Linux Replacements for Your Favorite Windows Apps

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alias
  • Start date Start date
"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftvh8m$mf1$8@aioe.org...
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143396/article.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Alias
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/


Did you read through that? Did you notice phrases like 'nearly matches',
'harder to learn', 'not quite as slick', and 'requires some sleight of
hand'?

Probably not, eh..

Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?

Probably not, eh..

Do you go into Mac forums and bludgeon the people there with info on open
source programs you don't or never have used?

Probably not, eh..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftvh8m$mf1$8@aioe.org...
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143396/article.html
>>
>> Enjoy.
>>
>> Alias
>>
>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>
>
> Did you read through that? Did you notice phrases like 'nearly matches',
> 'harder to learn', 'not quite as slick', and 'requires some sleight of
> hand'?
>
> Probably not, eh..

What 2 software packages from different developers work exactly the same
even in Windows only apps? None.

>
> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>
> Probably not, eh..

Says who, Mike? I like to see some documentation from openoffice.org on
that.

> Do you go into Mac forums and bludgeon the people there with info on
> open source programs you don't or never have used?
>
> Probably not, eh..

I know that Alias owns a copy of Vista, but I didn't know he owns a copy
of OSX.

Alias posted a link to an article. Is that bludgeoning?

"Probably not, eh.."

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Alias, the known idiot moron lying linux troll wrote:

-------------------------------------------


Yeah...right...and we'll believe that line of crap just as soon as you
stop lying, trolling and start believing in God...LOL!
Frank
 
Frank wrote:

> Alias, the known idiot moron lying linux troll wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yeah...right...and we'll believe that line of crap just as soon as you
> stop lying, trolling and start believing in God...LOL! Frank

Thanks for admitting that you are so closed minded, Frank.

Admitting your faults, is the first step in overcoming them.

Congratulations!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftvh8m$mf1$8@aioe.org...
>> http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143396/article.html
>>
>> Enjoy.
>>
>> Alias
>>
>> http://www.ubuntu.com/
>
>
> Did you read through that? Did you notice phrases like 'nearly matches',
> 'harder to learn', 'not quite as slick', and 'requires some sleight of
> hand'?

Yes, I read that. All my needs, and those of most computer users, is met
with Ubuntu.

>
> Probably not, eh..
>
> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?

No, got proof?

>
> Probably not, eh..

Well?

>
> Do you go into Mac forums and bludgeon the people there with info on
> open source programs you don't or never have used?
>
> Probably not, eh..

No, why should I?

Alias
 
Frank wrote:
> Alias, the known idiot moron lying linux troll wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
> Yeah...right...and we'll believe that line of crap just as soon as you
> stop lying, trolling and start believing in God...LOL!
> Frank

Frank the Wank checks in with his usual garbage.

Alias
 
"Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
news:fu015f$vm$1@aioe.org...
> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>
>>> "and it's free
>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely free
>>> of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the LGPL
>>> licence. This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic,
>>> commercial, educational, public administration. You may install it on as
>>> many computers as you like. You may make copies and give them away to
>>> family, friends, students, employees - anyone you like."
>>>
>>
>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging for a
>> product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so confusing.
>>
>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost money. It
>> only means that you get full access to the source code and then can do
>> with it whatever you like. It does not mean that you don't have to pay to
>> get to it. Also, nothing is preventing dual licensing on open office.
>>
>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is probably
>> best known as the library used to develop KDE applications and is GPL
>> licensed. However, it is also released under a commercial license for
>> which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's the license I need to use it
>> for any commercial non-open source development with it. Also contains a
>> few additional features not present in the open source version.
>>
>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office starting to
>> cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to believe it.
>
> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.
>
> Alias

Of course it's free. It isn't worth anything. Takes the user experience
back about 10 years. Who would want to pay for that?
 
Re: Replacements for our moron Alias

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:36:05 -0700, "Bill Yanaire" <bill@yanaire.com>
wrote:

>
>"Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ftvtic$frs$2@aioe.org...
>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSaJ1KkqQI&feature=related
>>>
>>> Enjoy.
>>
>> You made a You Tube video. Looks just like you, Bill.
>>
>> Alias
>>>
>Sorry, you don't know what I look like. I don't hang around Sheep!
>
You hang around Frank. That makes you a world class buffoon like he
is.
 
Re: Replacements for our moron Alias

Bill Yanaire wrote:
> "Alias" <iamalias@nukethisgmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftvtic$frs$2@aioe.org...
>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSaJ1KkqQI&feature=related
>>>
>>> Enjoy.
>> You made a You Tube video. Looks just like you, Bill.
>>
>> Alias
> Sorry, you don't know what I look like.

Now I do. That's you in the video, right?

> I don't hang around Sheep!

Nor do I.

Alias
 
Bill Yanaire wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fu015f$vm$1@aioe.org...
>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>>
>>>> "and it's free
>>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely
>>>> free of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the LGPL
>>>> licence. This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic,
>>>> commercial, educational, public administration. You may install it on
>>>> as many computers as you like. You may make copies and give them away
>>>> to family, friends, students, employees - anyone you like."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging
>>> for a product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so
>>> confusing.
>>>
>>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost money.
>>> It only means that you get full access to the source code and then can
>>> do with it whatever you like. It does not mean that you don't have to
>>> pay to get to it. Also, nothing is preventing dual licensing on open
>>> office.
>>>
>>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is probably
>>> best known as the library used to develop KDE applications and is GPL
>>> licensed. However, it is also released under a commercial license for
>>> which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's the license I need to use
>>> it for any commercial non-open source development with it. Also
>>> contains a few additional features not present in the open source
>>> version.
>>>
>>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office starting
>>> to cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to believe it.
>>
>> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.
>>
>> Alias
>
> Of course it's free. It isn't worth anything. Takes the user
> experience back about 10 years. Who would want to pay for that?

A lot of people that can't stand the bloody ribbon in MSO07.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:eXLMj.22640$vB6.4110@fe57.usenetserver.com...
> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>
>> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fu015f$vm$1@aioe.org...
>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>>>
>>>>> "and it's free
>>>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely
>>>>> free of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the LGPL
>>>>> licence. This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic,
>>>>> commercial, educational, public administration. You may install it on
>>>>> as many computers as you like. You may make copies and give them away
>>>>> to family, friends, students, employees - anyone you like."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging
>>>> for a product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so
>>>> confusing.
>>>>
>>>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost money.
>>>> It only means that you get full access to the source code and then can
>>>> do with it whatever you like. It does not mean that you don't have to
>>>> pay to get to it. Also, nothing is preventing dual licensing on open
>>>> office.
>>>>
>>>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is probably
>>>> best known as the library used to develop KDE applications and is GPL
>>>> licensed. However, it is also released under a commercial license for
>>>> which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's the license I need to use
>>>> it for any commercial non-open source development with it. Also
>>>> contains a few additional features not present in the open source
>>>> version.
>>>>
>>>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office starting
>>>> to cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to believe it.
>>>
>>> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
>> Of course it's free. It isn't worth anything. Takes the user
>> experience back about 10 years. Who would want to pay for that?
>
> A lot of people that can't stand the bloody ribbon in MSO07.
>
> --

I don't like the ribbon is MS07 very much. I would rather use Office 2003.


> Peace!
> Kurt
> Former Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
>
 
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:35:59 +0200, Alias wrote:

> Stephan Rose wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>
>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>
>>> "and it's free
>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely free
>>> of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the LGPL
>>> licence. This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic,
>>> commercial, educational, public administration. You may install it on
>>> as many computers as you like. You may make copies and give them away
>>> to family, friends, students, employees - anyone you like."
>>>
>>>
>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging for
>> a product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so confusing.
>>
>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost money. It
>> only means that you get full access to the source code and then can do
>> with it whatever you like. It does not mean that you don't have to pay
>> to get to it. Also, nothing is preventing dual licensing on open
>> office.
>>
>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is probably
>> best known as the library used to develop KDE applications and is GPL
>> licensed. However, it is also released under a commercial license for
>> which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's the license I need to use
>> it for any commercial non-open source development with it. Also
>> contains a few additional features not present in the open source
>> version.
>>
>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office starting
>> to cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to believe it.
>>
>>
> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.

It still doesn't prevent someone from charging for it.

Example:

I release an application under the GPL license, *I* can charge you for
this application even though it's open source. Open source simply means
the source is open, it does not mean you don't have to pay.

However, once you have a copy of it, you can do with it whatever you like
as long as you adhere to the GPL license terms. So you can go ahead and
redistribute your own version for free if you like. The opposite is also
true. If I distribute my app for free under the GPL, nothing is
preventing you from charging for your own version of it as long as you
provide the source with each copy you sell.

So, bottom line, if someone wants to start charging for open office they
can do so. However, they do need to come up for a good reason as to why
anyone should actually go pay that price.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Bill Yanaire wrote:

> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:eXLMj.22640$vB6.4110@fe57.usenetserver.com...
>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fu015f$vm$1@aioe.org...
>>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>>>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "and it's free
>>>>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely
>>>>>> free of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the
>>>>>> LGPL licence. This means you may use it for any purpose - domestic,
>>>>>> commercial, educational, public administration. You may install it
>>>>>> on as many computers as you like. You may make copies and give them
>>>>>> away to family, friends, students, employees - anyone you like."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging
>>>>> for a product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so
>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost money.
>>>>> It only means that you get full access to the source code and then
>>>>> can do with it whatever you like. It does not mean that you don't
>>>>> have to pay to get to it. Also, nothing is preventing dual licensing
>>>>> on open office.
>>>>>
>>>>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is
>>>>> probably best known as the library used to develop KDE applications
>>>>> and is GPL licensed. However, it is also released under a commercial
>>>>> license for which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's the license
>>>>> I need to use it for any commercial non-open source development with
>>>>> it. Also contains a few additional features not present in the open
>>>>> source version.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office
>>>>> starting to cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to
>>>>> believe it.
>>>>
>>>> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>
>>> Of course it's free. It isn't worth anything. Takes the user
>>> experience back about 10 years. Who would want to pay for that?
>>
>> A lot of people that can't stand the bloody ribbon in MSO07.
>>
>> --
>
> I don't like the ribbon is MS07 very much. I would rather use Office
> 2003.

So you'd rather use an Office suite that was .5 of a decade old.
Interesting!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Former Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:11:39 +0000, kurttrail wrote:

> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:eXLMj.22640$vB6.4110@fe57.usenetserver.com...
>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fu015f$vm$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> Stephan Rose wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:26:04 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you know that Open Office will not be free for much longer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably not, eh..
>>>>>>> From Open Office's web site:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "and it's free
>>>>>>> Best of all, OpenOffice.org 2 can be downloaded and used entirely
>>>>>>> free of any licence fees. OpenOffice.org 2 is released under the
>>>>>>> LGPL licence. This means you may use it for any purpose -
>>>>>>> domestic, commercial, educational, public administration. You may
>>>>>>> install it on as many computers as you like. You may make copies
>>>>>>> and give them away to family, friends, students, employees -
>>>>>>> anyone you like."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> However Alias, the GLP and LGPL do not prevent someone for charging
>>>>>> for a product. Hence why the whole play on the word "free" is so
>>>>>> confusing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Something that's L/GPL licensed does not mean it doesn't cost
>>>>>> money. It only means that you get full access to the source code
>>>>>> and then can do with it whatever you like. It does not mean that
>>>>>> you don't have to pay to get to it. Also, nothing is preventing
>>>>>> dual licensing on open office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One prime example is cross platform library I use, Qt. It is
>>>>>> probably best known as the library used to develop KDE applications
>>>>>> and is GPL licensed. However, it is also released under a
>>>>>> commercial license for which I pay about 2,000 usd a year as that's
>>>>>> the license I need to use it for any commercial non-open source
>>>>>> development with it. Also contains a few additional features not
>>>>>> present in the open source version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, unless I see an official statement about open office
>>>>>> starting to cost money from a reputable source I'm not going to
>>>>>> believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It says it's free and can be copied, shared, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's free. It isn't worth anything. Takes the user
>>>> experience back about 10 years. Who would want to pay for that?
>>>
>>> A lot of people that can't stand the bloody ribbon in MSO07.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> I don't like the ribbon is MS07 very much. I would rather use Office
>> 2003.
>
> So you'd rather use an Office suite that was .5 of a decade old.
> Interesting!

Well that's one of the problems as I see it that Microsoft is running
into and will increasingly run into. Both with office and windows.

What does MS Office 2007 do that Office 2003 doesn't which 99% of the
Userbase needs? Nothing. So why should they upgrade?

The problem with any such product is that eventually you simply reach a
point where it gets more and more difficult to add features that will
make users want to upgrade and spend money on it. Software isn't an item
subject to wear and tear like physical products are so there's no need to
replace it due to old age unless some major technological change warrants
a new version.

--
Stephan
1986 Pontiac Fiero GT

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Back
Top