[vox] Rumor has it SACLUG is dead.

[Bob Scofield]

I get your point about applications.  My point was that was that some 
people, like me, believe that if Microsoft was accepting of Linux, then 
there would be more proprietary Linux applications just because of the 
way the business world works.

As for me personally, all I have is need of one word processor.  But for 
business reasons, I use three.  I have to share documents with people 
who use Windows and Macs.  I have to produce documents in Word format 
and WordPerfect format.  And while I like Libre Office, I still think 
WordPerfect 8 for Linux was the greatest word processor ever made.

I'm really not up on Itunes.  But I think there's a version that runs on 
Windows.  So it seems like it runs on Macs and it runs on Windows.  But 
it doesn't run on Linux.  I find that fishy.

Thanks for your response.

Bob



On 07/20/2016 10:17 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bob Scofield (scofield at omsoft.com):
>
>> But if that's true, then there have to be more Linux programs.
> How many do you need?
>
> Let me tell you a story.  Back in early-middle days in the late 1990s,
> suddenly Linux was wildy famous, and we at the LUGs got a lot of public
> queries.
>
> One of the more bizarre ones was 'Linux needs more applications.'  This
> was invariably pronounced ex-cathedra by MS-Windows desktop users who
> observed us doing Linux things, say, at the public installfests during
> Robert Austin Computer Shows (basically big computer flea markets) at
> the Cow Palace or Oakland Convention Center.
>
> You could talk to them all day long about what you like to use, but
> they'd invariably come back with 'Linux needs more applications.'
>
> I decided something bizarre was going on, some strange communication
> problem, so I decided to get to the bottom of it.  Next time I heard
> that at a Robert Austin show, I sat down with the guy and said, let's
> talk.
>
> I pointed out that the Debian desktop system in front of him had (at the
> time) access to literally over 4,500 packages from the Debian
> repositories.  'Is that seriously not enough?  How many are required?'
> He looked a little uncertain, and I said, OK, 'let's talk about word
> processors.  I maintain the WordPerfect for Linux FAQ for the Linux
> Documentation Project.  Here, I'll bring up a copy.  Section 8 shows all
> currently available word processors for Linux.  Open source ones are
> OpenOffice.org, LBA Office, AbiWord, KWord, Pathetic Writer, Maxwell,
> FLWriter, Ted, GWP, Andrew User Interface System, Xclamation (DTP) /
> XAllWrite (word processor), Scribus, and Lyx.  Proprietary options are
> Star Office, Anyware Office, SOT Office, Lycoris ProductivityPak, Hancom
> Office, CliqWord, SmartWare, Ability Linux, GobeProductive, LedIt,
> TextMaker for Linux, and ThinkFree Office.  I make that to be 25.  Are
> you saying 25 isn't enough?'
>
> 'Uhhh...'
>
> 'Let me put it a different way:  How many word processors do _you_ use?'
>
> 'One.'
>
>
> We circled back and, he allowed as how 'Linux needs more applications'
> is not really what he meant, but he'd been not clear on what he thought
> before speaking.  Part of what he meant was that the things _he_ was
> familiar with didn't seem to exist (and he got my point that since he
> used only _one_, practically any change would be to something new).
> The other part was that he looked around at Fry's Electronics, and
> wasn't seeing boxed sets of proprietary office suites or such things for
> Linux, and in his world this meant the OS couldn't possibly matter.
>
> His actual meaning having been clarified, we could finally have a real
> discussion.  But getting stuck on 'Linux needs more applications'
> couldn't be a real conversation, because the sentence as phrased was
> meaningless, and obviously he had to mean something entirely different.
>
> Sometimes when people say 'Linux needs more applications', they mean
> 'I personally wish [proprietary application X] were ported.'  And lo!
>
>> I've heard from talking to people, or have read, that some people
>> believe that it was Microsoft that is responsible for Corel no longer
>> producing WordPerfect for Linux and for Adobe Photoshop for Linux to
>> no longer be developed.
>>
>> The last I checked some years ago Itunes wouldn't run on Linux.
>> That's interesting since the Mac and Linux both run on, or are, Unix
>> systems.
> Apple zealously protects its control over its applications.   Itunes is
> particularly sensitive as it's the gateway to quite a bit of
> DRM-obscured third-party material.
>
>
>> So my question is, what does this Linux on Windows mean?
> Ability to run certain x86 Linux ELF binaries from the MS-Windows
> command line with application support in some developer MS-Windows 10
> Workstation builds.  Rather a neat trick, really.
>
>> What is Microsoft up to?
> Playing around with technology perhaps.  As one does.
>
> _______________________________________________
> vox mailing list
> vox at lists.lugod.org
> http://lists.lugod.org/mailman/listinfo/vox