Re: SEUL: Mail got bounced: Here are a few msgs that didn't get through...

[jfm2@club-internet.fr]

> Sender: micah@localhost.localdomain
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:39:36 -0800
> From: Micah Yoder <yoderm@geocities.com>
> CC: seul-project@belegost.mit.edu
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> X-UIDL: 660cbb0e2aded3dc34abe94c5c3e5b42
> 
> jfm2@club-internet.fr wrote:
> 
> > I sent a mail with title "Dispelling fallacies about Qt" with a
> > demonstration of why the Qt license would allow the use of KDE even if
> > Troll changes the license.  But also about the real dangers of Qt and
> > why having the dominant Linux desktop based on it would be a bad idea.
> > So better avoid helping KDE by including it in distributions.
> 
> Yes, I read that E-mail and pretty much agree.
> 
> > Qt software in small apps like Ezppp is one thing, a desktop like KDE
> > with its potential to become the federator of Linux GUI is another.
> 
> I'm not suggesting we develop ANYTHING - even small applets with Qt. 
> All I'm saying is, if we find an app that someone else wrote, that would
> make a good addition to SEUL, we'd be nuts not to include it, even if it
> used Qt.
> 
> > There is Andrew but is not really a WP its main use was for composing
> > multimedia documents.  The one real sized free WP I know is Thot
> > (http://www.inrialpes.fr).
> 
> I guess I should check that one out....
> 
> > For designing a good Office suit it is more important to have good
> > ergonomists and good font designers than good programmers.  For that
> 
> It's easy to come by fonts.  You can get CDs with thousands of them. 
> There are *probably* a lot of free ones we can include with SEUL.
> 
> For ergonomics, we could pretty much copy M$Office, maybe making some
> changes to avoid making it look like a complete rip-off (which, of
> course, would also IMPROVE on M$Office...I've thought of a few ways to
> do that).
> 
> > reason and because it is nor so fun nor so prestigious to write the
> > free software community have never produced products able to compete
> > with commercail software.
> 
> The GIMP competes nicely with similar commercial programs, as Rick
> recently pointed out.  There's no reason why we couldn't do the same
> with office apps.
> 

The GIMP is not office.  Understand than in Free Software you need to
attract developpers.  They will come for something glamourous and with
prestige for a programmers eyes like kernels, compilers or Imaging
software.  Not for something as boring as a Word Processor.

> > The one thing we can do is dispelling the myth than there is no Office
> > suits for Linux.  I have seen many people who were very ignorant about
> > what is available for Linux.  Include a catalog of what is available,
> > so than they can look in and find what they need.  Better having them
> > use Applixware with Linux than Word with Windows95.
> 
> Absolutely.  Maybe even include demos with SEUL????
> 
> And StarOffice *is* free for non-commercial users.  Perhaps we could
> include a full copy of that?  We'd just have to say "you have to pay if
> you use this in an office...."
> 

StarOffice 3 port to Unix world was really bad.  I don't know about SO
4.  In adfition it weighs 120 megs and it uses Motif.  SO 3 needed at
least 32 Megs.

-- 
			Jean Francois Martinez

==================== The Linux.  Use the Linux, Luke! =======================