Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review Of Small Business Suite for Linux

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the taken-a-gander-at-it dept.

Linux Business 161

JoeT-Bone writes "Found this at LinuxToday, It's a review of the of the IBM Small Business Suite for Linux. " Part of Big Blue's continuing move to porting to programs to Linux - anyone had experience with this? Good, Bad? Post below!

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:How about their office suite (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255366)

1-2-3 had its time in the late 80's. Unfortunately, it hasn't evolved much since then.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255367)

Could Slashdot posters adopt a new convention:
any user posting unabashed admiration for MySQL,
could you please also post some disclaimer that
you are of consenting age, and actually a
*professional*... Thanks.

Re:Yes But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255368)

Yes a good part of it is.
DB2 isn't but most of websphere is, so are the admin gui's.

Re:How about their office suite (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255369)

i can't compare it to gnumeric, because i've never used gnumeric, but...

i am an IBM employee. lotus products are the bane of my existence. lotus insists on breaking every UI convention ever, and they do it badly. their products are unstable, their support is terrible, and they don't integrate well into a business environment because they refuse to provide working (and non-braindead) format translators. ie, to convert from powerpoint to freelance, freelance imports everything as metafiles. if you try to ungroup them to edit them, everything flips upside-down, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

IBM understands good software. lotus does not. beware.

I don't know about Linux, but (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255373)

In the tradition of grafitti of public spaces (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255374)

Besides spray-painting graffitti in SF, this product promotes SPAM.

Task automation
Enhance office productivity by automating tasks such as replying,
forwarding or sending mail and distributed mailing.

How charming

server-only, what a joke (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255375)

Linux already has a zillion server products. Why doesn't
IBM wake up and port over their client products, like
Smart Suite and Notes?

Papows is a d0rk.


Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255376)

Yes, it's highly contagious, I strongly recommend you have your testicles removed at once. Preferably with a Clever

Okay, I give up.. a clever what?

Re:Yes But... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255377)

it isn't written in java, moron.

doubly so for the idiot that up-modded this.

Re:Off topic MOD access question (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255378)

Well, at least the articles lately should be the best-moderated ever.

The posts lately get moderated to either -1 or +5. I don't call this "best-moderated".

Re:What about notes for linux? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255379)

note to moderators -

it isn't INFORMATIVE if it's fucking WRONG.

fucking idiots.

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255380)

Scale, my ass. Most businesses in America are small- really small. From the civil engineering firm with 12 employees to the mortgage broker with 3, to the auto mechanic and his wife/accountant, this is America, and this is Microsoft's market. If you don't believe me, check the Dept. of Labor statistics. Big companies and government organizations get all the press, but most of us are little guys, or work for little guys. Most of us are more familiar with Windows than Linux, only from having used it for years. And we do it all ourselves because we have to: there is no IT budget. Calling in a tech means no eating out for a month, or a missed car payment.

Re:What about notes for linux? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255381)

I have Notes working under Wine too but I have trouble with the shortcut buttons on the left side of the desktop. This means I can't open my Favorites or Databases windows since there is no other way to get to them (that I have been able to find).

The buttons actually trigger the subwindow like they are supposed to but the window opens "underneath" my desktop view. There is no way to close the desktop AFAIK so it just looks like the button didn't do anything.

I have to go search the server for the right database and open it everytime which is getting really old. I've tried the last four versions (not including the one released on 2001-04-16). I've tried native and builtin dlls and nothing seems to fix the problem.

It also complains about internet explorer everytime I start it, the window is "sticky" on my virtual desktop, and it will crash if I accidently click on a URL.

Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is: it works but not flawlessly. A native version would be so much better.

Re:In the tradition of grafitti of public spaces (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255383)

Enhance office productivity by automating tasks such as replying,
forwarding or sending mail and distributed mailing.

Yeah, I sent an e-mail to my friend just before turning on my "I'm on vacation" auto-reply software. The next thing I know, for 2 weeks my mailbox was exchanging "sorry but I can't answer your mail for the moment, here's what you said" messages with the auto-reply software of my friend (which happened to be on vacation too). 2.7 GB of mail to delete when I get back. Thanks for the enhanced office productivity.

Current crop of Linux office apps: FONTS SUCK!!! (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255384)

I just got thru doing a marathon week of installing and testing the latest Linux distros of: SuSE 7.1, RedHat 7.1, Mandrake 8.0, Corel LINUX OS Second Edition. IMHO the two best are SuSE and Mandrake. I was most impressed with Mandrake 8.0 and will probably settle on it as my desktop and SuSE on the servers. HOWEVER, one *big* glaring roadblock is in the way of me wanting to roll out a Linux desktop to replace Windows in my "MS Exit Strategy". StarOffice52 is good enough as an office suite. It gets the job done just adequately with one big exception. All the on-screen fonts displayed in any word processor... StarOffice, KOffice, Abiword (which blows up left and right) all these fonts are ugly as hell, They suck. What the heck do I have to do to get the on-screen fonts to look as clear as on a Windows box? Right now they look like they're drawn with big crayons and missing pixels all over the place, and looks like a complete lack of anti-aliasing. As long as the on-screen appearance of any of these office apps continues to look so damned crude, Linux will continue to fail to push Windows out of the desktop stranglehold.

Let's have something new for once... (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#255385)

The trouble with all the office suites for Linux is that they're all just half-assed clones of MS Office. How about forgetting that whole MS Office paradigm, and starting afresh? We should rethink what we really need to do in the office, and how we should do it; and then create new apps and suites around that. Too often, work and workflow is centered around the features and functionality of existing office suites, when it should be the other way around.

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (5)

Python (1141) | more than 13 years ago | (#255388)

Ugh... this is the tired old "its cheaper to run Windows because you don't need to hire a sysadmin" argument. Its simply not true. The average user is not capable of running anything more than a desktop computer poorly. Once you start to add in things like mail servers, print servers, proxy servers, firewalls and so on, you have to hire some that knows what they are doing no matter which OS you are running. So in any small business where they have a couple of servers, they end up hiring someone to run the servers anyway.

And I'm sure someone will trot out the anecdotal example of someone that knows of a company where the users are so clueful that they can run the whole show without any of those pesky sysadmins. In everyone of those cases you still need at least one person with not only the technical skill to solve problems but the time to do this while still doing their real job. Once a company starts to scale, you simply can't afford to live without dedicated resources to delegate sysadmin tasks to.

In short, there is no TOC savings with Windows because even though its easy for users to use (not nearly as easy as a Mac though) its not easy for those users to do anything other than install the simplest of software, and follow very simple instructions from the help desk(s) they will always end up calling.

So, the tired old argument about needing a sysadmin for Linux vs. Windows is very very misleading. Its the rare business that doesn't have a sysadmin or someone to call on for this task already.

Re:Looks nice (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 13 years ago | (#255389)

That never stopped the spread of DOS, despite the fact that this attitude that you attribute to Linux is just as prevalent among WinDOS users.

Re:How about their office suite (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 13 years ago | (#255390)

Take a reality pill, Gnumeric doesn't yet even do simple things that some 10 year old non-PC spreadsheets can manage. It's NOT a drop in replacement for 1-2-3 yet. It's not even a drop in replacement for StarOffice or Applix.

Re:Interesting... (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 13 years ago | (#255391)

...wasn't there some company trying to make money from selling shiny happy tools for the monster known as sendmail?

Re:How about their office suite (2)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 13 years ago | (#255392)

Your false dichotomy is hollow.

Rejecting a canyonero doesn't require rejecting a real jeep or even a grand cherokee. If you aren't going to use it, why bother paying for it?

This isn't about Office 2010 vs. vi but about Office 2010 and office '93.

Your attempts at cuteness don't address why a 1993 version of AmiPro is not suitable to the vast majority of WinDOS users at large. Any criticisms of it are still EMPTY.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Partisan (3249) | more than 13 years ago | (#255394)

Try installing e-smith. You get a totally web-based configuration for an email server, along with a bunch of other services. It's dead-simple to install and admin. [e-smith.orgtargetparent]

Or try webmin. [webmin.comtargetparent]

Re:Interesting... (1)

Partisan (3249) | more than 13 years ago | (#255395)

ACK! I hit 'submit' when I was shooting for 'preview'. Here are the correct URLS

webmin []

e-smith []

Re:Universal DB2 database requires PD korn shell (2)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 13 years ago | (#255398)

as an aside, ksh is the default shell in AIX. In fact, at least thru 4.3 sh was a symlink to ksh.

Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)

Notes Client in RNext (5)

alsta (9424) | more than 13 years ago | (#255403)

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who said that they are working on a client for RNext.

This will be made available after the release of RNext and its associated Windows/Mac clients.

But what people need to realise is that the reasons for the client taking so long, are good.

1) Lotus uses a widget set which is based on MFC. Bitch to port to Linux.

2) IBM sees little corporate strategy at this point to maintain a client for Linux, since, despite what everybody says, Windows is very dominant on the PC desktop.

3) iNotes is being pushed to be used more and more. This means that local clients may become obsolete soon. Right now the iNotes client is built on top of a bunch of MFC code, such as Windows DLLs and so forth, so it's not usable in Netscape/Linux quite yet. But it will change in the near future.

4) IBM/Lotus wants to put more effort into developing the server, rather than the client. Reason is that some people like Outlook. Others like something else. The point with Notes and especially RNext is increased interoperability for "BYOC" (Bring Your Own Client).

Just thought it might be interesting...


Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (4)

malkavian (9512) | more than 13 years ago | (#255404)

Oh, c'mon...
I've admined both NT and Linux.
I've found Linux upgrades far far easier (due to things such as ftp updates, apt-get, so on, so forth.
You could teach a newbie to keep Debian up to date.
Log in, apt-get.
Takes a little more teaching, going to each machine and doing tweaks and fiddles.

If you can't expect ports while giving source away for free, just give free binaries. That works nicely, don't you agree?
Nothing to stop that happening.
Plus, if someone ports, and tries to give it away, they're effectively copying an IBM program (same source, it's copywrite).
Giving away someone else's code as yours is a big no no in ALL licenses.

As for time to learn.. To do the job properly, an NT admin takes just as long to teach. It's not teaching them which buttons to press, it's teaching them WHY they need to press buttons/type things in in the first place!
If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be doing it.
A good admin is competent on ALL platfroms necessary to get a job done.

As for businesses having to hire a Linux admin.. Learn before you preach.
I'm a consultant (used to be full time, now part time) to many small businesses. I've installed Linux boxes for FAR less than NT licensing would cost.
The IT support techie on site gets a crash course in how to use the admin tools provided, and my phone number in case of emergencies.
And ya know what? They never call. They have a list of Linux sites, they have the books, and they learn darn fast.

However, in the main part, I work for a small company, which is one of the largest European based Web companies (yes, it's weathering the .com crash very well, thanks).
We managed a nice round 250,000,000 page VIEWS (about 5x that in hits). This was done on a pleasant 50 Debian boxes (dual pIII 500s).
They are spread out around the world in places such as India, Pakistan, USA, UK, South Africa, Australia, Newzealand. Essentially, they are administered by two people. There are guidelines to make sure that all the rest of active maintenance staff for 24x7x52 support know what to do when things go strange in any server.
All in all, there are about 7 people maintining and developing these machines, along with other projects. That includes a 24 hour support in three different shifts.
They are updated just about weekly, with the latest tested versions of various tools and so on.
One person does the updates around the world.
I'd sorely love to see NT do that, without thousands of dollars worth of extra software and configuration.
As for default installations. Do check out apt-get, and rpm installs and uninstalls.
Please, please get a clue before posting.
NT does a good job in some arenas, Linux does well in others.
I find Linux better for the tasks I have to achieve.
When you've learned both, and you're EXPERIENCED with both, please comment again.
But, learn your subject first.



Re:Interesting... (2)

hexix (9514) | more than 13 years ago | (#255405)

Heres a paragraph from the review: Companies looking to move to Linux may find that the Small Business Suite is just what they're looking for. The pricing is certainly right. The Small Business Suite runs $499.00 for a one-server license. Each user requires a license as well, which runs between $86 per seat and $133 per seat. If you don't need the whole suite, you can buy the individual components instead.

How about their office suite (5)

PD (9577) | more than 13 years ago | (#255406)

Come on big blue, we sure could use WordPro and 1-2-3 on Linux.

Re:Yes But... (2)

Bad Mojo (12210) | more than 13 years ago | (#255407)

The point is that it is written in Java and works on Solaris, AIX, and Windows. Linux support is a side effect as much as a profit making venture.

Bad Mojo []

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (3)

MSG (12810) | more than 13 years ago | (#255408)

I think your math is off, and doubt that you've dealt with MS servers recently. Let me give you my take on the situation:

- Lets say your "entrepeneur" wants support for his Linux, so he buys Red Hat Linux Professional Server. For $180 bucks he can provide file sharing, printer sharing, domain logons for Windows, mail service, etc for all of the users in his office.

- Windows 2000 professional might make a fine desktop (still crashes too often for my taste), but it will in no way provide you with a server. For that you will have to buy Windows 2000 Server with client licenses for each user. If this is a *really* small office, you might get away with 10 CAL's, and pay around $1000. You're a lot more likely to need 25 for even a small office and pay closer to $3000. On top of that, you still have to buy Exchange for email, and probably MS SBS, too. Throw in a few thousand more dollars. The cost difference for the OS is not insignificant. It could easily pay for several visits from a consultant.

- IBM's SBS isn't free, but neither is Microsoft's.

- A linux box can be set up in short order by almost any technically apt person. You probably have one on staff if you work with any number of computers, but you may not if that's not your feild. So you hire a consultant to set it up. Once done, Linux installations rarely need baby sitting. A configured box can usually be left on its own to do its job.

- Windows is not easy to "use and administer", and if you think it is, you haven't used MS SBS. For instance, adding users in SBS will create users with a default login script. However, that login script will be overwritten every time you add a user. Managers want to use MS SBS because (this is a quote from a customer) "I don't have to do things the NT way, this is simpler". What's that I hear? The NT way is too complicated? However, when working for this particular customer, we had to do most things the "NT way" because the SBS way screwed them up. Overwriting the default login script meant loosing any local changes they'd made. The only option was to add users with the standard NT user manager. I have other examples, but listing them would take so long, I'd never finish this post. And as an aside... I've *never* seen an RPM install hose a system, so I don't know what you're referring to in your "user error" comment.

- Whether Windows or Linux, your need for a dedicated admin will depend on the number of users and tasks handled by the system. It's about the same for both, and most small businesses can get by with outsourced support. The difference is that Windows will need it more often. Having serviced customers with Windows and Linux boxen, I am qualified to make that statement, and I have the experience (as opposed to your speculation) to back it up.

- It's easier and faster for me to install PostgreSQL or MySQL on Linux than MSSQL on Windows. And don't forget that MS's default installation was responsible for *many* hacks in the last several months, including Wells Fargo.

In summary, people don't buy and use MS because it's better. They buy and use MS because of FUD like yours. Them that have consultants that they *trust* frequently choose Linux.

Installing on other distros (5)

gorgon (12965) | more than 13 years ago | (#255409)

From the review:
You may be able to install SBS on another distribution that supports RPM, but folks running Debian or Slackware are probably out of luck.
Hasn't this guy heard of alien? Using alien, rpms can be turned into debs and tar.gzs. You may have have to mess around a little to find the correct libraries to meet the dependacies for IBM's Small Business Suite, but I'd be very surprised if you can't get it to work with Debian.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations ...

Re:How about their office suite (2)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255415)

So what about them sucks? What do you think they suck in comparison to? "They suck" isn't a very useful message.

As I said, I've actually used older versions of those products, and for the most part they didn't seem to suck too badly. In fact, I'd rather have used them than the competing products from Microsoft at that time.

Can you give any kind of comparative analysis as to how they stack up compared to other products out there like StarOffice 5.2, Word Perfect Office Suite 2000, KOffice or are you just some sort of troll?

Your message is so lacking in detail I can't even tell what kind of troll you might be -- rabid Microsoft fanatic, or rabid "everything must be free" fanatic...

I feel like I shouldn't be feeding the trolls here, but maybe someone else has some real answers.

Re:How about their office suite (2)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255416)

Well, at least I know what kind of "troll" you are now... :-)

That being said, if you really feel that way then why be worried if IBM was to enter the market with Lotus SmartSuite? I don't see more options and more competition as a bad thing.

I haven't looked at Abiword recently, but I have to say I've been pretty favorably impressed with Gnumeric the last couple of times I've used it (mainly to open .xls files people have sent me and to edit and print some expense reimbursement forms).

Re:How about their office suite (2)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255417)

Hey... I use vi all the time. Although I generally use Perl instead of awk these days.

That being said, I wasn't implying that evolution in software was necessarily a bad thing, rather that it isn't mandatory for a port of a peice of software to be a good thing. If a package was good at one time, it is probably still useful now, and having it available is better than not.

I'd also like to think that as software evolves, it should get better, and I am not sure that always happens. Sometimes I think that when things are just added and added and added, that a product can become worse rather than better.

Re:How about their office suite (4)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255418)

What is funny about this?

I'd actually not mind seeing those products on Linux. While I haven't used them recently (since 1996 or so), they seemed like fairly reasonable products as far as commercial product go. More options for Linux productivity software could only be a good thing.

Re:How about their office suite (4)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255419)

Does it really need to? I dunno about anyone else, but from what I see out there in the business world, most of the users barely know how to use a tiny fraction of the software they have. Most of the features in the popular software is dead weight for most people, most of the time. When it comes right down to it in general office productivity software, I'm not completely convinced that there really has been a lot of improvement in the overall capabilities of software in the past several years, and this is true of most of the big commercial vendors, not just Microsoft. Almost all of the new features I see touted in newer versions of office suites seem like they are mostly fluff to me.

Re:How about their office suite (4)

SoftwareJanitor (15983) | more than 13 years ago | (#255420)

we're two different trolls, moron

Uh, yea, like it is real easy for us to tell when you are both anonymous cowards.

- and i wasn't trolling.


lotus 1-2-3 is no competition for even gnumeric, and if your product can't stand up to a half-ass beta written by a bunch of whiskey addicted 17 year olds, it doesn't belong on the market.

I say let the market decide. And can you bother to give me more details on how 1-2-3 is inferior to Gnumeric, or am I just supposed to take your word for it. Not to belittle you, but I have no idea who the heck you are, so I can only judge your arguments by their merit or lack thereof. And your across the board assault on the character of the Gnome developers does little to lend credence to your arguments.

i don't want them to release it because i don't want some sentimental idiot like yourself getting all misty eyed over his supposed 1-2-3 l33t-4ss scripting skillz0rz and asking me to install and maintain it on a perfectly-well running linux network.

Sheesh. Who urinated in your dry breakfast cerial. Like installing a little software is such a big freaking deal for someone who obviously thinks they are cthulu's gift to sysadmins. And I've got enough experience with Linux not to believe that merely adding a piece of commercial software is going to suddently make it not 'well running'. And I'm not very sentimental about Lotus, I never really used their products that heavily.

if they did release it, it'd be closed-source anyways and therefor worse than useless.

Ah... the "everything must be free" argument. Well, I would like that in a perfect world, but in reality, life isn't so simple, and sometimes you have to deal with commercial products.

Re:but its IBM (2)

Teferi (16171) | more than 13 years ago | (#255421)

I take it that you're referring to the moribund OS/2 and not the still-living AIX...

Re:Looks nice (2)

LocoBurger (18797) | more than 13 years ago | (#255424)

Some one who would say "I'd use this if it were free" probably aren't very serious about using Linux (or any OS) for business purposes. For me at least, Linux is pretty much a hobby. I don't run a website or an "e-business" or anything; tasks that Linux is well suited for. People can, though, use Linux and know that there are enterprise level solutions for their real-world needs. And us geeks get a cool OS to hack at that actually works. Everyone wins, right?

Interesting... (3)

toofast (20646) | more than 13 years ago | (#255426)

The package looks quite complete. I wonder how much they sell it for.

It's pretty hard to beat MySQL, Sendmail, pop3d and inn when it comes to price, and often when it comes to performance also.

I only hope the big companies start making some serious money on server (and desktop) apps for Linux. Maybe then we'll see many more.

Opening URLs in Notes (4)

DenialS (21305) | more than 13 years ago | (#255427)

Make the following change and most URLs open up just fine:
  1. Click location on bottom right corner of Notes Client window
  2. Select Edit current...
  3. Select Internet Browser tab.
  4. Change Internet Browser: field to Notes to use the Lotus internal browser.
  5. Save and close.
  6. Browse with pleasure.
By the way, you get a half-decent document viewer for things like Word & WordPro documents, 1-2-3 spreadsheets and Freelance presentations, etc if you view them as attachments in your Notes messages.

Re:This isn't new... (5)

IsleOfView (23825) | more than 13 years ago | (#255428)

Helps if you actually read the article/press release. IBM isn't releasing any client software for Linux--just Notes/Domino Server, WebSphere and DB2.

Unfortunately, IBM/Lotus dropped support for Solaris with the 5.x series of the Notes client, so it is unlikely that they will now port to Linux. Anyway, I have the 5.04 Notes client running quite well under Linux with WINE [] . It's pretty feature-complete--the only problem I have at this point is launching URL's, since it tries to launch either IE, or a Windows version fo Netscape. A "real" ported client would be great (even better performance and integrated/launchable web browser), but I'm pretty happy with what I have right now...

IBM's statement about ..... (2)

the_argent (28326) | more than 13 years ago | (#255429)

While I was at LWE back in Feb. I asked several of the IBM'ers at the show what the chances of getting a native linux notes client would be.
He, (I forget his name, sorry) told me that IBM didn't feel that linux had enough of a in-road onto the desktop to warrant a port to linux.
Notes will run under wine just fine, a little slow, but fine enough to do the job. And there are instructions on the Lotus website on how to get it running under wine, so I think that we can forget getting a native client.

Re:What about notes for linux? (2)

Tower (37395) | more than 13 years ago | (#255432)

You can get the domino server at, but there is no current Linux client for Notes. You can run the Win version in Wine (or VMWare, which defeats the purpose)... but it's not quite the same thing as a native client.


Re:Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 13 years ago | (#255433)

As being a ximian thing, you can find the real development stuff through gnome channels., etc...

By taking a position of superiority you show how nearsighted you are. Thus Spake ADRA

the only thing that Linux lacks... (1)

antiher0 (41258) | more than 13 years ago | (#255436)

The only thing that Linux lacks is integration into my Dawson's Creek Trapper Keeper(TM). I sure hope this is part of IBM's porting plans!

Re:Current crop of Linux office apps: FONTS SUCK!! (3)

brucet (42348) | more than 13 years ago | (#255437)

Check out the "XFree86 Font Deuglification HOWTO" []

It led to an huge improvement the fonts on my desktop.


Re:Interesting... (1)

theMAGE (51991) | more than 13 years ago | (#255439)

Actually what is funny is that the parent article was modded "4: Insightful" while he asked a question answered in the article...

Re:Interesting... (3)

phutureboy (70690) | more than 13 years ago | (#255448)

It's pretty hard to beat MySQL, Sendmail, pop3d and inn when it comes to price, and often when it comes to performance also.

Yes, but they are godawfully difficult to administer, especially sendmail. I set up a mail server the other day for an NT manager, and he was just rolling his eyes as I tried to teach him how to handle adding users, maintaining virtusertable, aliases, .forward files, simple mailing lists, etc. He's like "this is absolutely nuts." And I have to say that I agree with him.


Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (2)

wass (72082) | more than 13 years ago | (#255449)

A Linux server takes some time and effort to learn to use and administer. It's designed for developers and people who value control and power over ease of use. RPM and apt-get have made installations a little easier, but still difficult when you compare them to...

This argument is often used to compare linux to windows migrations and that it might not be worth it. But I haven't seen anyone yet bring up the point that the upgrade to linux, or bsd, is primarily a one-time burden. After this, the systems can be upgraded to better versions of linux or bsd relatively easily. THere is no additional price charge, and also not much additional cost in terms of time or training. In winXX, however, each newer version will cost more and more $$$ anyway, which will eventually overshadow the linux/bsd switch.

Each version of windows/linux/bsd will have some differences which will have to be explained. but once businesses make that initial jump into the unix/bsd world and live, then they're in for much smoother sailing.
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V .V / _` (_-&#60_-&#60

Mmmmmmm Yummy! (2)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 13 years ago | (#255452)

I worked for an organization with a massive Lotus Notes install base. Currently, they are migrating everything to NT, in the mistaken belief that a single desktop will reduce support costs....

When they get their heads out of their asses, something like this will definately appeal to the more rational minded within the organization. Mmmmmmm. Uptime. Mmmmmmmm.

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (1)

geomon (78680) | more than 13 years ago | (#255453)

Your economics have been argued at length here and on various other forums with the same effect: Linux users will continue to seek alternatives to MSFT branded products because without them, there would be no choice to make.

You make it sound as though we haven't figured out the cost angle of migrating to Linux. Many of us are well aware of this problem; many of us made the same decision when we migrated from Mac-centric offices to MSFT-centric offices.

And now look were Apple is wrt MSFT.

I guess your is missing a few factors, isn't it?

Why??? There are more cost-effective solutions. (2)

jbuilder (81344) | more than 13 years ago | (#255457)

I'm sure I'll get mod'ed down on this, but why bother buying this? You can get VMWare for Linux workstation for 99 bucks, run Windows 98 and MS Office, for less money per seat (at the and small business level of purchasing) than this Small Business Suite for Linux.

I'm not a Microsoft shill by any means (the more I use RH 6.2 the more I realize I'm in love with Linux). And, I'm a HUGE Java advocate (and MS has done *nothing* but make my life difficult there. But Corel Office AND MSOffice appear to be far better solutions than this (especially for small business) and it's easy to make them work in Linux (thanks to VMWare).

Wanna go even cheaper? StarOffice is outstanding.. even tho Sun owns it now...

perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0- >][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'

Re:Yes But... (1)

the_great_cornholio (83888) | more than 13 years ago | (#255458)

Well, the one seat license is $499, so it's hardly as if they're giving it away--not that that isn't a fair price.

Re:What about notes for linux? (1)

frederik (86671) | more than 13 years ago | (#255459)

ok, just to make this clear .... there's no native port of Lotus Notes to Linux and according to some IBM folks I talked to at the German Linux World Expo last year IBM does not plan to port Notes to Linux due to heavy use of APIs for which no linux equivalent is available (which sounds pretty stupid to me imho but that's what those guys told me). Indeed the notes client (I guess I tried out 5.3 or something like this once) works fine under wine. The domino server has been ported to linux some time ago (afair back in early 2000 or even 99; search on /. ...) and it works well, too. It doesn't eat up as much memory as the windows version (back then when it was ported, the Lotus folks declared they had it "running" (like a snail, I guess) on 16 MBs of RAM. I never even tried to get a Domino server running on less than 256 MBs of RAM under Windows as even with that amount of memory a server with a tiny amount of users (less than 30) would go down on his knees pretty soon, if you have large DBs.

/* warning, trolling follows
btw domino sucks anyway :P

Re:In the tradition of grafitti of public spaces (1)

mr (88570) | more than 13 years ago | (#255462)

And such does not happen if you are using a BSD based vacation program and you have it configured properly.

-r interval Set the reply interval to interval days. The default is one week. An interval of ``0'' or ``infinite'' (actually, any non-numeric character) will never send more than one reply.

You have to go thru a
-i Initialize the vacation database files. It should be used before you modify your .forward file.

Universal DB2 database requires PD korn shell (1)

BierGuzzl (92635) | more than 13 years ago | (#255464)

Does anyone else feel kinda woozy about this? Or is my gotch in a knot for not reason?

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (2)

DrCode (95839) | more than 13 years ago | (#255465)

- Many business owners, when faced with the task of maintaining a computer system for the first time, would likely have to hire a Linux system adminsitrator for $30k-80k a year for even a single Linux system.

Does that same small business hire an auto mechanic full-time to care for its delivery van? Even when the business needs help, they're more than likely to have a consultant support them occasionally if they just have one or two machines. And my experience is that a Linux machine doesn't need a lot of support; it just hums along doing its job.

I also haven't found Window boxes to be quite as easy to deal with as you've claimed. I have had a user-friendly install-script trash my machine, so that it wouldn't boot. In fact, the Windows98SE upgrade, which seemed to go so smoothly, left me with an unbootable machine!

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (3)

GPFCharlie (98543) | more than 13 years ago | (#255467)

FYI - Your math is slightly skewed. Microsoft offers a small business solution [] highly similiar, that's priced signifigantly lower.

It also offers signifigantly more than the IBM Linux distro: e-mail, firewall, SQL. Apparently you can go up to 50 clients, but then you hit a hard block. But the pricing is much different than outlined above:

$1,499 for server and 5 CALs then $299 for 5 more CALs or $999 for 20 more CALs

So, figure for a business of 50 employees, you're talking about $3,800 total for the software.

Mind you, this isn't including hardware, support, etc., but it's signifigantly lower than the $8000+ mentioned earlier. And the IBM Linux offering doesn't offer an e-mail or firewall solution that I could tell (at least not from the review.)

Food for thought...

Re:Server Tools (2)

outrage98 (99696) | more than 13 years ago | (#255468)

Kudos to IBM. This is bound to be a bit controvercial, but I believe that IBM is the most socially open of all the closed software houses.

Oh, for god's sake! Shit for brains! What is "socially open" exactly? Somewhere some IBM marketing intern is reading your post and laughing so hard he's got Evian up his nose.

Please deal with your cranio-rectal insertion issues somewhere else. (And read this [] and this [] while you're at it.)

Re:Looks nice (2)

mobets (101759) | more than 13 years ago | (#255469)

And that is exactly why no big company realy wants to port to linux...


Re:Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (4)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 13 years ago | (#255470)

In order for non-commercial operating systems to succeed, they must deliver competitive software in the following areas:

  1. Single User applications (mail readers, etc.)
  2. Games
  3. Content delivery daemons (apache)
  4. Group-oriented corporate programs

The first 3 fields are being actively conquered. Sure, there's much room for improvement, but hey -- we've come a long way, baby. The fourth segment is the most crucial for truly capturing the corporate market. Apps like Outlook still remain essentially untouched by the open source movement. (I believe /. did a story on this some time ago). It's still the area which needs the most improvement.

Yes - for corporate adoption, groupware is critical. But tings aren't as bad as you make out. From the commercial side, Lotus Notes Domino server runs on Linux - while much villified and hated, it does fulfil the needs of collaborative groupware. On the Outlook/Outlook Express front, take a look at the abilities of Evolution (GNOME project) - this is getting close to a 1.0 release and has the integrated email/calendar/timekeeping tools needed for groupware.


Toby Haynes

Re:Yes (1)

jallen02 (124384) | more than 13 years ago | (#255471)

Haha, CmdrTaco says post your opinon, he didnt like it, and he got flamebait moderated. Go figure.

I didnt even see the subject, it must be a Linux product tho :)

Re:Yes But... (2)

anotherone (132088) | more than 13 years ago | (#255474)

Not profitting hasn't stopped companies like


Re:Server Tools (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 13 years ago | (#255475)

They [IBM] are enthusiastic Linux supporters.

No they aren't. They are enthusiastic shareholder supporters. Reducing costs by not being beholden to one OS provider is just good business. Next, they are enthusiastic customer supporters. If customers want Linux apps, they'll deliver. Serving the customer is their business and ties in closely with the goal of serving shareholers.

I doubt Linux is high on their real priorities, if it's even on the list. It just so happens that Linux serves the means to their ends right now. When it ceases to do that, they will no longer support it, nor should they.

Blind allegiance to the Free Software ideology wouldn't serve stockholders or customers in the long run. There are some very obvious examples of this, but I need not mention them...

Don't worry... (3)

CptnHarlock (136449) | more than 13 years ago | (#255476)

It's just a minor glitch in the matrix.. ;-) .. It's just a minor glitch in the matrix.. ;-) ..

$HOME is where the .*shrc is

Re:How about their office suite (1)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 13 years ago | (#255477)

I tried Abiword but it kept croaking on me. Still needs some work. Until the frustration level associated with using it diminishes to the point I can explore its features without trashing my document I think I'll stick with WordPerfect. Yes, it has crashed a time or two, but not often.

Re:but its IBM (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 13 years ago | (#255478)

OS/2 and NT are actualy the same OS. Yes, there are some surface diffrences, but down deep, they're the same. MS and IBM developed OS/2 for years. When the deal broke up, IBM and MS took what code they had and pushed them to compete with each other. Thats why OS/2 and NT have "binary compatiblity" with each other.


Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (5)

hardburn (141468) | more than 13 years ago | (#255479)

I'm something of a jack-of-all-computer-trades at the small bussiness I work at, and that includes system administration.

Our one file server is currently a GNU/Linux box (Debian), but the PHB wanted to move it to Windows 2000. Why? "Because it's stable and I can take care of it if you're gone" he said (I'm still in college and do this work part-time). My boss knows just enough about Windows to shoot himself in the foot.

And so he goes and gets a consultant to put Win 2000 on it, who shows my boss the price tag for Win 2000 Server (for the number of users we need, it costs more then the server itself orginaly cost). When my boss saw this, he said "um, lets get Win NT 4.0 instead". Great idea! Get an OS even the Microserfs say is a piece of crap!

So we see here how much support can be important. My PHB was willing (for better or for worse; probably worse) to put up with an inferior server OS just because of support. I hope he knows that, because he'll be needing that support with NT 4.0!

IMHO: I have quite a bit of background in trying to get Win9x systems to work (I'm not yet willing to give up gaming). I found myself constantly having problems getting somethings to work on Win 2000 (little things, mostly; setting up network settings, installation, driver support, etc.). I've never worked with it before in any detail, but from what I've heard, NT 4.0 would be even worse in this regard. For someone like my boss, who only what I would consider basic knoweldge of Win9x, these diffrences are bound to make support through him much more difficult.


Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (5)

ILikeRed (141848) | more than 13 years ago | (#255481)

That's pretty poor math:

- Windows is not free, but a Windows 2000 Professional license costs about $200.

-Windows 2000 Pro is for workstations - you can not run server software on it. Here are real prices from CDW:

Windows 2000 Server - 5user ~$860
Windows 2000 Server - 10user ~$1,290
Windows 2000 Advanced server - 25 user ~$3,400
Additional Client access - per 10 users ~$1,100

Next... you need backup software.
CA Arcserve 2000 Backup - $507
Now... The backup addition for MS SQL
CA Arcserve SQL Agent - $580
Now... don't forget the defragmentor - you want to compare Windows with Linux after all...
Diskeeper v6 - $290

So, figuring for a company of 50, you would need 2000 advanced server + 3 X Additional client access licenses + backup software + SQL Agent + Diskeeper v6
for... $8077 That is a bit more than $200 you glossed over.

\ Now that company could invest that, plus the consultant fees to install, and figure it will last ~2 to 4 years before they will be forced to upgrade by Microsoft, plus the cost of support over a phone, the bosses time talking to some idiot on tech support that treats him like an idiot, the cost of downtime, and if we want to do a true comparison, how does this guy ever upgrade? How do you test a new system. You have to buy a complete second server, with all the licensing. With Linux, you can install multiple copies, and just give them different ports for testing. I have had 4 copies of Apache running on a single Linux server. One was my production system, the 3 others were new versions with different options. I never had to restart the server to set it up, and when I found and tested the version I liked best, I deleted two copies, put the version I liked into production, and changed the port number of the previous working copy and kept it around for a few months until I felt even more confident about my choice. How do you do that with Windows and IIS? You buy 4 servers!!!

That is why I can not figure out how this got modded up to 5. And why the smart business owner will not invest money in renting software that will not be around for very long, but instead will invest in the salary of a good employee or invest in a business relationship with a consulting company that will help his company for years to come.

Re:Current crop of Linux office apps: FONTS SUCK!! (2)

Hekman (145075) | more than 13 years ago | (#255482)

The current versions of XFree86 support TrueType fonts, and in my experience, TTF on Linux look wonderful...Try downloading the newest version of XF86 and compile it, then move all your fonts from a Windows box onto the Linux box, and you'll find that using Linux is a much more pleasant experience...

Looks nice (4)

Srin Tuar (147269) | more than 13 years ago | (#255483)

I'd buy a copy it is was Free.

Re:Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (1)

YetAnotherDave (159442) | more than 13 years ago | (#255486)

>>Apps like Outlook still remain essentially untouched by the open source movement

That's cuz most open-source coders would die of
shame if their names were hung ont something as
ugly as outlook/exchange

Re:Looks nice (1)

cfleming (161451) | more than 13 years ago | (#255487)

Because we can't speak English or because we want everything free.

What about notes for linux? (5)

revelation0 (164235) | more than 13 years ago | (#255489)

IBM has spent a lot of time getting their apps in the door on linux, I just wish now that we have the lotus notes server on linux, we could also get a port of the client as well. The groupware suite is one of the killer apps, and what I notice half of everyone's time is spent in at the office. Notes is already well recognized in the corporate environment, so when can we get it already???

Revelations 0:0 - The beginning of the end

Re:How about their office suite (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 13 years ago | (#255492)

Thats just simply not true.

I am trying to find a decent replacement for Word 9x, and Abiword has nowhere near the level of functionality that word has.

For thing, the most recent copies I have seen do not support much for tables, advanced positioning, advanced paragraph wrapping, decent bulleting/indentation, grammar checking, etc etc.

AbiWord is an interesting product, but lets not kid ourselves and say that the functionality is on par with Word 95. Its not true, in my opinion. I look forward to throwing out my $100 copies of Word for AbiWord, but that day isnt here yet.

Why IBM supports only SuSE, RH, Turbolinux,Caldera (5)

firewort (180062) | more than 13 years ago | (#255493)

IBM has a required number of languages to translate for: this grab-bag of distros includes the two IBM has contracts with (Caldera and RH), and includes the other two that support many other languages (SuSE = germany, Turbolinux = Chinese)

Now, when you charge $500 to $20,000 for Software (when I pay that much, the S is capitalized, and the 20,000 number comes from some of the WebSphere stuff) there darn well better be support.

If this means they have to rule out a few distros as being on the support list, so be it. EVERY IBM linux software goes through the IBM Linux compatibility testing, to see that it works on other distros, and what sys requirements and dependencies exist. These Software can probably be made to work on Debian and others, but if they don't, or if they break, don't expect support. If you're spending $500 on this, you probably can also spend the bucks on a machine to use just for that software with a supported distro, if you don't want to move your main machine to that distro.

This will probably dissolve into a good old fashioned distro flamewar on /. but I think it ought not to- there are four distros to choose from that are supported, if you can't pick one you like out of four just because it isn't your favorite one at home, lump it.

A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close

Office (4)

Nakoruru (199332) | more than 13 years ago | (#255495)

I wonder if its even possible for an alternat office suite to gain a foothold in the market place. It't not just Microsoft Office's incredible market share on both Windows and Mac computers, but also its mindshare and what people are used to using.

It seems to me that in order for another office suite to truly succeed, it will have to be almost exactly like Office, just like KDE and Gnome became popular by copying all the best stuff from Windows. Thats not flamebait, its just that one thing that Linux needs to survive is familiarity to those who would switch.

The problem is just how to make Linux friendly and familiar without just ripping of all of Microsofts good ideas (which many would argue that they ripped off from someone else, but thats not my point).

My point is that its a vicious circle. You can't get people to use your software if its not familiar (meaning, just like MS), but if its just like MS then why bother (and don't tell me because its free as in beer, no way could you make an office suite as comprehensive as Office without paying someone)

Re:How about their office suite (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 13 years ago | (#255496)

Abiword looks great...but that was BeOS that I tried it on....and almost everything looks pretty good on it... As for functionality, it was pretty much on par w. Office 95.....pretty good for free...


Which toolkit? (2)

Z4rd0Z (211373) | more than 13 years ago | (#255497)

I'm curious what toolkit they used to develop this. It would really suck if it was yet another StarOffice-like resource hog that uses java or some such crap. Seriously, why are companies coming out with these suites that don't integrate with anything else on the desktop?

Also, since this is a proprietary application that requires licensing fees, what advantage does one gain by running it on Linux over Windows? Really, what's the point?

Sigh.. (5)

OblongPlatypus (233746) | more than 13 years ago | (#255500)

It took quite a bit of guessing -- and cursing -- before I found the step that I had missed. Unfortunately, the errors the Installer generated weren't too helpful, and seemed to indicate that I had run out of disk space - with 8 GB to spare, I knew that wasn't the problem. Once I had figured out the real culprit, everything worked like a charm.
Reviewers do this way too often. Describe a big messy problem in the install process, but fail to add the short line pointing out the mistake they made. Way to go, now everyone gets to make the same mistake!

Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (2)

Bonker (243350) | more than 13 years ago | (#255501)

I've been thinking about this, and I beleive that one should seriously consider the benifits to this software before installing:

Let's do the math, shall we?

- Linux itself is free, depending on how you got your distribution. If you downloaded it, or got it from a friend, then yes, it didn't cost you anything. Otherwise, you paid a nominal fee for manuals and packaging from one of the for-profit vendors. I've seen these run anywhere from $7 - $75, depending on what you get.

- Windows is not free, but a Windows 2000 Professional license costs about $200. I think that's an upgrade fee. This may become quite a bit more expensive with the .Net-style leasing program that Microsoft wants to introduce.

- SBS is almost certainly *not* free, if I know IBM. Even if it is free, they'll have to make it free for all platforms since you can't really realease source without expecting ports.

- A Linux server takes some time and effort to learn to use and administer. It's designed for developers and people who value control and power over ease of use. RPM and apt-get have made installations a little easier, but still difficult when you compare them to...

- A Windows box, which takes very little time to learn to use and administer. Installshield installations are uniformly bad, but rarely go wrong and trash a system or application due to user error.

- Many business owners, when faced with the task of maintaining a computer system for the first time, would likely have to hire a Linux system adminsitrator for $30k-80k a year for even a single Linux system.

- This probably would not be the case with a Windows system. Even MSSQL server has a default installshield installation which makes it usuable by most off-the-shelf applications which require database connectivity. Here, I'm thinking about the basic helpdesk and inventory packages I've seen. Trackit-Pro and McCafee helpdesk both install on default MSSQL installations if I'm not mistaken.

It looks like our Windows-based small business may pay more initially for a small-business type solution, but probably won't have as high a total cost of ownership as our Linux-based small business, assuming low, but equal knowledge of computer systems and operating-systems.

Assuming that our entrepeneur is also a Linux hacker, he could probably make this work, but the bottom line here is that most small business owners will probably have an easier and less expensive time in the long run if they set up Windows-based systems.

This boils down to the fact that most Linux distributions are still geared toward development purposes while Microsoft has been busy making sure that the business world gets what they need and want from Redmond.

Take a note, Linux developers.

but its IBM (3)

abcbooze (245097) | more than 13 years ago | (#255502)

IBM has been known to look for alternatives from MS. They've develeoped their own OS before that died a horrible death. I want to see some of the other prefabs offer linux solutions such as gateway, compaq, HP, etc.

Re:What about notes for linux? (1)

anon757 (265661) | more than 13 years ago | (#255504)

Dont be stupid. There is a java notes client installed with domino server. it's not advertised, but if you find it you can run it. And even if you're too dumb to find a java file in a directory, you can access any notes database over the web (as long as you enable it)with the same notes interface.

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (5)

markmoss (301064) | more than 13 years ago | (#255506)

I don't agree with "A Windows box, which takes very little time to learn to use and administer." True, the Windows PC comes out of the box more or less ready to run -- but then you've got to get it hooked into the corporate network, load applications, and download updates to Windows and the applications. And there seem to be many different ways to cause a program to start itself up, so if the computer vendor or a stupid user gets something undesirable launching itself, it can be quite a job tracking it down and eliminating it. So it takes 2-4 hours to bring a new box up to the corporate standard here -- except now and then something weird happens and it takes days.

But you aren't done! Windows systems mutate themselves. Sometimes users are to blame, but I have seen my own system repeatedly go from one set of network drivers installed to three, without me ever telling it to load anything more. Then there are the really strange bugs that make permanent settings changes so well hidden that even MS tech support often can't figure out how to restore them. And those lovely MS undocumented features... For instance, every few months Outlook freezes here. It hits one person at a time, but eventually gets everyone. First couple of times, tech support told us to reformat and reinstall. Finally, someone discovered that you could fix it by logging on to each box as administrator, opening each address book in Outlook, and scrolling through them from top to bottom. This includes both locally stored personal address books and the corporate address book on the server. WTF?

So, at best Windows requires re-installs twice a year, or 4-8 hours a year per box. That's with the best users, who don't ask stupid questions, don't change system settings or install strange software on their own, and don't open executable attachments until they are sure about the source. And not too many users fit into that category -- engineers have to install all sorts of CAD and image-processing software, which often conflict with each other, while the salesmen somehow repeatedly put viruses into the e-mail system in spite of the best virus checkers. I don't see how I could get a virus in if I _wanted_ to, but these idiots do it every few weeks...

I don't know much about Linux, but I'm pretty sure you can get the setup correct and then lock the system down so neither naive users nor malfunctioning software is going to do lasting damage. And Linux can be hit by viruses, but Windows and Outlook seem to have been designed to multiply the possible entry points...

As for training, I don't know how hard it is to train Linux users, but if you've got a good, stable GUI and set of applications installed, how much harder can it be to teach that than explaining to a 55 year old clerk that you click Start to stop? Windows looks intuitive only to those that have been using it for so long they forgot what it took to learn the ropes in the first place.

Server Tools (3)

gus goose (306978) | more than 13 years ago | (#255508)

Kudos to IBM. This is bound to be a bit controvercial, but I believe that IBM is the most socially open of all the closed software houses. They have stated their intentions, and have clearly started a concerted effort to deliver. They are enthusiastic Linux supporters.

Most of the components of their Suite have been released before in individual parcels, but the real news here is the delivery mechanism. Bundling them together with an installer is the key point. If there is an easier to use installer for packages, including remote distribution of packages, this is a GOOD THING.

The other newsworthy piece I get from the links is the inclusion of server hosted applications. These have been available for a while in Unix environments with remote X servers, but this brings the actual processing to the client, and reduces server load while at the same time allowing for central software control.

As an administrator, this is attractive.

As a side note, this just re-inforces Linux in it's role as a server rather than a desktop.

Re:What about notes for linux? (5)

r_j_prahad (309298) | more than 13 years ago | (#255509)

Lotus Notes 5.0 runs quite well under Wine on Linux. IE browser integration is broken for obvious reasons. It also doesn't exit cleanly, but there is a workaround for that minor annoyance. Complete step-by-step instructions are available several places on the web, including Lotus' own site (below).

Yes, I know, I'd rather have a native port too, but I have work to do and this lets me use Linux to do it. The alternative is far less appealing. llpublic/2D96D32F0ED19D26852569DD0067B3D0?opendocu ment

Re:Which toolkit? (2)

mech9t8 (310197) | more than 13 years ago | (#255510)

Seriously, why are companies coming out with these suites that don't integrate with anything else on the desktop?

Perhaps they're afraid to offend users of the rejected desktop suite (ie. perhaps they're afraid KDE users won't use a Gnome app, Gnome users won't use a KDE app...)
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

Re:Universal DB2 database requires PD korn shell (3)

Chakat (320875) | more than 13 years ago | (#255511)

You're probably getting worked up for nothing. DB2 simply needs the scripting features of the Korn shell, don't have the program so I don't know why. The P(ublic) D(omain) Korn shell is simply the shell program they decided to throw in. Nothing evil about it

Interoperability (3)

head-explody (327880) | more than 13 years ago | (#255512)

The key component, at least in my mind, is how interoperable it is. How does this office suite handle things from Office for Windows? Like it or not, most of the business desktops in the world use Office 97 or 2000, and if you can't easily open Word files (Let alone Excel, Powerpoint, and Access) then this office suite will fail. Opening in text-only is no good, since then you'll lose all the nice formatting that some poor cubicle drone put together. (and if you don't think the look and feel of a document isn't more important then the content, then you should try working support in an corporate office!)
Anybody have any thoughts? I really want this to succeed.

Coincidence or ... (2)

Magumbo (414471) | more than 13 years ago | (#255514)

The font they use (as rendered on my machine) makes it look like two of the key features are "sewer administration", and "sewer access".

This seems fitting to me considering the enterprise, emarketing, ecrap they're spewing forth.

IBM Small Business Server for Linux delivers an integrated, full-featured web solution designed for small businesses seeking to put their business on the web.


Re:Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (1)

Publicus (415536) | more than 13 years ago | (#255515)

Care to give a url for the Evolution project?
Not that I won't find it eventually, but it'd be nice...


You shall listen to all sides and filter them from your self.

Re:Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#255516)

Games ? Single User apps ?

Only if you are trying to compete with Windows.
I mean, I don't know of any worthwhile games or single user apps ( home apps) running on Solaris and yet this OS is considered to be quite successful.

Re:Installing on other distros (2)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#255520)

Well, sign of things to come.
More and more commercial companies will package their products using RPMs and unwillingly
( or willingly) contribute to growth of RedHat and related distributions.
Not that there is anything wrong with that, companies hate uncertainity and increased costs of customer support.

prefab linux (1)

mrericn (446447) | more than 13 years ago | (#255521)

I got a Pogo Linux [] box, a couple months ago. I love it. I really enjoyed tinkering with hardware when I was young, but I don't have the time or money to burn anymore. I hope companies like pogo can keep on making it easy for normal people to shed their Chains That Bind (a M$ tm product).

Re:Small Business Suite for Linux vs. Windows (2)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 13 years ago | (#255522)

You've got it all wrong -- here's how those small businesses operate:

A) They limp along with a bunch home computers they bought at "The Good Guys" and their AOL accounts until that doesn't scale any more.

B) They call the local computer store on the corner. For about $5000, the guy sells them a box running "Microsoft Small Business Server" which is a bundle of Exchange, Proxy Server, and SQL Server. He also sets them up a domain and maybe gets DSL installed. He installs a nightly reboot script and sits back waits for them to get hacked or otherwise have him rebuild the whole thing.

Now imagine if the computer guys specs out and sells them a Linux server for $3000. It runs the usual firewalling, MTA, IMAP server, HTTP server and so on. For $100/month, he'll telnet in and remote administration and upgrades. This kills Microsoft's 'entry market' solution

But of course, just about the only thing worse than a bundle of Microsoft crap that you could drop on a small business would be Lotus Domino running on some form of Unix. Not only is a product purely designed for large businesses with in house developers, it costs $100/seat. Leave it to IBM to find a way to do that and screw a great market opportunity.

Blah... people are right (1)

kypper (446750) | more than 13 years ago | (#255523)

I need to stop reading these half-asleep.

Lotus would be nice ported to Linux, yes. The rest, well... self-explanitory.

*points to head* this space for rent.

This isn't new... (2)

kypper (446750) | more than 13 years ago | (#255524)

Look at KOffice? I mean, that's an impressive clone for KDE 2! Staroffice is another good one. (go SUN)
People hype new applications way too much .There are many GOOD alternatives to Microsoft Office.

Next Step for Commercial Linux Software (4)

zoombah (447772) | more than 13 years ago | (#255526)

In order for non-commercial operating systems to succeed, they must deliver competitive software in the following areas:

1) Single User applications (mail readers, etc.)
2) Games
3) Content delivery daemons (apache)
4) Group-oriented corporate programs

The first 3 fields are being actively conquered. Sure, there's much room for improvement, but hey -- we've come a long way, baby. The fourth segment is the most crucial for truly capturing the corporate market. Apps like Outlook still remain essentially untouched by the open source movement. (I believe /. did a story on this some time ago). It's still the area which needs the most improvement.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?