Corel LINUX OS

[James A Simmons]

> What is Direct X? 

Direct X is the microsoft version of OpenGL. Both are a high end graphics
library.

> Where is the lawsuit issue? 

Read its a clone like Mesa. On the outside it uses the DirectX API but
internally it is totally different. To do this you need M$ permission.
John Carmack approach M$ with this already and was threatened. So you get
the idea of M$ attitude about porting to linux anything.

> > Focus yes.
> Damn right.

Well busy trying to pay the bills. 

> > As for on sun workstations. Linux beats solaris hands down on sparc
> > workstations for stability and performance.
> 
> Let's try to be accurate here. Linux beats Solaris on Sun's lower end
> hardware, not on their high end hardware. I believe this is correct.

Only because only a handful have that hardware in their hands. Given a
larger testing base we would crush Solaris.

[snip] M$ port to linux. Never going to happen.

> I don't quite see it that way. First, open source does not have a mechanism
> for feedback from common users. What is more likely is that whatever some
> programmer thinks is pretty cool will end up in an open source suite.

Programmers are common users as well. 

> . . . hold on here. What about the "open source elite"? This is nonsense.

That attitude will not get you far in opensource. You don't like someones
ideas then you go start your own project. A excellent example of this is
Apache-SSL and modssl. Orignally their was just ApacheSSL. Well one of the
main authors wanted to approach SSL support in a different way. TH eothe
rmain author disagreed. So the one left the project to start the modssl
project which goes about to do the same as ApacheSSL in a different way. 
Personally I perferee modssl. It has a better design.

> James, one of the biggest problems office suites for Linux have is that none
> to date do a decent job in completely translating documents forged under
> programs like Excel and Word. 

> reasons, Applix, Corel, and KDE have difficulty doing successful imports
> of MS documents is that MS chooses -- as it has a right to do -- to not make
> it easy by disclosing file format details. (Just a guess.)

This is also true of the office suites on M$ windows and Macs as well.
Well what few dying ones are left. M$ is constantly changing it API so
other suites can't keep up. In fact I have seen a M$ office file from a
pervious version fail to translate into a newer M$ office file!! So even
M$ screws itself in attempts to hurt its competitors.