There can never be a replacement for the crap that is M$office. Even a brainless moron cant write such crap.
There are at least two SUPERIOR alternatives Openoffice and Koffice.
I use ubuntu 8.04 as my desktop at home but i need excel at my workplace on my laptop. I have tried using OO (not tried K Office) but the spreadsheet tool just does not seem to work well enough especially after i have used excel, OO seems so dated and clunky in contrast. I must admit i have not tried the latest version though.
There is no real Autocad replacement, even if there are like BRL-CAD, Varicad etc we do not get candidates for them. We tried Virtualbox. did not work very well, especially cumbersome when it came to sharing files on a network using Samba.
I know there are other linux options for virtualization available like parallels and vmware but we are not in a position to experiment as of now especially after virtualbox.
We use an MS Access based system (third party )for excise, i haven't come across any package in linux as a replacement though am sure one could be built.
For how many users?
about 5 in one unit ..
SG
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 11:33, Sachin Gopalakrishnan wrote:
There can never be a replacement for the crap that is M$office. Even a brainless moron cant write such crap.
There are at least two SUPERIOR alternatives Openoffice and Koffice.
I use ubuntu 8.04 as my desktop at home but i need excel at my workplace on my laptop. I have tried using OO (not tried K Office) but the spreadsheet tool just does not seem to work well enough especially after i have used excel, OO seems so dated and clunky in contrast. I must admit i have not tried the latest version though.
You are confusing your familiarity of M$ with features of OO. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The OO ui DOES NOT MIMIC M$. so you really need to read the OO manuals and tuts.
There is no real Autocad replacement, even if there are like BRL-CAD, Varicad etc we do not get candidates for them.
you need a trainer in house, who will train your staff. Offcourse staff churn is a problem, but afaik linux does not redress HRM flaws.
We tried Virtualbox. did not work very well, especially cumbersome when it came to sharing files on a network using Samba.
???. Samba /CIFS works better than M$ network share. However you really dont need samba if u are using linux. NFS works very well. For a corner case like yours, you really need to hire someone for a year.
I know there are other linux options for virtualization available like parallels and vmware but we are not in a position to experiment as of now especially after virtualbox.
There is no magic wand. But believe me the result down the road gets better and better. As a personal example: We were using a some doze based ecad tools - the last proprietory bit. There are many FOSS alternatives with mostly far superior features, but required learning new UIs and creating different workflow than what we were used to. We finally took the plunge when the anti piracy dongle broke and the loyalty reward was a fat bill for a new dongle + XP licence + upgrade other stuff in the tool chain. A year later we are cursing ourselves for having not made the switch atleast a few years earlier. Why? because we now have several designs in the old binary formats. If we needed some design change (eg via holes) we had to load the board click this that and the other in the application to get the change done - a process which took atleast 20 minutes. In contrast, the FOSS GEDA tools saves everything as text. Use a text editor to make changes in the PCB in a few minutes and with experience and some simple scripts a few secs now. REALLY COOL. Besides getting newer and better features all the while, filing bug reports and feature requests results in even better applications.
In short you have two paths 1 devote resources to make FOSS fit your business 2 change so that you fit the FOSS environment
Once you start you will find a suitable middle ground.
We use an MS Access based system (third party )for excise, i haven't come across any package in linux as a replacement though am sure one could be built.
For how many users?
about 5 in one unit ..
Hmm. too small. But....
You are confusing your familiarity of M$ with features of OO. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The OO ui DOES NOT MIMIC M$. so you really need to read the OO manuals and tuts.
Put in a pivot and watch the application slow down like hell. Even if we put in a few vlookups it will slow down. The autofilter option in OO is a joke!
I will not complain, hey i get it for free ... and in all probability much more secure. But thing is i dont mind paying a reasonable amount if somebody would put in these things for me.
Gnome spreadsheet is no better. While it opens up files much faster and in general has a better user interface its extremely slow to save files.
???. Samba /CIFS works better than M$ network share. However you
really dont need samba if u are using linux. NFS works very well. For a corner case like yours, you really need to hire someone for a year.
Well it was cumbersome to transfer files from one computer to another and then transfer it to the virtual machine. no problems with network sharing. Besides the virtual machine hung too much due to a display bug, it has since been rectified in a later version i think.
You are confusing your familiarity of M$ with features of OO
no problem with not having features. Try a pivot and watch the sheet slow down in OO. If you would like to try something else, try an index match equivalent or simpler vlookup.
Gnumeric is faster and responsive but is extremely slow to save. And OO and gnumeric gets real slow after some usage. you can get your work done, but after sometime you get the feeling whether the learning curve is worth the effort.
Try a simple auto filter and and u will know what i mean by clunky. Add to this the constant irritation of spreadsheets looking different or not the way you wanted to when you save it in MS excel format. This is magnified when you send the sheet across to your customers. SG
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Sachin Gopalakrishnan mailme@sachingopal.com wrote:
Well it was cumbersome to transfer files from one computer to another and then transfer it to the virtual machine. no problems with network sharing. Besides the virtual machine hung too much due to a display bug, it has since been rectified in a later version i think.
Why not setup virtual machine so that anyone from the network can access it?
Mehul Ved wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 1:47 AM, Sachin Gopalakrishnan mailme@sachingopal.com wrote:
Well it was cumbersome to transfer files from one computer to another and then transfer it to the virtual machine. no problems with network sharing. Besides the virtual machine hung too much due to a display bug, it has since been rectified in a later version i think.
Why not setup virtual machine so that anyone from the network can access it?
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
On Wednesday 24 Dec 2008, Rony wrote:
[snip]
Why not setup virtual machine so that anyone from the network can access it?
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
Having played around a bit with Xen in the past few days, I'm interested in knowing what sort of host/guest network issues you've faced. I found the networking to work fine both ways, but then I haven't done any rigorous applications yet.
Regards,
-- Raju
Having played around a bit with Xen in the past few days, I'm interested in knowing what sort of host/guest network issues you've faced. I found the networking to work fine both ways, but then I haven't done any rigorous applications yet.
Issues has been mostly due to the cumbersome process. Suppose i have 2 linux machines and 1 WINXP; virtual machine A,B and C respectively.
I want to process a document from A in C, i will have to copy from A to B and then from B to C before i actually begin work. Then i have to save and go back from C to B to A. This is a pain when you have to transfer many files back and forth.
If you choose to access files in B directly from an application in C (since C is a VM in B), the whole system slows down.
This is assuming you have all access/rights related issues sorted out.
The printer often went unrecognized and had to be setup again after each VM boot. We had to save it into the host computer then print from there. But the host
does not recognize .dwg files(Autocad)!!
Another option i have to setup everyone else on linux except the design and accounts department but we are too small to come up with something like this. plus everyone wants interoperability especially with autocad drawings.
Needless to say to use a VM box for production is a big NO NO for now though am hopeful things would ease up in the future.
SG
Issues has been mostly due to the cumbersome process. Suppose i have 2 linux machines and 1 WINXP; virtual machine A,B and C respectively.
I want to process a document from A in C, i will have to copy from A to B and then from B to C before i actually begin work. Then i have to save and go back from C to B to A. This is a pain when you have to transfer many files back and forth.
If you choose to access files in B directly from an application in C (since C is a VM in B), the whole system slows down.
This is assuming you have all access/rights related issues sorted out.
The printer often went unrecognized and had to be setup again after each VM boot. We had to save it into the host computer then print from there. But the host
does not recognize .dwg files(Autocad)!!
Another option i have to setup everyone else on linux except the design and accounts department but we are too small to come up with something like this. plus everyone wants interoperability especially with autocad drawings.
Needless to say to use a VM box for production is a big NO NO for now though am hopeful things would ease up in the future.
if you are using vmware, then install vmware tools in the guest os , it will install gigabit drivers for the network card , in my experience i get very fast transfer speeds between all guest os. regards
On Thursday 25 Dec 2008, Sachin Gopalakrishnan wrote:
Having played around a bit with Xen in the past few days, I'm interested in knowing what sort of host/guest network issues you've faced. I found the networking to work fine both ways, but then I haven't done any rigorous applications yet.
Issues has been mostly due to the cumbersome process. Suppose i have 2 linux machines and 1 WINXP; virtual machine A,B and C respectively.
I want to process a document from A in C, i will have to copy from A to B and then from B to C before i actually begin work. Then i have to save and go back from C to B to A. This is a pain when you have to transfer many files back and forth.
If you choose to access files in B directly from an application in C (since C is a VM in B), the whole system slows down.
I see that Xen isn't too well suited for desktop applications so far. I'll try to avoid running Winduhs inside a virtual machine :) Thanks for the update, it's useful to know this.
How about the stability part, and what if you have multiple independent Xen virtual servers inside a single machine. Any issues with network or other virtual component failures or quirks?
Regards,
-- Raju
Raj Mathur wrote:
On Wednesday 24 Dec 2008, Rony wrote:
[snip]
Why not setup virtual machine so that anyone from the network can access it?
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
Having played around a bit with Xen in the past few days, I'm interested in knowing what sort of host/guest network issues you've faced. I found the networking to work fine both ways, but then I haven't done any rigorous applications yet.
I used virtual box.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
It wasn't ever a big pain for me. All it took was setting up a bridge and N tun/tap interfaces. Its not very difficult to follow directions written in VirtualBox's handbook. Now even that is gone because of the new update to VirtualBox ( read my other posts ).
Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
It wasn't ever a big pain for me. All it took was setting up a bridge and N tun/tap interfaces. Its not very difficult to follow directions written in VirtualBox's handbook. Now even that is gone because of the new update to VirtualBox ( read my other posts ).
I did all that and managed to get networking up too but for a day. After a reboot, it never worked. Now I use virtual box only to test magazine CDs. At that time I tried the latest version. Maybe they have fixed bugs in the latest version.
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
-- Regards,
Rony.
if you use bridge networking in vmware , there is no problem in any networking whatsoever. It is being used in many data centers for live servers for production use. regards
On 12/24/08, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Networking between host and guest machines is a big pain. It is not good for production.
What part is a big pain? I have setup a couple of guests inside VirtualBox and allow them to be accessed from my LAN. I have been running a few things like http server and ssh. It's as good as adding another machine on the LAN when running, except for the performance because of my outdated hardeware.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:53 AM, Mehul Ved mehul.n.ved@gmail.com wrote:
Why not setup virtual machine so that anyone from the network can access it?
gee whizz why didn't I think of it? :) So what virtualization package are you talking about? What network are you talking about? Oohh how do you get the guest machine to host servers for the real machines on the "network" ?
Really helpful, right? :)
If you didn't get it yet, there are 10 bazzilion virtualization packages out there. Which one do you recommend and WHY? :)
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:53 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
???. Samba /CIFS works better than M$ network share. However you
Ooh my boat is t3h bigger than you're boat. I rock. You suck. Right? :)
Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share. And how EXACTLY is a SAMBA / CIFS share different from a M$ Network share. Could you put in some performance numbers as well? ( If SAMBA / CIFS is actually different from M$ network share i.e. )
really dont need samba if u are using linux. NFS works very well.
Again the case of my boat is bigger than your boat :)
the last proprietory bit. There are many FOSS alternatives with mostly far superior features, but required learning new UIs and
ooh...and the names of these alternatives are... ? ? ?
On Thursday 25 December 2008 10:31, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:53 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
???. Samba /CIFS works better than M$ network share. However you
Ooh my boat is t3h bigger than you're boat. I rock. You suck. Right? :)
No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. No? heck never mind.
Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share.
Stability....
And how EXACTLY is a SAMBA / CIFS share different from a M$ Network share. Could you put in some performance numbers as well? ( If SAMBA / CIFS is actually different from M$ network share i.e. )
No i cant put in performance numbers (actually its lost some where in the clients office). But I had done an informal study at a clients place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of a disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar share on a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on the doze boxen, but you might as well burn the machine without AV. Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file / block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV overhead (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay me to do the study).
really dont need samba if u are using linux. NFS works very well.
Again the case of my boat is bigger than your boat :)
Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) found nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i havent botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs block size to 64k (or some such) for even better performance.
the last proprietory bit. There are many FOSS alternatives with mostly far superior features, but required learning new UIs and
ooh...and the names of these alternatives are... ? ? ?
GEDA, pcb, alliance, kicad.
The point being made was that even if you have a performance hit with FOSS applications NOW, in my experience, these hits go away quickly as you remove the proprietory bits. The intangibles that come by way of changing methodology only adds to the overall benefits.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. No? heck never mind.
Bah...and you think I care for your remarks? :)
Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share.
Stability....
ooh...my gawd...stability... please backup your statements with proofs.
place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of a disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar share on a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on the doze boxen, but you might as well burn the machine without AV.
agreed.
Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file / block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV overhead (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay me to do the study).
Linux supports various file systems. It wouldn't make sense to say linux has a superior file / block handling since not all Linux file systems are created equal :P
Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) found nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i havent botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs block size to 64k (or some such) for even better performance.
Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. I forget its name.
GEDA, pcb, alliance, kicad.
Thank you. Thats knowledge shared really ... :)
On Sunday 28 December 2008 04:55, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:16 AM, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
No. But you really suck. Noticed the distinct lack of a smiley. No? heck never mind.
Bah...and you think I care for your remarks? :)
Explain how exactly is SAMBA/CIFS better than a M$ share.
Stability....
ooh...my gawd...stability... please backup your statements with proofs.
place and found that M$XP (dont remember if it was sp2) share of a disk block on a M$2003 server was much slower than a simliar share on a linux box. It could well be because of crappy AV on the doze boxen, but you might as well burn the machine without AV.
agreed.
Prima face linux would beat doze because linux has superior file / block handling and network infrastructure apart from the AV overhead (now dont get started on numbers etc unless u wanna pay me to do the study).
Linux supports various file systems. It wouldn't make sense to say linux has a superior file / block handling since not all Linux file systems are created equal :P
This is about ANY linux fs v/s doze ntfs and fat fs under a network file sharing protocol. We are not comparing one linux fs with some other linux fs.
Similiar informal tests with samba and nfs (both on linux boxes) found nfs to win. Again i had not tweaked samba in any way (and i havent botherd to check for tweaks either), but increased the nfs block size to 64k (or some such) for even better performance.
Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. I forget its name.
Tried it during this test. preliminary results were horrible. With the nfs shares not showing up many a times and almost always disappearing after a doze reboot.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Dinesh Joshi dinesh.a.joshi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah yeah Linux beats crap out of Windows. Whose saying otherwise? Though compatibility is an issue infact heres a bit, you can use NFS on Windows boxes with some Unix utilities for windows software. I forget its name.
Hummingbird.
Also, there is MS SFU.
Regards, Mohan S N
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Sachin Gopalakrishnan mailme@sachingopal.com wrote:
There can never be a replacement for the crap that is M$office. Even a brainless moron cant write such crap.
There are at least two SUPERIOR alternatives Openoffice and Koffice.
I'm not sure who said that but whoever said this is truly a moron big time... Oooh did I offend anybody? :) This thread is an example of how retarded certain discussions can be especially if people just go around shooting off their mouths without having a balanced opinion about the world around them.
Let me just cut to the chase and before reading my reply I'm putting in a disclaimer for everybody. I'm not a Microsoft supporter nor a hater. I'm a Linux enthusiast and a supporter of the Open Source movement / philosophy but I do not like when people go overboard without rationally explaining their statements.
I use ubuntu 8.04 as my desktop at home but i need excel at my workplace on my laptop. I have tried using OO (not tried K Office) but the spreadsheet tool just does not seem to work well enough especially after i have used excel, OO seems so dated and clunky in contrast. I must admit i have not tried the latest version though.
OpenOffice 3 is the latest version. Its certainly an improvement but not a solution to your problem. I'll save you some effort but sure do try it out.
There is no real Autocad replacement, even if there are like BRL-CAD, Varicad etc we do not get candidates for them. We tried Virtualbox. did not work very well, especially cumbersome when it came to sharing files on a network using Samba.
Let me just stop you here. VirtualBox is not the only player on the block. But it is one of the best now and the easiest too. Try VirtualBox 2.1 and you'll be surprised. Some features you'll be very interested in are:
1. One click host networking setup. ( Means your virtual machine is virtually a real machine on your network ;) ). It'll obtain an IP from the DHCP server like a real machine and you can run servers and outside machines can connect to them. This works on Linux too.
2. Experimental OpenGL support. This is cool. Now most graphic intensive programs work far better in the virtual machine then they used to before. Virtualized graphics acceleration is slowly becoming a reality. But hold on, they've not implemented DirectX APIs which means some apps which dont offer OpenGL versions can't take advantage of this enhancement. You'll have to check with the application's specs to see how well it runs. Many people can run Windows games now in a virtual machine ( and VirtualBox isn't the first one to have made this a reality ).
Due to 1 & 2, you'll find a Virtual machine inside VirtualBox is able to inter operate far better with your real world infrastructure. Just a word of caution. This is a bleeding edge release and you ought to purchase their license since you're doing this in an office setup. You can try it for free under the PUEL.
I know there are other linux options for virtualization available like parallels and vmware but we are not in a position to experiment as of now especially after virtualbox.
Yeah right. Parallels and Linux. ROTFLMAO :)
We use an MS Access based system (third party )for excise, i haven't come across any package in linux as a replacement though am sure one could be built.
All hail the mighty VirtualBox OR WINE. Ever heard of it buddy? Did anybody point you to it? Nah... everyones busy just shooting off smart ass remarks :)
WINE has reached v1 release. Check it out. With the latest release I was able to install Microsoft Office suite ( 2007 or whatever the heck it is ) on Linux. It works like a charm. Heck I installed CS and it works far better than the native Windows install :)
Dinesh Joshi wrote:
Let me just cut to the chase and before reading my reply I'm putting in a disclaimer for everybody. I'm not a Microsoft supporter nor a hater. I'm a Linux enthusiast and a supporter of the Open Source movement / philosophy but I do not like when people go overboard without rationally explaining their statements.
M$ scores in Office due to its proprietary document formats. Does OO have access to the entire document format as M$ has? Once it enters the ODF arena, it could be evaluated better against OO. Same with all other graphics softwares that use closed restrictive formats.
Due to 1 & 2, you'll find a Virtual machine inside VirtualBox is able to inter operate far better with your real world infrastructure. Just a word of caution. This is a bleeding edge release and you ought to purchase their license since you're doing this in an office setup. You can try it for free under the PUEL.
I had used the Free version and it had some features reduced.
We use an MS Access based system (third party )for excise, i haven't come across any package in linux as a replacement though am sure one could be built.
All hail the mighty VirtualBox OR WINE. Ever heard of it buddy? Did anybody point you to it? Nah... everyones busy just shooting off smart ass remarks :)
WINE has reached v1 release. Check it out. With the latest release I was able to install Microsoft Office suite ( 2007 or whatever the heck it is ) on Linux. It works like a charm. Heck I installed CS and it works far better than the native Windows install :)
Getting telephone support for these softwares ( custom Access packages ) running in wine can be a problem. The help center guys know only Windows and all their instructions are for Windows only. If VBox works, that would be a better option as one is fully inside a windows environment. Even if the support guy has to sit on the machine to resolve an issue, he can be given a virtual Windows system to play with.
However if one has to use closed source software anyway, officially they would still need individual licenses for all their installations. This beats the idea of freedom (From the license and quota Raj). Getting a programmer to re-write the said application in FOSS would be a better option.
M$ scores in Office due to its proprietary document formats. Does OO have access to the entire document format as M$ has? Once it enters the ODF arena, it could be evaluated better against OO. Same with all other graphics softwares that use closed restrictive formats.
Format for new version of Office is as open as it gets.
Its XML, zipped and renamed to docx etc. Full documentation is available on MSDN site. Even Office 2k , 2003 lets you use XML instead of native format.
-Shamit
On Thursday 25 December 2008 22:27, Shamit Verma wrote:
M$ scores in Office due to its proprietary document formats. Does OO have access to the entire document format as M$ has? Once it enters the ODF arena, it could be evaluated better against OO. Same with all other graphics softwares that use closed restrictive formats.
Format for new version of Office is as open as it gets.
You have not followed the OOxml wars then.
Its XML, zipped and renamed to docx etc. Full documentation is available on MSDN site. Even Office 2k , 2003 lets you use XML instead of native format.
suggest you read about what exactly is the problem with wrapping a closed partially documented and misdocumented fromat in xml and calling it open
-
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
Kamal Paryani -
Mehul Ved -
Mohan Nayaka -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Sachin Gopalakrishnan -
Shamit Verma