On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 11:07:50AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ross Patterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:23 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Ellison: StarOffice "almost usable" > > > > > > At 07:58 04/02/2003 -0500, Henry Schaffer wrote: > > > >He is right, if there were an office suite that ran like Office on windows > > > >available on Linux, it would be a no-brainer to switch. > > > > > > But I think that "almost usable" is too pessimistic. I've been using > > >Star Office 6.0 on a Windows PC, and it is quite good for my uses. > > > > I've been using StarOffice on MS-Windows for over four years, and you're > > right - it's quite good. I've got MS-Office on the same machine, and I use > > StarOffice much more often. I've also been using the StarOffice-based open > > source system OpenOffice.Org (what a lousy name!) on Linux for over a > > year. The experience hasn't been as positive.
[snip description of OOo] > > Interesting comments, considering that OOo and SO use the same CVS tree. :) OOo (and SO6) is basically an almost complete rewrite of SO5, which has probably been the program Ross worked with 4 years ago. > > There are some things in SO that are not in OOo, but those shouldn't affect > basic functionality such as opening/saving documents, etc. BTW: the phrase I loved the most of the original article was the one calling mozilla (I don't remember the exact sentence) "a modified netscape, with some of the bugs fixed". :-) -- Tzafrir Cohen +---------------------------+ http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir/ |vim is a mutt's best friend| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------+
