On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:21:45 +0530, Dinesh Joshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sun, 2007-09-09 at 20:57 +0530, Rony wrote:
>> It is not hilarious when M$ Office multi-user license will be
>> procured, in the new machines that will be supplied, due to the
>> critical nature of the work. I don't expect buggy packages to be
>> available on repos even after newer versions are out.
>>
>> BTW, most M$ users who use non-licensed copies, are using software
>> copies that are quite some years old, they have no access to updates,
>> yet they hardly find any problems or bugs in their software and are
>> happily using them.
> I'm neither defending Microsoft and nor am I criticising Linux. Rony,
> Linux isn't really ready for the mission critical desktop
> applications. I know exactly what you mean when you say the above
> statements.
In your opinion. I have seen Linux running mission critical
desktop applications (well, Pixar, for example, did a whoile set of
movies with Linux); so I can't take that statement at face value.
> OOo can't be a replacement to M$ Office, just yet. It has a long way
> to go before it matures into a real competitor. Till then I dont think
> we can truly pitch Linux for the desktops / workstations where such
> work is to be carried out.
Frankly, I have founf OO to be better than office, in my
experience, though neither of them can hold a candle to TeX.
manoj
--
"It's God. No, not Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, but God." (By
Matt Welsh)
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
