On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Much as I respect Maddog, and his opinions, I think he is wrong on
> > this one.
>
> You could not possibly respect me or my opinions, or else you might have
> read the article and found out that the headline:
>
> "Linux Leader Calls Porting of Office and Quicken Critical"
>
> was nowhere near what I said. You should know by now that there are
> the "writers" and there are the editors who make up the headlines (which
> are there to attract attention and create controversy.
>
> I *did* say that applications were critical, and I *did* say that two that
> were significantly missing were MS Office and Quicken, but I said this because
> half the people who told me that "they would switch to Linux in a moment if
> only XXXX were ported" filled in that XXXX with "MicroSoft Office" or "Quicken"
> (or both).
>
Thanks for the clarification, proof again about how much you can trust
what you see in the media.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Sorry, Maddog, the PHBs are lying to you.
>
> No they are not, and I think it is rather rash of you to say this. They face
> a rather real world need of employees trained to use office software. They
> also
> face a real-world need of having to exchange documents with other branches of
> their companies and customers, and having only a 95% translation rate just
> does not cut it. I can see the exchange of email now:
>
> >Linux-user: "Could you send me that MS letter again, only don't use >
> "quick-save" this time? My Applixware document reader can't handle things
> > saved by "Quick-save".
Actually, Jerry & I have been exchanging documents for tonight's LBS
meeting - Applix handled all except one of his "quick-saved" documents
- not bad!
>
> Or how about the the conversation between the HR user and the prospective
> employee:
>
> >Prospective Employee: I know MS Office, Quicken, Quick Books, and about ten
> >other highly used office products.
>
> >Linux-company HR: Oh, we only use Applixware and cb
>
> >Prospective Employee: Oh, well I am willing to retrain. Where can I get
> >training in Applixware and bc?
>
> >Linux-company HR: That is "cb", and I am not sure where you get training on
> it.
> >You can get Applixware training from a small company in Waltham, Mass.
>
> >Prospective Employee: "Oh, but I live in Kansas." Does Learning Tree teach
> it?
>
> >Linux-company HR: Not yet, but maybe in six months. Come see us after you
> have
> >had the training. Oh, you have to learn how to use Linux also. For that
> >training you can go to.....wait....I will think of it sooner or later.
Well, I'm not so certain of the Linux training if you're not techie -
I think GNOME & KDE are there to provide the substitution (I had some
folks at the last LBS comment on KDE's resemblence to Windows).
You're right, though, that we need to work on training. Although, as
I indicated elsewhere, if a company is getting ready to train everyone
on the latest MS stuff, they might as well train them on the Linux
stuff. You're spending the money anyway.
>
> Now maybe some of you have learned Applixware or Star Office on your own, and
> you say "no big deal". On the other hand most of you can replace your own
> disk drives, add memory to your system, and configure PPP without a hitch.
>
> Sorry, Bob, but mainstream management does not want that type of headache when
> their main job is to make shoes. Having an office suite they know makes it
> a lot easier to accept Linux.
>
An argument for StarOffice (a definite MS Office clone), but a point.
> Even if this happens, this is future, and we are NOW. I think that MS already
> has MS Office running on Linux inhouse, and the only thing keeping them
> from releasing it is the massive tide of people that would then swing over
> to using Linux. They might gain a FEW Linux users over to using MS Office, but
> I think they would lose MASSIVE amounts of MS Windows customers to Linux, as
> well as "justifying" the Linux platform as more than a piece of "junk" or
> "a toy".
>
I suspect if they have it running in-house, it's like their IE5 for
Solaris - they ended up bringing a lot of the infrastructure over.
So, probably not as good as a true native port. Unfortunately, you're
right, they're in a catch-22 right now (as long as it's one company):
release for Linux, and watch the Windows sales take a nose-dive as
they validate the market, don't release and risk being marginalized.
Unless exploit their monopoly. Not that they would do that ;-)
> In any case, I did not say that the porting of these applications was
> "Critical" to Linux's success on the desktop, only that they would speed it
> up.
>
> md
>
Thanks for the clarifications.
jeff
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] phone:603.930.9379 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today: The cost of feathers has risen, even down is up!
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
