on to the shares once converted. So, they are still holding this threat of dumping 19 million shares over Corel's head just like the sword of Damacles. If Corel does anything to piss them off, the shares could be dumped in days. For now they are not part of the share float.
  • Corel's mistake (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TRoLLaXeR (559614) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @01:28PM (#3022062) Homepage
    Corels primary mistake was getting the idea to make a distribution at all. By the time they had that idea it didnt really matter wether or not it was any good, because there were Too Many Distributions anyway, of which most already _are_ fairly easy to use. At best the only thing another distribution would do was join the other hordes of minor distributions. Theres no money in that market, unless you have a coherent strategy other than "repackage-and-sell" (which several of the largest distribution vendors have), so they basically set themselves up to waste resources and fail (and further they managed to annoy a lot of people with semi-open licenses during testing, etc).

    If they instead concentrated on making their applications work perfectly on linux (complete with easy installer for the large dists), and spent the extra energy on helping along other ease of use efforts that would be a good thing. Look at Ximian for an example.

  • I know Corel made a real try to jump into open source, but their release of WP was a sad case. As a long-time WP user, I jumped at the chance to buy WP for Linux. It should never have been released. It was the only proprietary software on my machine, and it was the most buggy and crash-prone. In using Wine and porting their Windows-based product, they brought with them all of the problems with Windows.

    I could never use WP for anything useful. When I called tech support to exchange it for the real Windows version (which I could run in Win4Lin), they blew me off.

    Sorry, but companies need to step up to the plate if they're going to support linux. This isn't your father's Windows world. People expect better.

    (As an aside, I've recently switched to LaTeX and have been happy ever since.)
  • Corel was a good company when they focused on graphics products, but for the last 9 years, they have jumped on every bandwagon they could find:

    - they were going to compete with MS Office
    - they were going to port all their apps to Java
    - they were going to build a network computer
    - they were going to port all their apps to Linux

    The problem with jumping on a bandwagon is that eventually you have to jump back off. Interestingly enough, Corel has a reputation of laying off their experienced workers and replacing them with fresh meat. I think this is how they ensure that their employees remain motivated and indoctrinated with each succesive failure.

    It is definitely possible that Cowpland was the problem and that Corel will make a comeback now that he's gone. They offered me a job many years ago. Thankfully, I had other offers.

    -a
    • To say Cowplan was the problem is kinda bandwagon jumping in itself. Can't put down the man that put Corel on the map 'cause he couldn't stay there.

      With that said, I wonder if there will be a note on the Corel Linux lab door at my school on monday.

      AsA
    • And now they're jumping into enterprice process management and XML content solutions... It's possible that Cowpland wasnt the problem too.

      The new strategy of 'investing to capture high-growth emerging markets' sounds suspiciously like 'we're gonna throw our money at any bandwagon we can find'.
  • Corel did a lot of damage to the free software community by distributing WP 2000 only as Windows binaries with a version of WINE that only worked on some Linux distros, and left all the BSD people out in the cold.

    Corel totally missed the point. A native WP (similar to WP8, only not so unbeliveably buggy) would have been cool, but they didn't do it.
  • by aussersterne (212916) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @02:26PM (#3022245) Homepage
    There are a lot of posts about WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux and its dependence on Wine, as well as about instability. Gotta add my $0.15 (it's longer than $0.02).

    I bought the product right at release, and it's true: it was based on Wine. However, it was a "special" in-house version of Wine with modifications to get WordPerfect Office 2000 to run, and the Corel Wine was much faster than the WineHQ Wine at running Office applications. In addition, because Corel Wine and the WordPerfect Office 2000 binaries for Linux were tweaked for each other, they actually worked (and do work) very well together.

    We musn't forget that Corel is a smallish company and WordPerfect Office 2000 is a Windows product. To do an entire native port would have been a herculean effort and probably beyond the company's realistic abilities, certainly it would have been impossible in the time frame in which they were able to release WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux.

    Not to mention that many Linux users are applauding TransGaming for their Wine support and calling Wine the best way to bring Linux to the masses... You can't have it both ways; if it's good enough for TransGaming, there's no point in saying that it shouldn't be good enough for Corel.

    That said, there were some problems -- the installer of the original release only properly supported the major distributions (i.e. Debian, Corel, Red Hat) while minor distributions (Caldera & others) had some trouble and required by-hand rpm'ing in some cases, or other tweaks. There were also behavior problems with non-KDE-1.x desktops which led to some crashing and other effects likely to generate a poor first impression of the product. I know of several users who returned their Corel Linux products almost immediately.

    Unfortunately, the response from Corel to these problems was mixed. A new installer script was released, but a service pack to fix the crashing and non-KDE problems was never made -- which is a damn shame, because the CVS version of Corel Wine hosted at opensource.corel.com did fix both the crashing and the non-KDE-1.1 behavior bugs, leading to a very functional office suite for Linux. Some in the WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux community even packaged the CVS of Corel Wine up as an RPM and released it that way, and I continue to use the "unofficial" Corel Wine RPM to this day, every day, with my copy of WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux.

    So, there is no denying that Corel may be partly at fault for releasing an undertested product and then stupidly failing to release fixes which already existed and were downloadable (albeit in difficult to use form) from their Web site.

    On the other hand, seen from Corel's point of view -- very poor sales and rampant piracy (which I saw myself in several offices) -- it may have been difficult to justify spending any additional capital on the Linux products once they had been launched. The problems with smaller-name distributions and non-KDE window managers likely generated lots of tech support traffic from a few squeaky wheels and a high number of product returns, while at the same time sales were (apparently) very slow. To this day, it's surprising to me just how many Linux users positively bristle when I tell them that I actually paid for WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux, rather than use an open-source alternative -- almost as though I were a Benedict Arnold for actually buying software.

    All in all, it's just a sad thing altogether, because Corel was one of the few companies that really did take the plunge and release and market Linux products, and (once you got them installed properly) both WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux and Corel Draw for Linux work very well -- better than most anything available for Linux to this point.
  • Old skool logo (Score:4, Informative)

    by epukinsk (120536) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @02:37PM (#3022290) Homepage Journal
    Guess I can retire this topic icon

    As others have pointed out, you shouldn't retire it. I might suggest updating it [corel.com], though.

    -Erik
  • Ya think?

    Maybe you should have retired that logo last January when Corel announced [corel.com] their new and improved logo.

    Not that I really like the new logo with that strange looking bald guy. But lets get with the times eh?

  • providing the Linux world with versions of Corel Draw and Corel WordPerfect.
    Nice to provide things that are never released for purchase.
    I have tried several times to buy both those items, nobody carry's them and repeated calls and emails to Xana-whatever-their-name-is resulted in non-responses.

    I still want to buy them, but I can't.

    Anyone have a link to where I can actually buy thes products? I'm guessing it's now a liquidator or old product retailer.

  • Remember a while back when Microsoft tried to buy Corel? That was blocked by the SEC if I recall, but that didn't stop Microsoft from investing in Corel and thereby gaining influence, even if it is behind the scenes under the table influence. It was right around this time that Wordperfect for Linux was dropped as a future product, Corel Linux itself was dropped, Wine development ceased, and the price on the windows version of their Wordperfect Office suite was raised significantly. Coincidence?

    The Wordperfect suite was beginning to make some inroads into Microsoft's market share before this happened. I remember you could get the Wordperfect suite for a couple hundred bucks while the Microsoft suite was five hundred if you were lucky (not counting upgrades). Now the price is higher and its progress into MS-Office territory has slowed or stopped.

    Sounds to me like a case of Microsoft castrating the competition by investing in it, just like they did with Apple, although in Apple's case it was investing to keep the company alive as token "competition" rather than to remove a real threat.

    Lee
  • Plain and simple,Corel Office was way too expensive for most users to be an incentive to buy.A price of 80-100 CAD (50 - 70 US$ for those of you south of the border)would've give them the volume to make up in lower price.It's simply called not knowing the market you're trying to sell to.
    As for Corel Linux...that deserves no real comments,a distro incompatible with it's parent or other distros (one huge kde package ) with an "all or nothing" installer (never fixed) and completely out of sync with the fast evolving Linux software (can we say here Debian unstable).
    Plain and simple,bad management and expectations clouding the reallity.
  • There seems to be this intended but mistakenly wrong theme that Linux is
    dying here.

    Where the fact is that Linux was much more dead last year and the year
    before and so on and so on, then it is today as it enters more and more
    government supported uses and propogates into different types of consumer
    devices and ...... so on and so on...

    Linux is spreading further and further and just because there are cases
    where it appears to not have made investors money doesn't mean that it's
    not generating value. For if it wasn't generating value, then it certainly
    wouldn't be growing and extending into new areas and uses. Value doesn't
    have to be in the direct stockmarket holder form of money.

    It seems to me that the abstraction manipulation methodology of applying
    selective connotations in marketing practices is heavy at work here. In a
    place where you'd think there is to be more naturally supportive of linux
    community it seems to be exposing Microsoft viral infilteration of not
    only Slashdot but given article of recent, perhaps the OSDN organization.

    And to think MS accused Linux, or more specifically the GPL as being a
    Viral License. Typical act of making a claim against another and then
    commiting it yourself. As was perhaps first done by Bill Gates yelling
    "Piracy" and making TIME Magizine front Cover for it.

    What of Corel, really?

    They are a business for profit and as any successful business which also
    contribute to Open Source Software and even to GPL and GNU software knows,
    you generally don't make it your main business. Perhaps the rule should be
    10% to commonwealth baseline development?

    Many have said support is where you make your money with linux, yet a
    Corel employee mentions here that their Linux based products resulted in
    more call for support that they were not charging for (due to selling
    closed source linux based products for profit which included free support.)
    Perhaps they needed to get everything set on the same page, rather than
    mixing pages from closed source practices and open sources practices?

    Corel has for years been struggling and thru various partnerships. That is
    a clear indication that it's not a Linux or other product problems but
    rather an internal business control problem, probably one called
    management.

  • Contradiction (Score:2, Informative)

    by helinem (465945)
    Is it just me, or does it seem funny that Corel have said: "...this site will no longer be available as of March 1st, 2002...", and on the very next line: "At Corel, we have developed a strong commitment to the Open Source community..."?
  • by PingXao (153057) on Sunday February 17, 2002 @07:29PM (#3023579)
    Unlike the dot-bombs, Corel has been in a period of slow, steady decline. I heard an anecdote while working for a law firm some months ago. To wit: Apparently Bill Gates' father is a big lawyer muckety-muck somewhere and Bill questioned him on why it is that almost all lawyers and law firms in the U.S. were married to WordPerfect. (This was true of every law firm I ever dealt with, and that includes District Attorney offices on every level. Whenever I needed to produce a document that needed to be shared I had to convert it from Word into WordPerfect format.) The answer he got was twofold: (1) Inertia. That's just the way it is and it's always been that way so why change? and (2) There were some WordPerfect idiosyncracies that WordPerfect had that MS Word couldn't duplicate. What those are in particular, I'm not sure, but I would guess it involves hot-key commands (which are plentiful in WP) and "Show Control Codes" or some such function that lets you edit and touch up all the hidden commands that actually perform the special formatting for the WSYWIG output. Lawyers wouldn't even consider moving to a word processor that couldn't do that. I know I've struggled with Word formatting quite a bit as I'm sure everyone else has. Eventually it gets so frustrating that you just give up and settle for letting Word do what it wants to do.

    At any rate, Bill decided that MS Word should be the legal Word Processor Uber Alles and directed his minions to make it so. As of today, he still hasn't succeeded in his goal AFAIK. The MS investment in Corel might be directed toward continued progress in that regard. As soon as Microsoft can supplant WordPerfect as the word processor of choice on legal desktops everywhere (at least in the U.S.), WordPerfect's and Corel Suite or whatever's usefulness will have ended.

    Lawyers and law firms may just be the biggest single user group of Corel's office suite left. They may be the only customers that keep it alive. There are certainly enough of them to keep WordPerfect (and possibly Corel itself) alive for some time to come. When they finally switch (resistance is futile), WordPerfect will probably die and Corel will finally execute it's final CFIT. That's aviation terminology for "Controlled Flight Into Terrain".

    Imagine, Microsoft - the Evil Empire - at long last in bed with not only its own lawyers, but all lawyers everywhere - Satan's Spawn on Earth. The Horror.... the horror.....
  • by Dr. Evil (3501) on Monday February 18, 2002 @09:31AM (#3026055)

    Creators of the Netwinder StrongArm linux machines.

    Producers of a Debian sub-distribution. (which won't run on the Netwinder)

    Creators of a full Office Suite. (which won't run on the Netwinder or their Linux distribution)

    Not smart decisions.

A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing. -- Alan Perlis

Working...