Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Corel Linux FAQ 203

Wyle writes "Corel has a FAQ about its upcoming Linux Distro" Answers a lot of real questions like why they chose Debian, and more.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Corel Linux FAQ

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Am I the only one who isn't the least bit interested in Corels distro or WP efforts ??

    The single most significant snippet of news from Corel in that whole FAQ/Blurb/feel-good-posting was the fact that they publically stated that CorelDRAW 9, CorelPAINT 9 and CorelVENTURA 9 will be brought out for linux... SOON!

    That means that finally the last untapped group of potential contributors to OpenSource software 'll have the tools to help out. Compilers for coders we've got, smart people to code we've got too, but designers that know about presenting information, designers that know about presenting functionality and people with high natural aesthetic sensibility are few and far between in OpenSource-land.

    The DTP-ers and Graphic designers 'll love working in a stable and sensible environment, they'll love the sense of community even more, allthough they'll find it rather peculiar that such fierce debates rage over GNOME vs KDE and Motif/Xview/FTLK/Qt/Gtk/Xforms since it's painfully obvious that from a design/aesthetic point of view, virtually _all_ UI toolkits under X suck dead rabbits through bent straws!!

    And here's a radical idea for all you C-heads out there: get yourself a designer net-friend and let him/her do a major overhaul of the interface of your application(s). Two things 'll happen. 1 - You'll be amazed how much better your app 'll become. 2 - linux based software may actually do something innovative on the information design & User Interface front, and may suddenly find itself ending up light years ahead of MS-Windows and the Mac in a very visible and realistic way.

    The end result: People can finally get back to getting work done with their computers!! And the whole bunch of bloodsucking, pointyheared MSCE-profiteers can go and re-train as plumbers!!

    Welcome the designers, listen to them, seek them out and offer them to 'reclothe' our superior software. Only then will 'world domination' be a real proposition. Meanwhile, thank Corel on your bare knees for making it possible for the designers to enter the world of OpenSource software.

    avi bercovich
  • But where did my QuickBooks go?"

    And then it's just a few minutes later until they're looking in the phone book for the number for their attorney (contact list also formatted over) and it's goodbye Corel.

    I personally think everybody should try Linux for awhile. (I ran only Linux on my main home machine for over half a year before burning out on being a tweakmesister and not doing anything else with my computer but play with it. Ken Thompson coming out and saying Linux was a losing proposition was the breaking point for me. Opened my eyes a bit.) Makes it so much easier to see how good the Microsoft Desktop (and the wonderful privledge of actually being able to go into a store and find nicely packaged easy to use applications) really is.

    My servers are all Linux and NetBSD.

  • The most important thing Corel must bare in mind together with the rest of the community (Yes, Corel is a member of the community) is to make sure that WordPerfect is absolutely, ie 150%, compatible with KOffice and other suites that ships with Linux. Every file created by one Linux system should be readable for another system.

    If all suits were using, say XML, for everything. Sooner or later all MsOffice users will understand that they need to use XML instead of Word8 Doc, and if that happens I feel that my functions on this planet is fulfilled, making me pretty obsolete *grin*
  • Hmm, since they want the most roboust distribution they chose Debian. If I was in that position I'd without any doubt chose FreeBSD instead... KDE is actually nicer in FreeBSD than in Linux.
    Two problems with using FreeBSD though.

    1. No hype
    2. No drivers

    Debian is really nice, but I'm not sure it's the most roboust distribution. I think it's more about choosing something that sounds good, Debian is probably the most respected distribution.

    Don't get me wrong though... But I'd really like to see more FreeBSD hype!
  • Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies?

    ITYM "slashdot and flame" :).
    Sorry, but in most instances I've installed the two (especially when dealing with some 3Com PCI Ethernet cards whose drivers are not included with NT 4.0), Linux came out ahead.

  • Posted by stodge:

    What is it with having to release source code? They're under no obligation to do so (providing they're careful with licensing). I'm tired of people saying that the source for every program released for Linux has to be given away for free. I believe that there are two markets in Linux - one where source is given for free, and one where developers can make a profit and not release source code.

  • Posted by stodge:

    But why does everyone have to realease source code under Linux? Not everyone wants to live in the regime of OSS. GOd its like saying you can buy any colour Ford car, as long as its black. "You can write any kind of software for Linux, as long as its OSS". Sheesh
  • Posted by stodge:

    You cant compare food with software. Personally I don't give a monkey's about the source. I don't want to wade through reams and reams of source code, just to spot a little bug. Hell I do enough of that work. I want to use software, not play with it. Personal preference, but I wish OSS people and hence Linux people would realise that and get used to the idea that developers dont have to give their source away. End of story.
  • They say that they want to make Linux easier for end users to install, but in my experience it's already pretty easy. The sticking points are disk partitioning (a relatively easy thing to fix, I think) and video card setup (harder to fix).

    I suspect that when they sit down and try to improve the installation they'll end up focusing on video

    Linux hardware support is actually very good. Your video card is probably already supported, if only you could figure out how to set it up.

  • Corel is open-sourcing it and I suspect it will be 99.9% C or C++. You should be able to port it to any processor Linux supports with a recompile.

    They might write some hardware-specific device probes and you'd have to work out how booting works on your target platform. But most non-intel platforms have fewer hardware hassles and the booting has been figured out by somebody for some distro already.

  • The question on whether or not they plan on distributing CLD separate from their applications implies that they WILL be distributing it with their applications.

    I know Corel doesn't have huge market-share nowadays, but they're still nothing to sneeze at. Imagine if every Corel application came with a complete Linux distribution in the box. Millions of end-users would suddenly find themselves with Linux CDs (kind of like the AOL coasters that used to be everywhere).

    If Corel does this right it's not hard to imagine a scenario where several million Corel users install Linux as an upgrade to their Windows boxes.

    "Hmm. It says if I click 'yes' my computer will be faster and won't crash so much. Hey, it worked! But where did my QuickBooks go?"

  • There's two things here: the CLD and the Corel Office apps.

    From everything they say about the CLD it sounds like a good deal. Everything they do will remain Free (speach), and as such it will be possible to fold them into non-CLD efforts. And because the CLD will be Free, if they bundle CLD with Wordperfect et. al. it won't be a problem -- it'll be easy enough to strip the proprietary parts from the distribution and for Cheapbytes to sell it, as they most likely will. I don't see how the CLD can do any harm, and it could do a lot of good.

    As for Corel's proprietary apps, I suppose it's nice they exist for Linux but it's nothing to be excited about. Opening them up wouldn't be too useful. Netscape is the only one to really do this seriously, and though it's been somewhat successful, there's been significant problems. A bizaar-style app has to be designed differently, I think, with minimalism and a carefully modular design. I doubt that's the case with a program with a long history like Wordperfect.

    Because of the licensed software Corel uses they'd probably need their own license (like the Netscape Public License) which seriously decreased the value of the software. Only Netscape/Mozilla apps can really use Mozilla code -- Gnome, for instance, can't cut and paste useful bits of code from Mozilla. The same would probably be true for Open Sourced Corel apps.

    This is why the license proliferation sucks. Cross-polination is part of what makes Free software good, and license incompatibilities damage that. Somehow I imagine that much of the software under different licenses will whither or never expand outside of the proprietary niches they previously occupied, and eventually leave just the GPL and XFree-ish licenses.

    (and good ridance)

  • I find something irritating, and perhaps dangerous, in the fact Corel is jumping on the Linux bandwagon but won't open up their own products. In their answer to that question in the FAQ, it seems to be a typical corporate or marketing answer.

    "We don't really believe in Open Source, but there are enough users to milk more business out of by playing along."

    If they are *really* serious about supporting Linux and what the OSS community stands for, they'll go through the hassle of removing third party code in the products and making it free (as in source). Until they commit in such a way, I'm not going to support them.
  • Heh, well, then they should dump WP and work on Abi and KOffice. Both look like they'll be great programs, especially KOffice. And if Qt 2 actually looks decent I might be able to use it.
  • would your scenario be possible. Linux installations offer a choice of what to install; it wouldn't be a matter of uninstalling it, but of not choosing to install it in the first place.

    Caldera is not interested in selling linux. They are coming up with the distribution so that they can sell their regular products. They are doing exactly what netscape should have done two years ago--spin a linux distribution to bundle with the browser, and contribute the work to finish wine.

    It is quite clear from caldera's statement that if there's actually demand for it, that they'll sell their version of linux separately.

    Also, given that they're going to be using debian as a base, they will be thoroughly infected with the GPL; only completely independent portions that they design could possibly be proprietary, and the
    rest could be sold or otherwise distributed by anyone else.

    I'm really not sure why I'm bothering to explain this, as I'm pretty sure that this is just a troll . . .
  • >Why must our community slash and burn those who point out deficiencies?

    How about the fact that 99.999% of them are people like you, mircosoft-employed trolls who are trying to do to linux what you bastards did to OS/2 on Fidonet and the rest of the bbs networks by planting false horror stories about how "difficult" they found Linux to install? Your *ENTIRE* post is a perfect example of this. Do yourself a favor and report back to the morons at the MS PR firm that hired you that their *latest* attempt at anti-linux FUD is yet another failure that they can add to their already long list.
  • "We" are not screaming at MS for not releasing their code. You may be, but I haven't seen anyone else do that.

    It seems Corel intend to be a good player in the Linux marked, contributing to important free software projects. Their main products won't be free software, but that doesn't prevent free software enthusiasts from enjoying their contributions to free software.

    And, no, nobody with a clue is pissed at MS for "bundling" in general. People are worried that MS using their near monopoly on the desktop OS marked to unfairly compete in the application area. Corel has no "near monopoly", they are returning their enhancements to the community, they plan to follow the community standards, and their applications will also work on other distributions. There really isn't any sensible comparison.

    Corel should be aplauded for their significant contributions to free software standards, and for being careful about doing this "the right way".
  • 1) If you want CLD without WP, then download and install Debian and KDE, on which it is based. Or download one of the many other Linux distributions.

    2) You second point is not making any sense at all, KDE is not hardcoded into 98 or anything else with a near monopoly status.

    Apparently you have no idea of what the problems with Microsoft business practices are, so maybe you should just stop commenting on them.
  • I know what you are talking about. Unfortunately, you don't. I suggest you read the replies you got (slowly), and try to understand how you misunderstood the critique if MS.

    A hint can be found in the subject line.
  • I suspect that they will be called .debs. For one thing, Corel said their 'internal' CVS server would be kept public on the site (not mirrored, actually stored there).

    Not every distro has invented their own. Slackware used Unix tradition together with its own directory structure; Debian developed .deb when it was needed; Redhat developed .rpm because they didn't know about .deb or didn't want to use it; and most distros from then on (including all of the biggest) have chosen .rpms. Stampede is one of the exceptions to the rule.

    I'm curious, though. You state that RPMs spread for "obvious reasons". Given that .debs are intrinsicly superior, what are those reasons? I've often wondered.

  • I can't claim (and shouldn't have allowed myself to imply) that .debs beat .rpms is every possible category. That would be a pretty difficult (if not impossible) feat; even .tar.gz beats .deb in certain applications.

    However, I look at two things to make my comparison.

    First, a laundry list of features. .rpm is not unrespectable, but .deb comes out ahead for almost everything.

    Second, actual use. The system which works with .debs is stable, effective, and powerful. I've been through a lot of upgrades with Debian without more than minor problems (lately the problems have been disappearing as packages become more tested). Compare this with .rpms; they may be a nice package format, but the system which manages them doesn't use their capabilities to any real extent. Yes, you can install and uninstall -- but what if you want to upgrade? AFAICT, you have to buy or download an entire new CD, and run the installation program on it.

    You're right that Debian doesn't scale well; fortunately, so far we've done very well keeping everything at (mainly) and the repackager's site (rarely, the only one I've ever used was KDE 1.1.1).

    Considering the sheer number of packages at, I'm not too worried.

  • Why all the hype over the Red Hat IPO? You can get Corel stock at pre-pre-IPO prices now! :)

    I'm only half joking. I have some COSFF already and may buy more if their distribution (and marketing for it) look good and the price doesn't go way up before then.
  • ...if the situation wasn't exactly the other way around -- the government is trying to prove that IE can be separated from the OS and thus it is not an essential service, and should not be bundled. Microsoft tries to "prove" otherwise.
  • I am dissapointed at one section of that FAQ. The section where they talk about releasing the source code to the linux community. They talked about "giving back to the community", but they will not release the source code because of contracts with other companies. This is poor, and they should release the source code, so people can develop the distribution. They love the fact that debian has such a large developer base, but they won't get one by going this route. I think Corel should reconsider the plans to not release the source code to their upcoming linux distribution.
  • It's the whole idea of it, which benefits them in the long run. Think about it, linux was started as an open source project and to this very second, is and will remain open source. What has been accomplished because of it? Hrm, well, millions of dollars and huge companies, one just going public. Not bad for something that started off as some code that was freely available. Now i'm not saying that every single peice of software on this earth must be open source, even though it would be nice, but the majority should be. If you had a software company, would you pick having thousands of people all over the world help you develop your product, or just the few people you hired to sit in a room and try to make good software. I would opt out for number 1, but I'm not sure about you. All I'm trying to get across is not releasing the source to your software is dumb, as it does not help you at all. Look at Microsoft, sure, they have millions of users, but is the number going down rapidly? I believe so.
  • "isn't that one of the reasons we are pissed at MS, or is it OK for a Linux distro to do it ?"

    Nah.. That's not a smart remark. You cannot compare the linux environment, or any Unix environment to the MS way of bundling.

    Take, for instance, a normal Debian install. You could still add KDE and the COREL suite yourself.

    Or for that matter, imagine Sun *bundling* java with solaris..It's still not the same as the "try
    to enforce windows everywhere" strategy Win employs.
  • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <> on Saturday June 05, 1999 @03:25PM (#1865709) Homepage Journal
    If Microsoft GPL-ed Windows 2000 tomorrow, and decided to keep Word proprietary, you'd still think it was an improvement. Look at Corel in that light. Corel is recognizing that infrastructure should be Open Source but you can make some money off of proprietary applications that run on that infrastructure as long as you don't make it impossible for Open Source applications to fill the same niche. They will be constantly competing with Open Source applications, so their software had better be incredibly good or it won't sell.



  • If they opened up the source to, say WP, they'd have to come up with a licence that allows source distribution between paying customers, unless they'd like to give it away for free. And what good would that be. At least they would still get the same amount of flames...

    I'm _very_ glad Corel is not giving everything they have away for free. I like seeing Corel alive instead of belly up.

    Maybe some day they will OS WP, but right now I like to see them making some money from us. That's right - I like it that a company can make money making Linux products!

  • You should give it a try some time. The damn thing kept screwing up and crashing. Took me the whole day to install this POS. For that matter even win95/98 is far from perfect. SuSE on the other hand installed smoothly and detected my hardware properly. You just can't compare the two.
  • GPL is not the answer to everything. It works better then other licences in some cases but fails in others. So Corel want to keep their apps private and there's nothing wrong with that. After all you can't force somebody to GPL their products just because you feel like it. I am willing to pay for them if they prove to be good. (And just to reiterate -- the current WP8 for Linux doesn't even come close to being a good app.)
  • Windows 95 OSR1 did not contain any web browser. The original Windows 95 Plus Pack had Internet Explorer 1.0, which was a really sad joke.
  • Windows easy to install? Ha, you make me laugh. I wanted to install a version of windows with a modern DirectX so I could play games. First I tried Win98. It hung during the part where it says "building the start bar", and of course when I had to hit the reboot switch it went right back to the same point and hung again. Then I tried NT5 beta 2 (beta 3 was not out yet). It wouldn't install unless I took my ethernet card (a DEC tulip) out of the machine. When I did so, it wouldn't recognize my standard 3 button logitech serial mouse. Finally, I gave up and installed NT4 so at least I could play Starcraft and Railroad Tycoon, if not Half Life. It ranks amongst the worst install expiriences I've ever had.

    Caldera OpenLinnux 2.2, from what I've seen in reviews and such (I've not installed linux on my own machines for a while, for reinstalling is for wussies, and people and employers who want me to install linux for them always want Redhat for some reason) is a far superior install to windows. Easy, pointy-clicky, and it even lets you play tetris as you wait. Redhat's install aren;t wonderful, but they are OK.

    Also, I installed FreeBSD on an old 386 someone gave me for free a while ago. Although it was not the most friendly install for a windows user, for someone who has been using unix for a while, I'd say it was a very clean and good install.

    Solaris 2.5.1 had very straightforward install. Solaris 2.7 lets you use a web browser to install for christ's sake.

    The BeOS install is a walk in the park.

    Out of the machines I've had to install in recent memory, the Windows install, is one of the most annoying, buggiest, most difficult, and most ass-backwards. Perhaps I'd rank it in a tie with Slackware, and just in front of Debian, but far behind Redhat, Caldera, Be, FreeBSD, Sol2.5.1, and Sol 2.7.
  • I installed it once. It installed. I just found the whole expirience crude and annoying. It also required babysitting, something I don't like (a flaw of Slackware and Windows as well, but less so for FreeBSD, and not at all for Redhat, Caldera, or Solaris).
  • Oh God forbid the code you wrote was actually free, rather than free unless you want to do A, B, or C (A B and C being make a derived work and not release the source). The BSD license IMHO is the best license out there in the world of free software, and the only one that works off the assumption that when source is available, better code results, and thus closed-source derived works are not a threat.
  • Supporting Linux and supporting Open Source are not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with having closed source software on linux, or open source software on Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Windows, ect. The two are not the same.
  • Win95 OSR 1 has no Web browser packaged with it.

    Who cares? I tried installing Linux circa 95 and it wouldn't recognize my CD drive. If I mentioned that here, I would get so flamed . . .

    If MS just made the CD bootable and able to fdisk and format

    Windows 98 is bootable with fdisk and format on the CD. Compare current Linux's with current Windows, or else you're just spreading fud.
  • The biggest reason is that most people have x86 processors. It's hard to port something to another platform without know how it works, and if your ported app will even work. But take heart, I think that someday soon the x86 will no longer have the 90 some percent of the developers as the Alpha, ARM, and PPC are becoming more and more common.

    god i hope so, i'm really sick of the x86 and really want an alpha or ultra sparc!!

  • apt seems pretty cool, but what about major changes in packages. Quite frequently in the linux community a new software package has a new config file (etc) that is not compatible with older versions. If apt updates packages without user input does this not risk the integrity of the system?

    Usually you will be warned that the configuration files do not match, and whether or not you want to cancel the installation. At that point, you can put a hold on that application, and apt won't automatically upgrade it for you if you move to a new version of the distribution.

    There are sometimes scripts that will convert data over, or there are configuration scripts for the new version, so you can set it up yourself.

    For the most part, Debian does its best to let you know what's going on so you don't accidentally upgrade to a package you can't use because the configuration has changed.

  • Windows also comes with far less stuff the linux, no web browser for instatnce.

    Well, for a start, Windows already has a web browser. It's compulsory in fact. But Win2k will include lots of stuff, eg web server (IIS), directory (MS Active Directory or MAD), and probably some other bits and bobs too. It's still true that Linux has more, but NT these days is hardly a 'lightweight' install.

  • Of course that link change is due to they are out of R4.1 CD's and don't want to make up more.

    Bad News.

    It won't be right away, from what I have heard. No CD have been pressed yet, nor have it been finalized. Yes, it is being finlized up, (last pre-R5 distro was May 13), but still work is being done.

    Tonight Tom Rini (glibc2.1/ppc app developer/porter) was working on getting some more patches (on gnome-core and esd) to JCarr (LinuxPPC CEO). Also the next two weeks JHazz (Marketing Manger/WebSite/FTP) is on vacation, so I don't think he we will be seeing web site updates or any major updates.

    Also, LinuxPPC R5 is suppost to be including Netscape Communicator 4.6, but Netscape hasn't gotten it's ass together enought to do a glibc2.1/ppc port of Netscape Communicator. We are waiting Netscape. ;-)

    Anyways that MacOS Rumors article was summitted by BillyH, which nobody is really sure if he knows someting we don't know.

    It will be at least 2 weeks till it goes off to the CD printer in California?, and that will take some time.

    If you want to download, the lastest pre-R5 is stable and usable, but lacks Netscape Communicator.


    Andrew Arthur aka AArthur
  • "Yes, it should be a big advantage of Open Source that it emphasizes portability."

    It is a big advantage. Without Open Source any Linux for the PowerPC distro would not exist or have like 3 programs. Due to opensource, 1000s of programs can run on Linux for the PowerPC now!

    "Why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centered?"

    Linux is not x86 centered as you may think, any more. Many Linux developers use Alphas or PowerPCs now, hell their is even RedHat for Alphas. Yes, many binaries are x86 only, but guess what, many of those same companies are considering at least PowerPC/Linux ports (examples: IBM DB2, RealPlayer G2 (under consideration at Real)).

    "Let's ask instead why the other low-end platform is so antagonistic to Linux."

    I think that's kind of flame bait. But i'll bite. The x86 platform has the greatest choice of equipment and x86 machine can be built/bought really cheap. Many Linux developers are streched for cash as is it.


    Andrew B. Arthur, aka AArthur
  • "The waffling about Open Source between their "real" products and their Linux efforts kinda disturbs me, though. Porting applications to Linux generally means an almost complete rewrite, so I do not see where a little extra investment wouldn't be worth making their products Open Source. Furthermore, I think CorelDraw is at least 90% Corel's own code (I used to work for a company that has beta tested CorelDraw from time to time)...the other stuff has to do with things like color matching standards that most Linux users really won't care about (unless they happen to be professional graphic designers, that is...) "

    I disagree on this. While I do see opensource as a good thing in general, releasing the source code to these projects seems a little bit exterme. The GPL is great of *nix-native projects, but I am not sure if they need / want the competition.

    If you want a OpenSource Word Processing Solution look no farther then KOffice. If you want a expensive commerical solution look at the Corel series of Commerical Linux Solutions such as Word Perfect.

    I hope you see where I am comming from.
  • "X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog
    Server 1.0 after install on my iMac..."

    Just to set the record straight. The iMac is a pretty new machine, only 1 year old.

    The iMac uses different technology in it display / graphics card, so of course their will be issues.

    Heck, The iMac didn't even work until October 1998, getting USB drivers have been a pain in the ass also.

    Apple hasn't gaven us much help at all, and the systems are pretty complex.

    LinuxPPC R4 was realeased before any support of the iMac in Linux, so of course it going to require a special kernel and patches and stuff to make it work.

    Yellow Dog Server 1.0 has some problems with X since it is a new kid on the block (give it some slack), and the default X Server, Xfree86-3.3.1 is also a new kid on the block. (Older Powermac systems used Xpmac, a autoconfiguring server, that plug and play basically). Xfree86-3.3.1 is vastly better, but it needs work on the powerpc to up to snuff. This is one reason for LinuxPPC R5 delay, JCarr has been busy playing with, making it more user friendly, and plug and play. (No playing with crap like configuration files).

    I hope you now understand.


    Andrew B. Arthur aka AArthur
  • Now that coral is making a newbie OS based on Debian, we can stop making debian more friendly to newbies and let it live as the official hacker OS.
    In the past, we've told newbies to start with RH, but with Coral's new OS, we've got a good alternative and a nice way of introducing people to Debian.

    On WordPerfect 9, is that going to be based on winelib? How efficent would be if it's based on that? I've been using abiword for the last 2 weeks and have falling in love with this editor. Unless coral gets the bloat out of WP8, I'd have to switch to abiword. Wouldnt anything based on winelab be slower than native code?

    I wish coral good luck their new dist and office applications.

  • I think you mean MCSE... Microsoft Certified System Engineer.

    MSCE == Master of Science Computer Engineering (?)

  • First of all, this is not a flame ;-)

    But I see this from time to time and don't know quite what to make of it.

    *Why* is FeeeBSD more robust? If there are problems, Linux developers need to hear about it.

    *Why* is KDE nicer in FreeBSD?

    I'm not sure how many people remember the original series Star Trek episode "Let That Be Your Last Battle Field..." which, as they say, "is the one where" the Enterprise picks up two seperate guys in seperate ships (in the process of blasting the hell out of each other) who are from the same planet (Charon) and who have a bad case of mutual racial hatred, which seems odd because they look almost like twins. As it turns out, one of them has dark skin on the right half of his body and light skin on the left. The other has dark skin on the *left* half and light skin on the *right*. At the end of the episode they both escape to the surface of a planet and proceed to battle each other, presumably for all eternity, but it's a bit unclear and its been a while since I've watched that one.

    Sometimes Linux/FreeBSD makes me feel this way. We have 90% of stuff in common. We are both from the planet "Unix" in the "Open-Source" system. From the standpoint of the desktop user, we are both from a small planet in a rather unfashionable arm of the Milkyway galaxy (yes, I'm shamelessly mixing metaphors ;-), but property values are getting better everyday. As long as the murder rate on "Unix" stays down, property values should continue to climb.

    This is not really in response to the previous post. It started out that way, but ended up a more general rant.

    BTW, Linux is the Unix flavor that I use, but I would not mind seeing more FreeBSD hype myself. Walnut Creek CDROM makes a pretty impressive poster child. :-)
  • Cause it ain't Micro$oft?

    Seriously, a lot of people install Linux as an act of rebellion against Bill of Borg personally, and this is entirely the wrong reason.

    The right reason is because it suits your needs better. For some tasks, including my own (I'm a physical-sciences student), Linux is ideal. For others, a *BSD is better. For a few, you could probably convincingly argue a Microsoft OS is the best for the job, and ditto BeOS and so forth.

    Installing Linux for what it *isn't* is the wrong reason. Installing whatever OS is best for what you need and want to do is inherently The Right Thing, and this is why a monopoly is bad - it restricts the use people can get from their computers.

  • Does anyone know of any contributions Corel has made to the KDE? Do they have programmers with CVS access?

    Just curious, as I haven't seen any Corel developers post on the dev list.
  • Thanks very much for that response anonymous.

    I have to agree that anything less than regular communication with the KDE team greatly increases the chances of bad feelings and wasted work. Months of hard work by Corel might after a days discussion be rejected from inclusion into KDE CVS. This would pretty much mean that their distribution would be non-standard and their changes would become obsolete as the main KDE branch progressed. If there was a book on OSS anti-patterns this would be in it, I've seen individuals make this mistake over and over again.

    That scenario is only likely to eventuate if they are working on kdelibs or kdebase stuff if they are working on additional apps then I don't have a problem with them doing it in privacy until they are ready to release an alpha/beta.

    Thanks for the info again, 'preciate it.
  • It's entirely possible that Corel will release a version that's better than the original, and if it's successful in the marketplace, the original KDE project may be relegated to second place status.
    Even if Corel release a version of KDE that is superior to the original KDE, users may choose to use the authentic version, believing that the next release of the authentic version will be superior to the Corel release. Moreover if it is easier to upgrade from one authentic version to another rather than from a Corel version to an authentic version. It can't just be better at one point in time, it has to better over a prolonged period.

    Corel would effectively gain control of future development
    The current suite of KDE applications provide valuable functionality and will continue to mature and become increasingly valuable in the comming months.

    There is good will that exists between KDE application developers and kde libs/base developers that has been built up over a period of years through a combination of open communication and joint involvement in projects of mutual benefit. (The same is true of KDE users and KDE application programmers and KDE libs/base developers and TrollTech developers). Even if Corel produce a superior version of KDE libs/base they may fail to gain market share due to failure to attract KDE application programmers.

    I fear that if Corel is intending to go their own way and produce a better KDE than KDE then they are doomed to failure. The free software community is different, they can look beyond the set of features sported by a software system and look at how that software will satisfy the long term needs of themselves and their community.
  • I wonder if Corel has purchased any licenses from Troll Tech, after all they are apparently relying on Wine and not QT (to port their software that is). It's possible that they haven't paid TrollTech a dime.

    Meanwhile KDE developers have contributed code to QT (I don't know how much exactly). Several KDE developers work for TrollTech and feelings between the two camps is good, excellent even. I'd shout a Troll a beer any day. All the publicity KDE receives can't be bad for TrollTech either. After all if Corel purchases licenses from TrollTech it'll be because of the KDE won't it?

    I don't work for TrollTech and don't know a great deal about them.(But they seem like nice guys to me, keep up the good work! I'm counting on you guys for a bug free QT 2.0!)

    I don't want to come off sounding like an anti Corel KDE developer. I'm a very minor contributor and no significance in the big scheme of things. I'm moderately anti IP and aren't keen on entities owning software for lenghty periods of time, so I'm weary of Corel's involvement with free software. I hope they are smart enough to realize that they are in a "give and thou shalt receive" type situation as far as being involved in free software type projects.

    Any attempt to screw the KDE project for a quick buck is not going to back fire.

  • Obviously I meant to say any attempt to screw the KDE project for a quick buck will backfire.
  • I can't really see why they would decide to replace apt. My guess is that they will write an new GUI for it or something like that.
  • Even though you have a built in, chances are that it will be disabled automatically if you get another one ( you can ask ). TNT / Matrox are good choices ( esp in light of nVidia's recent announcement ... )
  • You have to start somewhere.

    I, as an advocate of Open Source software, have no real problem with commercial, closed applications. The real benefit of OSS, especially in the beginning, is the availability of a commoditized OS so that the applications we want to run aren't tied to any particular distribution or company.

    As we progress, the applications that are best expressed in the open source method will be, leaving only a very few, probably highly specialized apps as closed.

    I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.

    I don't think this is as big of an issue as you make it. It is one of the strengths of Linux that a distribution can be tailored to suit a particular scope or purpose, without diluting the concept. If a bundled app is such that it will only run on one particular version of Linux, that would be an issue, but it seems to me that kind of bundling would seriously backfire.

    It is not the presence of commercial software that I have a problem with, it the the presence of commercial software that is so strongly tied to one company's OS that you no longer have a real choice.

    In past postings, many here have stated that they would be willing to purchase closed commercial games for Linux. Why then would there be an issue with closed commerical word processors, There are open alternatives to virtually all of these, and therefore, we have a choice, and choice is what it's really about.

  • About printers, I agree. Red Hat obviously has no problem with including a little closed-source, e.g. the whole Applications disc and the XBFCom X-servers, so why can't they just inclue Ghostscript 5? They make you download it, which presupposes that your modem is working, or that you can reboot into Windows, or that you have a Zip drive or a CD burner and access to another computer (I think it's more that 1.44MB, I might be wrong). In any case, it's extra hassle. Also, if you're new, you might not know how to do tar xvzf or rpm -ivh. And that's not even the OS's fault -- it's the distro's.
  • I have Red Hat, and I am relatively satisfied with rpms. When I first started, I was afraid of tarballs, and RPMs helped me. Pretty easy to say rpm -ivh whatever-0.1.13.i386.rpm. They have their flaws, but at least you don't have to worry about what directory you should be in, etc.
  • I want to know that about Motif and Qt, too. I use Netscape, which looks like it uses Motif, which is ugly, and I also play ksame, the KDE version of SameGame, both in Enlightenment/GNOME. There's a Gnome version of SameGame, but I don't like it. Anyway, I want all my programs to look the same. I'm not a programmer, but it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to write a script to convert Qt themes to GTK.
  • I sort of agree. I don't think a good WYSIWIG word processor is too much to ask, and I don't think that you're not a real man unless you use LaTeX, but I do think that suites are a waste. I use WP7 Suite when I happen to be in Windows, and it includes Quattro Pro, Presentations, and God knows what-all other crap that nobody wants, but they bundle because they know that nobody wants it, but at least they can get another $20 for. I like Emacs, but I'm not about to use it to write essays in.
  • I completely agree. I don't know what makes people so riled up and flamey. They're THE SAME! Well, almost. Different licenses, same goals. And the licenses aren't even that different. I also use Linux, and I also would not mind seeing FreeBSD get more hype.
  • Don't get me wrong -- I love Linux. But Red Hat's setup really really sucks. Besides that, and I understand why, but the hardware support sucks, too. I bought a whole computer so I could run X (my previous one was a Dell with an onboard video controller). I finally got all my hardware working in Linux a couple days ago, after using this computer for about 2 months. I had very bad experiences with RH5.2, but 6.0 has been great. I think Red Hat has finally matured. Today, I wen't to my friend's house, and in about two hours, got his whole system working (he'd already installed the OS, but not configured it).
    My fairly computer-illiterate mom, who is a lawyer, will be using Linux when she finaly buys a new computer this summer, replacing her Altima 1 286 notebook with character-based monochrome screen and parallel-port, single-speed CD-ROM. This because of Corel's porting of WordPerfect. I have been using Enlightenment for a while now, and I think that since DR 0.15, it is very usable. KDE is probably even more usable, but it's ugly. However, it has better applets bundled (not to say that there's anything preventing you from running Qt apps in Gnome). I used KDE for a while until DR 0.15 came out, because 14 was a bitch to use. Now, though, I think it's pretty good. a couple things still bug me, like a few flaws in the Gnome panel, and the way Midnight Commander sucks, but it's very usable, on the whole. I am not hacker, and my computer is not a server. I am a nerd, though, and Linux is my toy, but that doesn't mean I can't get work done in it. I run WordPerfect, print, use the Gimp, play MP3s, and do everything else in it except run Terragen [http], Alpha Centauri, and Quake 3 (I know there's a Linux port, but I don't want to download 22MB again).
  • That is such FUD.

    Recently, at work I've had to fight with a machine with a faulty hard drive so I installed both RH5.2 and Win95 several times (before we were sure the drive had failed).

    RH5.2 installed far more easily, and reliably every time. It took less reboots(only 1) and everything was well explained. To boot the manual is easy to follow and well put together. It detected ALL of our hardware, every time.

    Windows, on the other hand, has no boot disk(or an image) so you have to install your own CDROM drivers using your own boot disk just to start. It couldn't autoconfigure the NE2000 network card (linux did), and if you told windows the correct IRQ for the card during instillation, it hung on reboot.

    Windows also comes with far less stuff the linux, no web browser for instatnce.

    The only reason that people say that Windows is easier to install is because they don't have to do it, as it *comes* installed. If you compare Windows to Red Hat 5.2, Red Hat is the clear winner.

  • In defence of my earlier posting:

    Lets say you have one computer with a blank hard drive (like I had). Lets even say it has normal hardware that both Linux and Windows can autodetect/use.

    1. Put in the boot disk

    2. Select English, US keyboard, Local CDROM.

    3. Follow the manual to partition

    4. Select Workstation, Server, or Custom(which will require extra work)

    5. Drink Coffee

    6. Set up X(tell it your moitor and card)

    7. Your Off... AND you have everything you need to do anything (if you bought the RH box, you even have WordPerfect - but thats also a free download).

    Lets say you have a windows OEM CD or a box:

    1. Wait: You have no boot disk - you can't install.

    2. Find some guy with Win/DOS and get a boot disk made.

    3. Find CD-ROM Drivers. Install them, update your config.sys and autoexec.bat

    4. If you don't want one big drive, you have to use DOS FDISK to partition (which you only have if its on the boot disk - and which is way less useful than either GNU fdisk or DiskDruid.

    5. Now you install...and hope it can set up your hardware. Like I said above if it doesn't you have problems

    6. Reeboot and Go. But you have nothing but freecell. So you have to install Explorer(I did have Win95 release 1 btw), and whatever else you want. And if you want a web server, or an FTP server, or the GIMP...tough

    So which is easier? Red Hat.

  • I second the applause of Corel, as to the rest...

    Installation actually seems to be getting pretty smooth. I still have trouble figuring out how I should partition my disk, but that's not a install problem per-se, more of a "now the next time I install, I don't want to reformat..." kind of problem.

    OTOH, WINE is a BIG!!! need. I need to be able to run the applications that are standard in my office. I'm really glad that they've been doing lots of support for that. (Now about getting the installers to work...).

    The big other factor is hardware. Yes, lots of hardware IS supported. But way too much ISN'T. From one perspective, it's reasonable to say "Well, you shouldn't expect a ... (WinModem?) to work." But from another.. "The company hands me this computer. What can I use on it?" And printers are even worse (I don't use modems at work, after all, just ethernet cards), but HP has these printers that don't have any drivers. I can't spend too much time at work trying to get the system operating, so I have to go back to Windows. Be nice if someone that they would listen to talked sweetly to HP about getting Linux drivers released.
  • This is sounding a bit odd. The fit with KDE and Debian is the best. But isn't KDE the organization that is producing KOffice? (Well, it's still in Alpha, but by the end of the year I feel it will probably be in late beta.)

    Still, Caldera and SUSE use proprietary installers, Red Hat has gone public (who can tell where THAT will lead?). This sounds no worse. So what it means is that there will be another major distro that's close to the core (i.e., derived from the Debian distro). That sounds pretty good.

    And reports have Corel doing lots of good work with the WINE project. When that pays off, we'll all rejoice!
  • Actually, my device is an HP OfficeJet 1150C. One of their all-in-one devices. I've looked at the site, but they don't seem to support anything prior to the 1170C (and despite the numbers, I don't know that they are even in the same family, product numbers being what they are).

    Besides, if the color isn't very good, and the scanner doesn't work, then I can't use it for my main purposes. I have an Epson Stylus II that I use when I'm printing from Linux, and adequate printing will do.
  • It's not as cut and dried as you are making it out to be:

    The first time I installed Linux it took me two days (part time). The first time I installed Windows, it took me about 6 hours.

    They both got easier the next time I did an install. If the hardware matches the installer, they're now both pretty easy. If it doesn't match ... well, with Linux sometimes there isn't any answer except buy new equipment. With Windows it can be difficult to find out what one needs to do, but there (so far) has always been an answer.

    Linux docs tend to be out of date. Windows docs tend to be vauge and fuzzy. I'm not sure which is worse.
  • How do you *do* that! I'm continually annoyed that I need to keep stopping by the computer to click the [Yes] button.

    Well there are worse problems [Please insert the manufacturers disk for...], but most of those are reasonable. What I'm objecting to is the gratuitous dialogs that pop up part way through the process which could have been asked at the very beginning, and which bring things to a halt until you click them to go forward. All I can figure is that they want you to sit around and watch their advertisements about how great Windows is. Drives me up the wall some times. But I must admit it's not a big problem.
  • There's a site in Austrailia (I think) that offers scripts to remove considerably more than the Icons. Look at . It may not be a complete removal, but it's complete enought that you can't do it without having a Win95 CD to copy some needed files back from.
  • If I'm not missing the point, you're worried that they might not do things the way you want. You're right. They might not.

    There's this old story the moral of which is "Please all, please none." Sorry.

    A public entity CAN'T please everyone. And I see nothing either immoral, unethical, illegal, or unreasonable about the course that you fear they will choose to take. It also doesn't seem to compromise either Open Source or the principles (much less the letter) of the GPL.
  • And that's a reason that benefits ALL of us!
  • Why IDE's? People want the tools that they use frequently to be grouped closely together, and to work well together. Personally, I like the "idea" of office suites. I just think that they don't split things apart enough. The spell checker should be a module, with a well defined interface to the word processor. That way you could remove one and substitute another. Ditto for the grammarian (or whatever they are calling it). And the table manager (which needs to be able to make call-backs to the word processor, so that it can handle the tiny "document" within each table cell). Etc.

    Then there ISN'T a large monolithic construction. Just a good, well-tuned, workbench.
  • **I hope you see where I am comming from.
    Yeah. You want KOffice to dominate.
  • I like SNOBOL. Both the name and the language. I'm sure that if it had lived, it would be marvelous by now. Those unstructured goto's though... now those needed to be fixed some how.
  • I note with interest that Corel are considering only making it available with their products. In other words the only way to get a copy would be to hand over the dosh for Wordperfect, or Coreldraw, or whatever.

    Now pardon me, but doesn't that break the GPL? Sure they might be offering it 'free' with their products, but in effect, the only way to get it would be pay for it. And if you do buy one of those products, can you copy CLD and give it to your mates, distribute it on the web, etc?

    I don't want to rain on Corel's parade, and I think it's great that big companies are supporting Linux, but I think they would do better by investing their money in a current Open Source Organisation (Debian, Redhat GNU, etc.)
  • I'm not a Debian Developer, but I often read the Developer-Mailinglist. Corel developers posted to this list, explaining what they want to do and asked for feedback to their ideas. As I understood it, they want to work closely together with the Debain community (so not changing the package format) and want to include their work in the debian distribution.
    They want to get an standardized API that install-programs could use. So you can choose between GUI install, text-based install, what you want (their can be a KDE/qt ,a GNOME/qtk based GUI install or something svgalib based and of course you can use apt or dselect). It sounds very good to me and I think Debian really can profit from this.

    Just my impression,
  • The simple fact is x86 is the biggest market. And it would not simply take a day or two (that is, if you want it done RIGHT); You'd have to recompile every program for a different architecture and do a good deal of testing on a number of different testbed systems to make sure it all plays nice.

    Regardless, the PPC segment of the market is small, there is not going to be as much room for multiple competing distributions as there is in the wide open spaces of x86.

    Finally in this specific case, CLD is based off Debian. If Debian had a PPC distribution then there would possibly be a CLD PPC distro now. Perhaps Debian has some PPC plans and CLD is waiting on them.
  • For some reason, I don't think they will be .deb's :-]

    Incidentally, is anyone else out there somewhat dismayed at the fact that ever Linux package format since the tarball is named after the originating distro? RedHat has .rpm, Debian has .deb, Stampede has .slp... which, just from a political point of view, isn't going to help make any of them popular with others (although .rpm's have spread, for obvious reasons). Why not just come up with a package format to end all package formats, and call it .pkg or something similarly plain-vanilla neutral?

    (At best, perhaps Corel could use the same exact format as .deb's but use a different extension... I wonder how well that would fly)
  • Obvious reasons, as in RedHat's marketshare. Everything comes out in .rpm.

    As far as technical merit goes, I don't doubt .deb &gt; .rpm. RPM's are easier to put together, however, and the single .spec file is a more elegant way of doing it than the control/copyright/dirs/rules/etc. assortment. IMHO, the ultimate package format would take the best qualities of those two (single definition file, rigid rules about specifying requirements, customizable scripting, all that good stuff)

    (Oh, and it would NOT be named after any distro in existence ;-)

  • I have finally achieved a measure of success under Linux with RHS 6. I suffered with attempts based on Yggdrasil, Slackware, and earlier releases of RHS, and on a variety of hardware combinations (all of which contained supported elements.)

    If there is one thing which stands between Linux and wide acceptance on the desktop, it is the installation. If Corel can make that smooth, and if they can remove some of the painful aspects of it, they will have brought a very large improvement.

    I've been programming computers for 24 years, in assembly language, in Pascal, C, and Forth, and I have found Linux installation difficult. Most packages assume that you will answer questions correctly; worse, they are not at all shielded from incorrect responses.

    BeOS, on the other hand, took me just over 5 minutes to install, first time. It offers an underlying core which draws greatly on *nix, and is arguably as good at that level. The difference is that they clearly have made good decisions about how to manage installation.

    As to Corel's other products, their responses about licensed code are more than credible. Read their notices in Corel Draw: there are many commercial tools folded into theirs. To attempt to offer source would be a nightmarish tangle of contract issues, if it is possible at all. And frankly, what right do we have to insist? What role have we played in its development?

    Red Hat had no existence prior to Linux. They have added value only to Linux. For them to embrace open source isn't even a choice. Without open source, they wouldn't exist. Corel was built without open source. Without rising on the shoulders of others. They have earned their position in the way that we have always applauded in non-socialist countries.

    Ultimately, no one is forced to buy their distribution. One of the beauties of Linux is choice. To those who would fry Corel, I say: get a life. IF they increase support for Linux; if they increase sales for Linux; if they cause the ranks of Linux users to swell, we all win!
  • One thing that hardware vendors could do to ease the installation of Linux is to provide model-specific installation procedures.

    An interesting, if impractical thought. The last time I bught an off the shelf system, it was a 386/20 from ALR (and that was pretty hot stuff!)

    What is needed, is to handle much better the matter of video cards and monitors in the X configuration. It is worse than silly to expect people to look up scanning frequency limits when their monitor is not listed. Further, it is unfortunate that my monitor (Viewsonic PT771), which is listed in the install, is not properly supported. The monitor is perfectly capable of 1600x1200, as is my video card, and they both do it very well under Win98, but I seem to be limited to 1280x1024 under Linux and X.

    The perms and coms of all of the hardware possibilities are admittedly too numerous to be foreseen, and specific procedures for specific systems are too simplistic.

    But the reality is that it is more than sufficient to support each element independent of the others. Most hardware vendors have done a good job in their own area, and interaction among the various elements is not the cause of much difficulty.

    When I see a distro handle the full range of options for each of the elements of my system, I will be more than pleased.
  • Windows already has a web browser

    I believe he was referring to Win95 OSR1, which (believe it or not) really comes with no Web browser. It was released before MS's Internet turnaround in 1995.


  • As for them not opening their application source code, maybe their claim to not owning all the IP in those products is honest. Is there some evidence to the contrary?

    Here are the copyrights from my copy of WP Office 8. Sorry about how long this is, but I think it's important that the hard-core OSSers see how the proprietary end of things works. Very few companies own the entire source to their own applications.

    Copyright © 1997 COREL CORPORATION and COREL CORPORATION LIMITED. All rights reserved.

    Corel WordPerfect Suite 8--Academic

    This software is the property of Corel Corporation and Corel Corporation Limited and is protected by copyright. Any reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

    Corel, WordPerfect, Presentations, Quattro, Paradox, CorelCENTRAL, InfoCentral and TextArt are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Corel Corporation or Corel Corporation Limited.

    International CorrectSpell(TM) English spelling correction system © 1994 by INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. Adapted from word list supplied by Houghton Mifflin Company. Based upon The American Heritage® Dictionary. Reproduction or disassembly of embodied algorithms or database prohibited.

    Deluxe English US Electronic Thesaurus and Deluxe English UK Electronic Thesaurus © 1994 by INSO Corporation. Adapted from the Oxford Thesaurus © 1991 by Oxford University Press and from Roget's II: The New Thesaurus © 1980 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    Database Engine developed by Creasoft, S.A., Brussels, Belgium.

    International Hyphenator licensed INSO Corporation. Copyright © 1994 by INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproduction or disassembly of embodied computer programs or algorithms prohibited.

    Redistributable portions of Microsoft MSVC and MFC are copyright of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft, MS-DOS, Excel and Windows are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

    Netscape Navigator logos, Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator and Netscape are trademarks or registered trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation. Copyright© 1997, Netscape Communications Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Some of the templates in Corel Quattro Pro were developed by KMT Software, Inc. 1997.

    Envoy, Grammatik and NetWare © Novell, Inc. 1994. Novell, Grammatik, and NetWare are registered trademarks of Novell, Inc. Envoy, Novell Directory Services, IntranetWare, and NetWare Client are trademarks of Novell, Inc.

    ImageStream(TM) Graphics and Presentations filters Copyright © 1991-1997 INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. ImageStream Graphics Filters is a registered trademark of INSO Corporation.

    Portions of this software are copyrighted by INTERSOLV, Inc. 1991-1996.

    Outside In® Viewer Technology © 1992-1997 INSO Corporation.

    NexCard(TM) Universal Address Book, Copyright© 1994-1997 by Nexal Corporation, All Rights Reserved. NexCard is a trademark of Nexal Corporation.

    Slide Transition Technology © 1997 Strata Incorporated.

    Bitstream TrueDoc Imaging Technology © Bitstream Incorporated. All rights reserved. Bitstream is a registered trademark and TrueDoc is a trademark of Bitstream Incorporated.

    All Avery product code numbers are trademarks of the Avery Dennison Corporation.

    Some fonts copyright © Bitstream, Inc. All rights reserved.

    Some fonts supplied by URW ++ GmbH.

    Includes ITC licensed fonts.

    PostScript interpreter software copyright © Pipeline Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

    TrueType Rasterizer, Portions Copyright © 1989 Bitstream Incorporated.

    Portions Copyright © 1988-1990 Apple Computer Incorporated. All rights reserved.

    Adobe, Adobe Type Manager, Adobe Illustrator 88, Adobe Illustrator 3.0, PageMaker, PostScript and Encapsulated PostScript are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Adobe Systems, Inc.

    Portions copyright © 1994-1997 Alien Skin Software, LLC. All rights reserved.

    Portions Copyright © 1996 MetaTools, Inc. All rights reserved. MetaTools is a registered trademark of MetaTools, Inc.

    The TWAIN Toolkit is distributed as is. The developer and the distributors of the TWAIN Toolkit expressly disclaim all implied, express or statutory warranties including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement of third party rights and fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the developers nor the distributors will be liable for damages, whether direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential, as a result of the reproduction, modification, distribution or other use of the TWAIN Toolkit.

    MathType Equation Editor is a trademark of Design Science Inc. Equation Editor(TM), a special version of Design Science's MathType(TM), is customized for use with Corel Applications. If you work a lot with equations, you may find that the extended version of Equation Editor called MathType is better suited to your needs. For further information on MathType contact Design Science Inc., 4028 Broadway, Long Beach, CA 90803, Phone: 800-827-0685, Fax: 310-433-6969, Internet:

    Not all of the above-referenced components are included in all versions of the software.

    As you can see, there are over twenty different corporations from whom they have licensed software for WP Suite 8. They cannot release this code without agreements from all of these entities.


  • Windows has no Web browser? Are you new? Go to Windows help and look up IE - I believe there's some court case going on about it in case you missed it.

    As I stated above, Win95 OSR 1 has no Web browser packaged with it. Period.

    If you want to F**k with IRQ settings, don't be surprised if your machine is screwed up.

    My old network card (3c503) was very touchy. I had to install drivers for certain things in a certain order to get it working right. It was probably some odd interaction between my former video card (a ViRGE/DX), my TV card, my Ensoniq AudioPCI, my 3c900, my SCSI adapter, and my mouse. I had to install the NT drivers for these things under 98 in order for it to work right; the 98 drivers did not support PCI IRQ sharing. I am quite capable of "messing" with my IRQs and I almost always get it right. I absolutely despise the current state of Plug-and-Play.

    As for a boot disk, if you can't make a dos boot disk with ms-dex on it you probably shouldn't be posting on /. Every computer I've ever owned has come with a boot disk.

    How about those of us who build our own computers? My computer came with no boot disk. How about me, who has a single floppy drive (I never use the damn things) to share with 3 computers? Why can't MS just make the CD bootable? And the making of a boot disk necessarily requires a working copy of DOS. On a raw HD, I have to find another computer to do it. And forget using Windows setup to partition and format -- it won't do it. And what if the only copy of Win 3.x you have is (like me) zipped up on an old Recovery CD that came with your Aptiva in 1994 and you don't find out that Win98 asks for it until you've already gone through the boot disk shuffle? How does one get to that with a raw HD and no copy of PKZip?

    If MS just made the CD bootable and able to fdisk and format, I wouldn't mind so much, but the hoops one has to jump through make a Linux install simple in comparison. Pop in the CD and boot it up.


  • Who cares?

    If you had read the whole thread to which this was referring, you would realize that this comment was made in reply to JohnnyCannuk who told Dante who was installing Win95 (not 98) that it had a web browser. Win95 OSR 1 does not have a Web browser, OK? My comment was a correction to the assertion that it does..

    Windows 98 is bootable with fdisk and format on the CD

    I am so sorry, but my Win98 CD WILL NOT BOOT. Telling me that it will is either unintentional MISINFORMATION or intentional LYING. If you buy Win98 Full version ($189), it comes with a boot floppy, but the Upgrade ($90) has no floppy and will not boot. Nor will it FDISK or format during setup. I am sorry if you do not believe me, but I frankly don't care.


  • Plain and simple. Corel is a brand name recognized in the industry for something *other* than Linux. (i.e., my boss knows both "CorelDraw" and "WordPerfect" rather than "Red What???" or "Caldera? Don't they make OCR software???")

    (I know, I know...Caldera=current owner of DR DOS. My boss has never heard of DR DOS).

    Corel may level the commercial Linux playing field a little bit, too. Red Hat is starting to be too Microsoft-like [anyone else notice that it DOUBLED prices for Red Hat Linux 6.0?].

    Finally, Corel obviously has the most chance of making Linux something that could stop the Microsoft juggernaut. Corel and WordPerfect are household names and Corel has been one of the few companies that Microsoft has been uninterested in putting out of business, since WordPerfect doesn't have sufficient marketshare and MS has no plans to compete with CorelDraw Suite or Adobe Illustrator/PhotoShop/Pagemaker....

    And bringing a *real* office suite to Linux will be great...StarOffice completely sucks (bloatware) and ApplixWare isn't much better.

  • No. You can bundle a GPL program with a commercial product. And this is not without precedence (both Red Hat and Caldera bundle their products with commercial prodcuts).

    And of course you could copy the CLD. Its GPL, remember?

    Corel is just saying that they might not make CLD a separate, purchaseable product. They're not saying that OTHER people can't distribute the CLD or that they won't be making it available for download over the Internet...

    The waffling about Open Source between their "real" products and their Linux efforts kinda disturbs me, though. Porting applications to Linux generally means an almost complete rewrite, so I do not see where a little extra investment wouldn't be worth making their products Open Source. Furthermore, I think CorelDraw is at least 90% Corel's own code (I used to work for a company that has beta tested CorelDraw from time to time)...the other stuff has to do with things like color matching standards that most Linux users really won't care about (unless they happen to be professional graphic designers, that is...)

  • Several HP drivers are available for Linux in/for the Ghostscript product. The following are installed in my copy of GNU Ghostscript (three of them are "aftermarket" though):

    deskjet djet500 laserjet ljetplus ljet2p ljet3 ljet4 cdeskjet cdjcolor cdjmono cdj550 pj pjxl pjxl300 cdj850 cdj890 cdj1600

    ljet3 and ljet4 are the LaserJet III and 4 drivers. all the cdjXXX drivers are the appropriate HP DeskJet XXX printers (I have an HP DeskJet 890Cse). The parallel version of the 895 should be compatible with the 890 driver (the USB version won't work for reasons which should be obvious). The 722 should also be compatible with the 890 driver (they are practically the same printer except for paper handling and speed)

    Most other DeskJets are compatible with the 550 driver. (I used to use my 890 with the 550 driver until I got the 890 driver, which supports 600DPI black text).

    If you have one of the DeskJets that use the Windows Printing System (ie they use GDI rather than PCL) then I'm sorry for you.

    Check Aladdin's site for more info...
  • You can find support under linux for those HP "for windows" printers here: []
  • This actually doesn't seem to bad, considering they pretty near doubled the included manuals and more than doubled included support.
  • Whoa!! Buddy if you don't like FUD, don't spread it!

    Actually I've Installed Win 95/98 a few dozen times in the last year. I plop in the CD Rom, go make a coffee and reboot at the end when it ask me to. I have never had a problem. Then it "detects new hardware" asks me for the disk and bingo - new network cards (PCMCIA and Ethernet), new joysticks what ever, installed - one more reboot and there I am running.
    The most important part of this is that it is easy for people who are not 'Power Users', programs or sys admins to install.My wife can install Win 95 (and has) and she's in advertising and uses a computer to do page layout - she doesn't program it.
    If you want to F**k with IRQ settings, don't be surprised if your machine is screwed up.
    As for a boot disk, if you can't make a dos boot disk with ms-dex on it you probably shouldn't be posting on /. Every computer I've ever owned has come with a boot disk.

    And Windows has no Web browser? Are you new? Go to Windows help and look up IE - I believe there's some court case going on about it in case you missed it.

    I'm not a huge Windows fan, but I will admit when it does something good - and the install of the OS is good. If Corel can provide me with a Debian based distro that I can either:
    1)pop in, start and comeback when its done or
    2)call my wife and have her do it while I'm driving home then more power to them. This will only spread Linux to more people and that's a good thing.

  • Wow, can I start a flame war or what!
    First off, let me apologize - when you mentioned Win95 I ASSUMED it was OSR-2 since OSR 1 has been sold for about 3 years. And I'll repeat what what was said in other posts - Win 98 comes with a boot disk but only if you buy the full version. If you buy the upgrade you won't get it...your supposed to be upgrading not putting the OS on a blank HD. If you got the Upgrade your breaking the law (whether you like the law or not) so don't be surprised when any software product doesn't do something it's not designed to do.
    I have the full version of 98 and I had to completely re-install my Win partition last night (my fault, its a long story with PartitionMagic and Norton AntiVirus as the two main protagonists). I stand by my assertion before about the install. Sure I had to click yes a few times but begining to end was 31 minutes and 1 coffee. The majority of my time was taken up with re-installing all my Win apps after that install. The OS was a snap. I have also had to blow away and re-install OSR2 of 95 on many HD at work (company policy when somebody leaves - reformat and re-install) and I have experienced the same ease.

    Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt - maybe RH is easier to install. But I will also agree with what you said in your original post - most users of Win never have to install it because it comes pre-installed. That being the case, how is Linux going to spread if it is only slightly less complicated for user's to install than Windows? Most people aren't yet going to buy Linux pre-installed until they've had some experience with it. Installing it themselves is the only way they will get it and try it. And if they have had no experience installing ANY OS, they may not try it at all and just rely on the one they don't have to do anything (almost) to use.

    If Corel can make a distro (based on Debian, a very good distro I might add) which my wife can pop into the cd-rom drive, answer a few questions and let the distro create the partions, format them, install Linux and X and be up and running in 31 minutes (without resorting to PartionMagic, fdisk or format from the command prompt)I will be quite happy. I may never use it but a lot of ordinary folks out there will (especially if they can do the install from within Windows, which is, remember, probably preloaded on their machine). And that means more exposure for Linux and that is good. So maybe for you and I Red Hat is a little easier than Win to install, but until its incredibly easy for REGULAR people to install, it's much harder than Windows for them.
    Juggling tennis balls is easier than juggling Bowling balls, but only if you already know how to juggle. If you don't, it's all hard and you just won't do it.

    If you look at it like this, then the install process for Linux needs to be made way easier.

    BTW comparing OSR1 and RH 6.0 is like comparing WIN95 to DOS 6.22 - apples and oranges so not really a good arguement. RH6.0 and Win98(or NT 4.0) would be more accurate.

  • What version of RH?

    I'll agree with the Win95 OSR1 stuff, but unless you're comparing it to a RH 4.2 or less, your not making a fair comaprison. OSR1 hasn't been available as OEM for 3 years - I don't even know if you can still buy it. So yeah, RH 5.2 or 6.0 is easier to install than Win 95 OSR1...but Win 95 is easier to install than Win 3.0 or Win 1.0 or DOS 4.5. And I'm sure RH6.0 is easier to install than RH4.2 . Comparing apples to oranges proves nothing. Most people today have either OSR2 or 98 (or even NT4.0) which, as I stated in my original post, are fairly easy to install and nothing like what you have just described - not since 1997.

  • Good question...

    I'd hope that they will stick the standard Debian packages so you can use all of Debian's standard installation routines... Obviously tons of effort has gone into these installation routines (just look at how good apt is compared to dselect), it would be silly to throw it all out.

    So hopefully if they create their own installation procedures (which the FAQ seems to indicate they will, to help newbiews out) they will at least keep the underlying formats compatible. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't -- the extra manpower to maintain every package in a different format would be huge, while .deb's are already being maintained, at no cost to Corel.

    To err is human, to really screw up takes a computer.
  • the Windows install, is one of the most annoying, buggiest, most difficult, and most ass-backwards. Perhaps I'd rank it in a tie with Slackware, and just in front of Debian

    Excuse me? Having installed Debian on three systems and windows on one, I can't see how Debian's install is worse. Of course, I did take the time to read the installation docs on Debian's website before plugging away... Still, no problems installing on three fairly different systems.
  • by jamesm ( 31089 ) on Saturday June 05, 1999 @09:55AM (#1865796)
    I applaud Corel's efforts. I hope they pour considerable resources into installation, because that is one of the few places that Windows has a huge advantage over all Linux distributions currently. Glad to hear they're planning to join the LSB movement. Corel's developers on the Wine project have contributed a huge amount of code to the effort. Looks like Corel is going to be a great Open Source citizen. I'm looking really forward to seeing their apps on Linux, too!
  • by flesh99 ( 32039 ) on Saturday June 05, 1999 @10:25AM (#1865805)
    Will Corel release the source code for its major applications?
    While Corel recognizes the value of open source development in many areas, and is actively participating in a number of open source efforts such as Wine and development of KDE, the company has no plans to release the source code for its major applications. Corel's major applications contain many features that rely on code licensed from other vendors, with whom the company has a variety of contractual obligations--one of which is to keep their source code private. Corel could not release its application source code without a tremendous amount of development work to isolate the licensed code, and this work would have a significant impact on release schedules.

    Corel seems to be jumping on the Linux/Open Source bandwagon as long as it doens't have to release it's "real" products as Open Source, or so that it doesn't effect their release schedules. On top of that they sya if they did then they would not be able to release all of it, I personally doubt these claims and say that Corel should do all or nothing. We are screaming at MS for not releasing their code and then Corel can say this and everyone just accepts it.

    Will CLD be available as a standalone or bundled with Corel's applications?
    Corel is still in the process of determining whether CLD will be bundled with Corel applications only, or if it will also be available as a standalone product. Corel's objective is to give as many desktop users access to Linux as possible and if there is a demand for a standalone product, the company will certainly investigate the opportunity.

    They are actually considering bundling, isn't that one of the reasons we are pissed at MS, or is it OK for a Linux distro to do it ? IMHO we should be upset that they are considering bundling with only their product and not offering a stand alone. I we want to appear to be a coherent community then we must hold all Linux distros to the same standards that we attack MS under, if not then we are nothing but hypocrites and fantics.
  • Damn it, doesn't look like there will be a PPC distribution for a while. Isn't one of the big "advantages" of Open Source and Linux that it's easy to port things to different platforms? If so, why does it seem that Linux is so x86-centric? A lot of companies that release commercial software for linux don't even bother making a PPC binary, even though it would probably only take them a day or two...

    The PPC linux distributions are also a big pain in the ass. X was broken in both LinuxPPC 4 and in YellowDog Server 1.0 after install on my iMac... Linux may be doing well on x86, but it has a long way to go on other platforms...

    A bitter PPC user...
  • If Corel continues to operate with this level of candor and forthrightness in addressing issues they will be well-received by software connoisseurs of among us ... I hope it continues, because such an attitude will only benefit the environment generated by Linux and open source.
  • If Corel Office only worked with the Corel Linux distro, that would be embrace and extend -- lock people into the distro just because they want the office suite. As long as the office suite runs on all distros, which is their stated plan, there's no danger of that.

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.