![[ Prev ]](../gx/navbar/prev.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Table of Contents ]](../gx/navbar/toc.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Front Page ]](../gx/navbar/frontpage.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Talkback ]](../gx/navbar/talkback.jpg){kind=small}
![[ FAQ ]](./../gx/navbar/faq.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Next ]](../gx/navbar/next.jpg){kind=small}
...making Linux just a little more fun! |
By Matthias Arndt |
The following article is intended as a followup to the article Office Linux: Ideas for a Desktop Distribution in issue 81 of the Linux Gazette. If you wonder what this all is about, then I suggest reading that article.
I recieved a lot of feedback concerning that article. It was almost exclusively positive, although sometimes pointing into various directions. I want to let most of the mail speak for itself. At the end I will make just a few more statements concerning the idea.
Some of my contacts preferred to stay anonymous so I decided to keep all my contacts anonymous. I stripped signatures, real names and email addresses out.
From: Linux Gazette Editor (Iron) To : Matthias Arndt Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 12:36:56 -0700
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 07:05:49PM +0200, Matthias Arndt wrote:
> I attached a new article for the Linux Gazette.
> I hope it fits.
Formatted for August, preview attached.
My opinions on Office Linux:
** It can be done based on an existing distribution and packaging system.
That would cut out most of the work, and sysadmins could get packages
from the upstream distribution if they need a program not included in
Office Linux.
** You'd need to tighten up the profile of the target user. What does a
"secretary" run? Office, web, e-mail and text editing.
** "Secretaries" do not need a development environment -- they wouldn't know
what to do with it.
** Lots of offices will not be able to use a product like the above because
they need one or two applications not in the base set. For instance, maybe
a certain office needs the Gimp, etc. These people could get the packages
from an upstream distribution, but wouldn't it be just as easy for them to
install the upstream distribution itself?
** Some distros (especially the "compile it yourself" ones like Rock Linux and
a couple recent ones whose names escape me but are in the LWN distributions
list {lwn.net}) have scripts to allow you to
make custom CD-ROMs containing only a subset of the distribution, precompiled
for quick installation on a number of systems. This might be a better way to
build Office Linux.
--
Mike Orr, Editor, Linux Gazette SSC: publishers of Linux Journal
From: Matthias Arndt To : Linux Gazette Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:18:51 +0200
Hi!
article published fine! Thanks again!
Linux Gazette wrote:
| My opinions on Office Linux:
| ** It can be done based on an existing distribution and packaging system.
| That would cut out most of the work, and sysadmins could get packages
| from the upstream distribution if they need a program not included in
| Office Linux.
Office Linux should be bootstrapped from an existing distribution. Just
to make it easy to create.
The Gimp was actually planned to be included. I do not wanted to leave
all applications out but to distribute only a working subset and of
course one programm per task.
| ** You'd need to tighten up the profile of the target user. What does a
| "secretary" run? Office, web, e-mail and text editing.
Office Linux in the current draft state contains everything needed to
achieve this.
| ** "Secretaries" do not need a development environment -- they wouldn't know
| what to do with it.
Development packages should be optional for the sysadmin to compile some
software. It is not meant to be installed by default.
| ** Lots of offices will not be able to use a product like the above because
| they need one or two applications not in the base set. For instance, maybe
| a certain office needs the Gimp, etc. These people could get the packages
| from an upstream distribution, but wouldn't it be just as easy for them to
| install the upstream distribution itself?
Office Linux is meant to make the installation easy and do everything in
one go. Compatibility with another distribution will be included because
the project would be bootstrapped from an existing distribution.
The main arguments against a mainstream distribution are still:
* too many packages installed by default
* not enough tutorial documentation (even the Mandrake documentation is
insufficient for Office Linux)
* installation process too long - Office Linux is intended for "stick CD
in and go"
| ** Some distros (especially the "compile it yourself" ones like Rock Linux and
| a couple recent ones whose names escape me but are in the LWN distributions
| list {lwn.net}) have scripts to allow you to make custom CD-ROMs containing
| only a subset of the distribution, precompiled for quick installation on a
| number of systems. This might be a better way to build Office Linux.
I leave it up to a development team to build the actual Office Linux.
It is a draft, the article was "thinking out loud" in some respect.
I recieved some mail regarding the article so I plan to write a little
followup containing my correspondence. Due to time problems it will not
be ready for the September issue.
regards and thanks for publishing,
Matthias
To : Matthias Arndt From: +++++ +++++++++ Date: 01 Aug 2002 14:18:55 +0200
Hi Matthias I just read your article in the August 2002 issue of Linux Gazette, and all in all, I can say that the idea is very good. The main problem why we aren't switching to Linux yet in our company is that it would be a pain to administer the boxes after the installation. The current distros are very generic since they target general audience - they put in multiple office suites, browsers etc. so that everyone is satisfied. On the other side, I am not for Yet Another Linux Distro either. We already have enough distributions, and in each distro some thing is done differently than the others. IMHO, the situation can be solved by modifying the existing code base, either by the company/organization that releases the particular distro, or by user-side tweaking. In the first case, I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard for Redhat or SuSE to strip the current distro to one CD and implement the ideas you give in your article. But that depends on the demand of the market. We already have things like kickstart in Red Hat 7.x distros. You just need to customize the install process once (select the necessary packages, layout of partitions and so on), and than make a CD with the kickstart.cfg file and only the rpm's you're installing. The necessary post-install configurations can be done by an application which would be automatically run during the first boot, or so. All in all, it wouldn't be very hard to make an amateur distro based on your propositions. I am amazed that this hasn't been done yet. BTW, I am against putting KDE as the default desktop manager. I was using it for about one year at work, and that is enough to learn all its bugs, crashes and instabilites. I am dissapointed at what KDE has became - a bloated product full of bugs. Developers seem to be more interested in adding new features, than fixing the old ones. KDE has a long way to go to achieve the stability of even Windows XP. Mind you, I am not advocating another desktop/window manager since that will make me biased - but KDE would be a disaster for first-time users of Linux. Best regards, +++++ +++++++++ P.S. I would be very interested in reading a follow-up article in the next Linux Gazette based on all the replies you got in the meantime.
From: Matthias Arndt To : +++++ +++++++++ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 16:05:28 +0200
Hi, +++++ +++++++++ wrote: | Hi Matthias | | I just read your article in the August 2002 issue of Linux Gazette, and | all in all, I can say that the idea is very good. The main problem why | we aren't switching to Linux yet in our company is that it would be a | pain to administer the boxes after the installation. The current distros | are very generic since they target general audience - they put in | multiple office suites, browsers etc. so that everyone is satisfied. That is the point where Office Linux drops in. It is meant to fill this gap. | On the other side, I am not for Yet Another Linux Distro either. We | already have enough distributions, and in each distro some thing is done | differently than the others. Freedom of choice - that's why I personally would not opt against another distribution. I'm in general dissatisfied with most of the existing distributions but I currently do not have the time to create my own distribution. And thats's why I'm not planning to work on Office Linux. | IMHO, the situation can be solved by modifying the existing code base, | either by the company/organization that releases the particular distro, | or by user-side tweaking. In the first case, I imagine that it wouldn't | be too hard for Redhat or SuSE to strip the current distro to one CD and | implement the ideas you give in your article. But that depends on the | demand of the market. I guess the big ones will not do something like that. Almost all of their work would not be used in Office Linux such as tons of documentation, packaging etc. Using an existing code base is, of course, the planned way to go with Office Linux. | All in all, it wouldn't be very hard to make an amateur distro based on | your propositions. I am amazed that this hasn't been done yet. It's a matter of time and work. It is entirely possible. Gimme time and motivate me and I'll do it. But I do not have the time to do it. | BTW, I am against putting KDE as the default desktop manager. I was | using it for about one year at work, and that is enough to learn all its | bugs, crashes and instabilites. I am dissapointed at what KDE has became | - a bloated product full of bugs. Developers seem to be more interested | in adding new features, than fixing the old ones. KDE has a long way to | go to achieve the stability of even Windows XP. Mind you, I am not | advocating another desktop/window manager since that will make me biased | - but KDE would be a disaster for first-time users of Linux. Personally I really hate KDE and I avoid to use it wherever possible. I leave it up to the final project team which desktop to use. Someone else suggested using qvwm which is much like M$ Windows. | P.S. I would be very interested in reading a follow-up article in the | next Linux Gazette based on all the replies you got in the meantime. Yep as I recieved some more mail regarding that article I'm planning to publish my correspondence in November. cheers and thanks for your comment, Matthias
From: +++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 01:00:51 -0600
Hi there, I just read your article, and think you have an excellent point. Is this something that you intend to pursue, or are you just "thinking out loud?" If this is something that you are looking at working on, I would love to test this out. I started using Linux in 92. I had no idea what it was, but it helped me pass a system admin class. I then stopped using it until recently. I came across your article while looking for details on how to best create my own distribution. I installed Red Hat 7.3 tonight, and it's just too darn big, with too darn much stuff included. So, again, if you are going to work on it, and would like another set of eyes to help out, please let me know. If you're not, but can direct me towards a group that is, I'd appreciate that as well. Best regards, +++
From: Matthias Arndt To : +++ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:55:52 +0200
Hello, +++ wrote: | Hi there, | | I just read your article, and think you have an excellent point. | | Is this something that you intend to pursue, or are you just "thinking | out loud?" If this is something that you are looking at working on, I | would love to test this out. Actually I'm currently just "thinking out loud". I do not have the time to start such a project. | So, again, if you are going to work on it, and would like another set of | eyes to help out, please let me know. If you're not, but can direct me | towards a group that is, I'd appreciate that as well. As stated above I do not plan to work on it and I don't know about others that work on it. But I got some more mails regarding the article and some other guy wanted to help too. So I can only tell you the same: Start the project and make it happen :) regards and thanks for your comment, Matthias PS: I'm planning to publish all the correspondence concerning the article. So could you please tell me if you want want not to publish your mail.
From: +++++++ +++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 18:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Matthias, Great idea! Please consider using Netscape because it includes email which can connect to AOL mail (a very big group). Please let me know if I can help. Thanks, +++++++ + +++++
From: Matthias Arndt To : +++++++ +++++ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:50:16 +0200
Hi, +++++++ +++++ wrote: | Matthias, | | Great idea! Please consider using Netscape because it | includes email which can connect to AOL mail (a very | big group). The final choice of software is up to the group that actually works on the project. | Please let me know if I can help. Yes, start the project :) cheers and thanks for your comment, Matthias PS: I'm planning to publish all the mail concerning the article. Tell me please if you want me not to publish your mail
From: +++++++ +++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:48:28 -0700 (PDT)
Matthias, I am available to help. Just let me know where are we with this. Do we have a starting point. I work for AOL Time Warner have experience in Project management/ Documentation / Testing/ QA / Software Engineering. Have a BS/MBA. Thanks, +++++++ PS. Please do not publish my name/email.
From: Matthias Arndt To : +++++++ +++++ Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 10:40:25 +0200
Hi, +++++++ +++++ wrote: | I am available to help. Just let me know where are we | with this. Do we have a starting point. I'm sorry, There is no starting point yet. The article was some sort of "thinking out loud", a draft. A project with dedicated goals has to be created. If you want to, go ahead. A little webpage with manifesto and a mailing list should be enough for the moment. I'm short of time so I'm currently not able to launch it myself. But tell me if you do because I got mails from other people who were interested in participating as well. | PS. Please do not publish my name/email. Ok. cheers, Matthias
From: +++++ ++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:10:44 +0200
Hi! Hast du dir mal die Knoppix-CD angeguckt? Du kannst ja mal mit Klaus Knopper ueber deine Ideen reden. Er ist definitiv der Mann mit dem noetigen Know-How. Tschuess +++++
This translates to:
Hi, did you take a look at the Knoppix CD? You could talk to Klaus Knopper concerning your ideas. In any case he is the man with the required know-how. cu, +++++
From: ++++++ + +++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 14:22:20 -0400
This is a very good idea. It's something I've been kicking around in my head but never actually got collected into an idea. If you start this as an actual project please let me know. I would like to help in any way I can. Thanks, +++
From: ++++++ +++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:55:44 +0200
Matthias, I have read your article on Office Linux. I like because it shows that I am not the only one with this idea (although I haven't published anything on it). The main idea I had about this thing was to start from Debian, because with the apt system it is possible to create one's own assembly of program files. This could give a firm advantage because no new packages need to be created, only a distribution based upon existing packages and new tasks. Some remarks : No servers : I think that we probably need to run some line printer daemon. Be also prepared to deploy this software in small companies where only one person does all the paperwork. In this case, I think that also the optional installation of fax server software should be possible. Besides, your requirement of easy remote administration contradicts the requirement of no servers. Desktop environment I have started testing qvwm, which gives more Win95 looks and is much lighter than KDE. What is needed is a proper interface to add menu entries and desktop icons. The desktop environment should also contain a good file manager with DND capabilities. I am still searching for a good one. I do not like MS, but their Explorer is still very good. Office productivity I think it is better to run a lightweight desktop environment with OpenOffice.org, than KDE with OpenOffice.org. For most tasks, OpenOffice.org can be run on a WS starting from 200 Mhz with 64 Mb of memory. See servers : Office productivity is enhanced by means of an integrated fax suite. Internet Provide possibilities to choose between modem and network card access (ADSL/Cable). A wizard for diald for modem users is indispensable. Network card access needs DHCP, kernel routing tables should reject anything that is coming in which does not have its source on the machine itself. Widget sets Office Linux should also be able to offer third parties a nice and flexible widget set to create add-ons and configuration tools. If KDE is chosen, then this is no problem of course. If the choice goes to qvwm, then I suggest to try to use GTK based tools. Maybe I come back again on this topic, but for the moment I am busy programming something to ease the interfacing of CGI scripts with a permanent connection to postgreSQL, and I have to prepare a course of 9 times 4 hrs on Linux as a network OS. Regards, ++++++ +++++++
From: Matthias Arndt To : ++++++ +++++++ Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 15:47:41 +0200
Hi, ++++++ +++++++ wrote: | I have read your article on Office Linux. I like because it shows that I | am not the only one with this idea (although I haven't published | anything on it). That's nice to hear :) | The main idea I had about this thing was to start from Debian, because | with the apt system it is possible to create one's own assembly of | program files. This could give a firm advantage because no new packages | need to be created, only a distribution based upon existing packages and | new tasks. Actually I really thought about using an existing distribution. But Debian has the problem that in most cases a current snapshot has dependency problems with stable ones being hopeless out of date. That's why I would prefer building a basic distribution from scratch. But a stable and current snapshot of Debian could also be used as a base. To make it easy to administrate, I would not include apt or any other software of this sort into the final distribution. It makes the thing to complicated except for net install. Using Debian is nice idea anyway so I'd probably leave this topic for a group that actually wants to launch this project. | | Some remarks : | | No servers : | I think that we probably need to run some line printer daemon. Be also | prepared to deploy this software in small companies where only one | person does all the paperwork. In this case, I think that also the | optional installation of fax server software should be possible. | Besides, your requirement of easy remote administration contradicts the | requirement of no servers. Ofcourse some sort of lpd has to be included. But I wanted to leave out: Apache, ftpd, SQL, bind and all those other services that are installed by default in almost all current distributions. Fax is a nice idea too but it should be integrated into the printing system. | Desktop environment | I have started testing qvwm, which gives more Win95 looks and is much | lighter than KDE. What is needed is a proper interface to add menu | entries and desktop icons. The desktop environment should also contain a | good file manager with DND capabilities. I am still searching for a good | one. I do not like MS, but their Explorer is still very good. qvwm looks very nice. Actually I personally would never use a desktop that resembles M$ Windows so close but it woudl be a very nice lightweight alternative to KDE. | Office productivity | I think it is better to run a lightweight desktop environment with | OpenOffice.org, than KDE with OpenOffice.org. For most tasks, | OpenOffice.org can be run on a WS starting from 200 Mhz with 64 Mb of | memory. See servers : Office productivity is enhanced by means of an | integrated fax suite. I won't count on that. OpenOffice is slow on my Athlon 600 without KDE running so I doubt it runs reasonably fast on a P200. | Internet | Provide possibilities to choose between modem and network card access | (ADSL/Cable). A wizard for diald for modem users is indispensable. | Network card access needs DHCP, kernel routing tables should reject | anything that is coming in which does not have its source on the machine | itself. Office Linux is meant to integrate into an existing LAN. There is absolutely no need for dialup networking in the distribution. Firewalling should be done external. Office Linux is a pure workstation distribution. All server services as firewalling, mail etc. should not be handled by this distribution. It could be an addon for home users but those are not the intended users for the distribution. | Widget sets | Office Linux should also be able to offer third parties a nice and | flexible widget set to create add-ons and configuration tools. If KDE is | chosen, then this is no problem of course. If the choice goes to qvwm, | then I suggest to try to use GTK based tools. GTK is a must in any case. thanks for your comments, Matthias PS: I'm planning to publish all the mail concerning the article in teh future so tell me if you want me to leave your mail out.
From: ++++++ +++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:59:08 +0200
Hello, Matthias, Some extra remarks... >| The main idea I had about this thing was to start from Debian, because >| with the apt system it is possible to create one's own assembly of >| program files. This could give a firm advantage because no new packages >| need to be created, only a distribution based upon existing packages and >| new tasks. >Actually I really thought about using an existing distribution. >But Debian has the problem that in most cases a current snapshot has >dependency problems with stable ones being hopeless out of date. >That's why I would prefer building a basic distribution from scratch. >But a stable and current snapshot of Debian could also be used as a >base. To make it easy to administrate, I would not include apt or any >other software of this sort into the final distribution. It makes the >thing to complicated except for net install. >Using Debian is nice idea anyway so I'd probably leave this topic for a >group that actually wants to launch this project. Since I almost work exclusively with Debian, I have the feeling that this is the distribution which has probably all things in place to make an easy distribution feasible. A graphical installer would be nice. What seems the single most attractive feature for Windows users ? I think it is the way the installation process works for new software (not the OS installation process). First, under the settings tab of the start button, you can choose to install or remove additional software. If there is anything which Debian is good at, I think it is this. By restricting the software to appear on the CD-ROM, and maybe have a default simple choice, with the possibility of an extended choice, under a graphical tool, people should be able to remove or install software on/from their workstation with the same ease as under Windows. Second, there is the autorun feature of software on CD-ROM's. I know that Red Hat has this under KDE, but I haven't investigated this feature for Debian (to do : auto mounting software). Third, if someone installs new Windows software and things are missing, they are prompted to insert their installation CD, Windows installs the necessary base software, and the installation proceeds. If there is a distribution which is able to mimic this behaviour, then it certainly is Debian. The way that the Debian package management is conceived should make it easier for third-party office packagers to say : package X depends on packages Y, Z,... for installation, so that the installation system can invoke the above procedure. If the installation has proceeded from an intranet, then the necessary dependencies can even be automatically resolved, without bothering the user for the installation CD. Of course, some of these tasks need root access. The person who is responsible for installation should at installation time be given the choice between the following options : - Only root may install new software, strictly controlled environment - Some users may execute these tasks, but must know the right password - Some users may execute these tasks without password - Everybody may execute these tasks As we all know, the biggest threats to a workstation are e-mails with dangerous payloads which execute at open time and insecure web-sites which start malicious scripts inside a browser. This means that the last two options are inherently unsafe. Javascript, Java and plug-ins can be easily sandboxed, so this threat is not so large. I do not know what the average user of PC's thinks if someone sends him such mail, though. Personally, I think that running software from e-mail should be prohibited. Maybe the running of suid-root software should never be allowed without an explicit password, however easy the password may be. In that case, it should be made impossible to automate the automatic entering of a password in the dialog. I think that the above paragraphs above show clear that this is issue is not entirely clear. This should be studied carefully, and I think that it should be explained clearly and understandably to users why auto-execution and the transmission of executable content is a danger to the system. >| Office productivity >| I think it is better to run a lightweight desktop environment with >| OpenOffice.org, than KDE with OpenOffice.org. For most tasks, >| OpenOffice.org can be run on a WS starting from 200 Mhz with 64 Mb of >| memory. See servers : Office productivity is enhanced by means of an >| integrated fax suite. >I won't count on that. OpenOffice is slow on my Athlon 600 without KDE >running so I doubt it runs reasonably fast on a P200. Why does everyone say that OpenOffice.org is slow ? To startup, yes. But I have used it under Debian 2.2 on my 233 Mhz PII laptop with only 32 Mb of RAM to create a course on Linux and presentations (no graphics w/ 32 Mb though), and I have never found it lacking in speed, even though AutoCorrect is constantly on for me. My father uses the Windows version on his Pentium 100 Mhz machine w/ 48 Mb and I have never heard him complain about the speed, and the same goes for my wife on my old Cyrix 6x86 at 133 Mhz and 64 Mb of memory. Regards, ++++++ +++++++
From: ++++ ++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:56:39 -0500
Hello Matthias, With regard to your Office Linux idea, I think you've got the right idea. I would probably recommend Open Office, although Star Office 6.0 is just as good, and is reasonably compatible with all MS Office products. I custom build/rebuild machines for low income users, and since they don't have much money, I either install Windows 98SE or Red Hat 7.3 with OpenOffice so that they can read Word docs or Excel spreadsheets. Mozilla 1.0.x is my preferred browser, and works very nicely with the Sun Java JRE 1.4.0.x. Mozilla has the ability to "masquerade" as IE 5.0 to Web sites that want to see IE, which is useful. I have actually seen a small call center that had 40 workstations running SuSE 7.3 w/KDE 3.0, OpenOffice 1.0.x, Netscape 6.2.x, and Ximian Evolution and the people who worked there that had previously worked on Windows workstations had a very short transition time to being productive under KDE. The 2 servers for the call center were running HylaFax, sendmail, and some custom apps. The cost of all the software was about 1/10th what it would have been under an all MS Windows environment, and was all legally and properly licensed. ++++ ++++
From: ++++ ++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 08:12:25 -0500
Please feel free to publish my reply, but the only favor I ask is that you remove my email address, so the spamatrons can't get it and flood my email inbox. -----Original Message----- From: Matthias Arndt Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 08:30 To: ++++ ++++ Subject: Re: Office Linux Hi, ++++ ++++ wrote: | Hello Matthias, | With regard to your Office Linux idea, I think you've got the right | idea. I would probably recommend Open Office, although Star Office 6.0 is Openoffice because: it's entirely free, cheap and as powerful as StarOffice 6.0. (SO6 is based on OpenOffice) Thanks for the rest of your comment. I'm planning to publish all the replies I got regarding the article. Tell if you don't want me to publish your mail. regards, Matthias
From: +++++++ ++++++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:26:15 +0200
Hallo Matthias habe gerade deine Ausführungen in der Linuxgazette gelesen. Du triffst den Nagel auf den Kopf! Wenn aus deinen Ideen mal ein Projekt wird, dann wünsche ich schon jetzt alles Gute. Bye +++
This translates to:
Hello Matthias, I recently read your article in the Linux Gazette. You take the right approach. If this project is ever going somewhere, I'll have best regards for it. Bye +++
From: ++++++ +++++++++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:44:00 -0500
Matthias, What you are asking for in the Linux Gazette article "Ideas for a Desktop Distribution" already exists. See www.lycoris.com :-) ++++++
From: +++ +++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:21:34 +1000
I have just read your article in Linux Gazette and have to say that attempts to govern Linux in this way is exactly what microdoze do with their system. Surely maintaining the "dumb user" paradigm, maintains the idea of a dumb user. Linux is an anarchistic system designed to promote innovation. You won't get this by governing the choices of users. Don't forget, microdoze created the idea of the dumb user. Before they came along, Office workers had IQs in the 120 to 130 range and got paid accordingly and advanced up the ladder. Linux is a way out. Please don't microdoze it. Thanks for a very readable article Kind Regards +++ +++++++
From: +++++++++ +++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:29:21 -0300
Dear Matthias, I read the article you wrote for Linux Gazette about a Linux Desktop Distribution and I think it's a great idea. Is there a mailing list where you discuss the project? Even though I have very little time right now, I would like to help. My name is +++++++++ and I'm from +++++++++. I'm currently studying to be a Computer Analyst. Maybe me and some guys I study with could help you. Best regards, +++++++++
From: ++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 17:24:21 +0100
HI Liked your comments on the Linux gazette This is what I am about to try build myself for small business's Cheers +++++ + + +++++
From: +++++++ ++++++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:30:51 +1200
Hello there Matthias,
After reading your article, well done by the way, It occurred to me that
you have just summed up a distro call Lycoris. You can check it out at
www.lycoris.com there is a dot org aswell with a very strong community of
helpers. This distro is based on caldera and is a single CD install with
Koffice, Mozilla and KDE2. You should take a look.
Cheers
+++++++
From: ++++++ ++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: 01 Sep 2002 14:03:23 -0500
What do you think of Lycoris? It may not come with oofice (I don't remember), but it has all the other attributes. I have the original version...have not tried the ver 2. I use mandrake 8.2 and suse 8.0, due to my needs, but recommend lycoris to newbies. ++++ ++++++ +++++++
From: ++++ ++++++++ To : Matthias Arndt Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:52:56 +0000
Hi Matthias Really loved your article about how to make a better desktop distro. At work, I am the pilot Linux user (and the secretary you mentioned!) and yes, it is a big help to my boss that my computer is never ever down for any reason. I started with Mandrake but have since moved to RedHat - a move in the right direction, but still not the ideal desktop distro. We have to trim it down a lot, and add some other things, to make it fit the correct role for a desktop user machine. So far, it's been most workable and user-friendly using OpenOffice, KDE, Sylpheed, Opera, LPRng to talk to the network printers, GFTP for moving files to/from the server, and Ericomm's PowerTerm to talk with the server-based apps. My workstation makes approx 5K documents per year .. I'm secretary to our VP of sales/marketing plus assistant to about 1/4 of our managers .. the linux station handles our mailing list and also plays print server for some of the reporting functions .. and it's also used for a lot of spreadsheet reporting for our sales numbers. It handles all this quite well .. it has never crashed or had any unplanned downtime .. and our IT dep't is considering moving the rest of the office to Linux next. Clearly, the need is there for the desktop distro - and it's safe to say that it's only a matter of time before the software gets there. :) ++++ penguinista-at-large
So far for the mail.
As someone called it so, it is true. Office Linux is sharing my thoughts and allowing others to comment on it. The article is not meant to be a business idea.
Several people told me that there already is something like Office Linux, in the form of Lycoris. Actually I don't think that Lycoris is what I'm thinking of. Lycoris is
My personal opinion is that Lycoris is the worst thing for the Linux community ever. The same as Lindows. It is not a real Linux, it is an attempt to sell Linux in M$ style without preserving the things, real friends and convinced users of Linux do like most on their system.
Office Linux should still be a Linux system in the well-known style including security just with a trimmed package of included software.
As a few contacts told me, Office Linux would be a way of introducing M$ business practice into the Linux community.
Office Linux is not intended to do so. Office Linux should be a sub branch of the whole Linux community. It should be another distribution of the Linux operating system including many opensource applications and tools. Commercial or not - Office Linux should stay a Linux, bootstraped from an existing distribution of Linux, may it be Debian or Mandrake. The GNU General Public Licence should be the main primer of Office Linux as well.
As stated above, Office Linux is not meant to be a product in the style of Lycoris, Lindows or other distributions that are too much like Microsoft OSes.
This is almost the same as the above one.
I don't think users in general are dumb. But actually most of ordinary computer users are dumb compared to geeks and professionals.
Professionals, Linux Geeks and sysadmins are not the intended target group for Office Linux. That group still is the average computer users that wants to have his work done, like my father, some secretary or an english teacher at school. These people just do not a need a custom tweakable Linux system but a stable and proven system. The computer is tool not heaven for them and a tool in any cases is supposed to work and to be easy to use.
And pointing to that group, I still think that current distributions are worthless. Office Linux is supposed to fill that gap.
A few contacts asked if Office Linux is an on-going project. Well, actually, these both articles are the start. I wanted to share my ideas and thoughts about it. As it seems, there's a least a small need for such a project. If anyone volunteers to start an Office Linux Project, I'll be very grateful. Start it, go ahead, make it happen. I personally can't do much for it at the moment.
I did one thing for it as it was a simple act. A mailing list concerning Office Linux, the idea and the project is ready.
The address of the list is [email protected].
Users can subscribe to the list by sending email to [email protected] with 'subscribe' in the Subject field
Users can unsubscribe from the list by sending email to [email protected] with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
Users can post to the list by subscribing to the list and then sending email to [email protected].
Anyone who is interested in the idea of Office Linux should join and let's see.