Corel LINUX OS

[Dennis J. Eberl]

Joseph Hoot wrote:

> I installed the iso that I downloaded from Corel and it worked fine.  I was
> infact quite pleased with the modifications that they made to KDE.  The
> network configuration, the new pager included inside of the kpanel and the
> File explorer all made it very pleasing to use KDE.   I deleted it right
> away because of the lack of source code (kernel source and developer tools
> that, in my opinion, are a must... you know.. compilers and such).  But all
> in all, for a simple user workstation distro, I thought it was very good.
>

<----------  snip ---------->

Hi Joe,

Thanks for replying. I don't know if the ISO image you downloaded and
burned is the same as the "Open Distribution" diskettes of Corel LINUX
we distributed at the last meeting. I would think they are, however.

Anyway, looking, for example, at the pager on the Corel LINUX Ron installed
(which isn't much different from the full version I installed) , I would not
think what you saw on your installation was different in any degree.
So assuming we were both looking at the same thing I have to respectfully
disagree about the pager at least. This is a purely subjective opinion, of
course;
there is no right or wrong opinion here. I did like the smaller window pains
although I thought they weren't quite as intuitive as the standard KDE
pains. They do have the advantage of taking up much less room. What I
found almost laughable, however, was the enlarged popup showing the
backgrounds on each pain. Maybe I missed something, but who cares. It
might've been useful to provide a decent thumbnail of what's on each pain
(useful if you use the full eight or more), but it seemed like a pointless
ad on to me. Now, of course, it is entirely possible I have completely missed
some useful feature, in which case I hope you or some will point it out.

I thought you got a C compiler, Pearl, and Tcl/Tk with the Open Distribution.
I got them with the boxed edition. What surprised me was the lack of Python,
which I consider a pretty hot language. In any case, it seems Corel must
make the source available on their site as (if memory serves) they are legally
obliged to do so. I got a lot of source code (beyond just Linux) in the boxed
set.

I agree with you that source code and compiling tools are mandatory, but
apparently Corel is targeting an audience that wouldn't know or want to
know what to do with these tools if they had them. That's Ok. You and I
can and will go elsewhere. Clearly, Corel has targeted the naive user's
desktop as the market it wants to serve so it can sell Corel Office and
compete (or at least get out in front of) with Microsoft's Office suites.
Given a plan like that, what you or I prefer is irrelevant.

This bring me to my real complaint. Given a naive user's need for a simple
one machine in the house with a modem install, Corel has flopped on its
nose. (Please realize I never installed the Open Distribution version so
I am not sure Ron may have missed something although I doubt it.)
What's the first thing someone wants to do with a new installation of
linux on an unnetworked machine. Dial up there ISP, right? Ron and
I screwed around with kppp, trying to use his AT&T ISPs linux
instructions and write a straight pppd . . .  command line to dial (after
creating resolv.conf and chaps-security files and still couldn't get
the thing to work. Finally, I stumbled across a ppp_config executable,
which took us by the nose and made it easy to configure the machine.
The result were that lovely Debian pair pon and poff, which worked
beautifully.

How many naive users (Corel's market) are going to go to that kind
of trouble? This is a major blunder in my estimation on Corel's part.

We also installed StarOffice 5.1 with no sweat and even after a few
lsmod and insmod's managed to get his sound working.

I think Corel had better get it's act together. If I were Bill Gates,
I would be creating an open source Microsoft LINUX OS and
porting Office 2000 to Linux at all deliberate speed. Guess who'll
get to keep (I'm guessing) 80% of the market? Microsoft, of
course. We need, and I maintain will never get, an open source
office suite worth anything. It will be Microsoft, Corel, and
Applixware who will be profiting -- quite legitimately IMHO
-- from "desktop Linux." What Sun will do with StarOffice
is anyone's guess. I hate the way it takes over the desktop in
its attempt (perhaps sarcastically) to mimic Windows 98. Sun
will have to find a way to make money out of Star Office.

Linux and associated open source programs are in a way too
important to be closed. For example, being open in fact makes
them more secure, etc. But office suites, I think, will remain
commercial simply because they work in an economic model
that through competition ends up serving the end user better.
I just don't see the open source community as having the
kind of intelligence and focus needed by commercial project.

As I strap on my Kevlar vest under my Flame Suit, let me
thank you once again for replying : )

Dennis

P.S. -- I still would like to work on Zope with you if you have
any time. School's a strain I know, but I made it through the
Third Grade anyway. Whew!