×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

465 comments

Weird stuff (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379440)

I served 66-68, various units, and during 68, I was Army Rangers. During My first tour, with the 82nd AB, I had a really good buddy Keith, who was killed, his body was never found. During my days in the Rangers we would do these things called LRRPS, Long Range Recon PAtrols, we would have 2 to 4 or more men, sometimes had Nung Mercenaries, or ARVIN, basically look into things. While we had a 4 man team, 1 guy carried our radio, and a few days into the patrol, we were ambushed and caught in a crossfire, 2 of us got away, the 2 men, 1 who had the radio were dead. The 2 of us, got the hell out of the area ASAP. About 3 days after that, we were supposed to get to the LZ and make our trip home, we missed it, we tried for the secondary LZ, missed it, were were MIA. Now your probably wondering what has this got to do with a ghost, while 5 weeks in the jungle, walking around hoping to god that we would run into an american patrol, but instead, a platoon of NVA regulars had to do, we couldn't run, they were too close, the two of us just laid there and waited until they were close enough so our shots would count, this firefight killed my pal, and shot me up real bad, I lost so much blood, I passed out. When I came to I was in the same place, my dead pal laying there, I knew the NVA went through our pockets and stripped us, my watch was gone, and so were my boots, and our weapons and what ever they could use. Now I should be dead, I was there for a 2 days before a patrol found me, during that whole time, I saw Keith, he watched me, didn't say nothing, just kind of hunkered down. I felt a strange feeling, while he was there I felt safe, like everything was going to be ok. I wasn't spooked, like I said I felt really safe. The doctors said it was a God Damn Miracle I made it. When I went home, I went to Keith's Mother and fathers house, told them the story. His mother and father gave me this looked like she understood everything I said. It was strange and I still don't know if it really happened, it was that strange.

Viet Nam is Gay (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379503)

jungle faggots deserved every drop of napalm we could give 'em

Demon froze up our AOL computer! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379541)

The girl had listen to him and had declared to him the figure in black robes was a demon aspersion. Now of course, now determined to vanquish what was hurting and haunting the boy, they began to plan how to remove the demon. The entity assumed not wanting to leave attempted at all extents to cease all conversation between the to of them. It would change volume,fuz up, and breath in phone lines. The 2 then would try to talk over AOL (AKA aohell ), but the demon would still, try to stop their conversation by freezing their computars.It then could go house to house and back again as it pleased to assault its victioms.It did this threw slaming,paralyzing,tempature changes, unsettling feelings,ect It had mingled and became entangled in the boys aura a # of times when in attempt to possess him. The foul spirit had oddly known bolth boy and girls weaknesses; the boys back, and the girls ribs-wich gave it yet another advantage. On the third night of torture the boy, without permission of the girl, had taken the demon inside. Why did this entity antagonize them? What was it that let it there? who was it? What was its modives.. that we may never know for now it sleeps, it lays low in the boys body caged and enclosed in the boys body?

I win (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379442)

I win. Eat it.

You win a fat cock in your face!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379498)

Come on, open up and suck it!!

You know you want it!!

You have been itching for a good skull fuck!!

TODAY is YOUR lucky day biatch!!

I love staroffice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379446)

and star office hates OFFICE 2000/XP!

Re:I love staroffice (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379614)

This article really is "News for Turds"

ISLAM (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379455)

Forgive this. But I will not forget.

Our dead cry out in tortured horror:
Kill all Muslims.
Kill all Mohammedans.
Kill all Arabs.
Kill all Towel Heads.
Kill all Camel Jockeys.
Kill all Sand Niggers.
Kill all Dune Coons.
Kill all Islam.
Nuke their countries to hell.
Nuke them again.
Death to Islam.
I piss on Mecca. I spit on the Koran. I shit on Mohammed.

You don't have to be a Kreskin to predict Osama bin Laden's future

And to all you Abdul Mohammed Al-Jaraazi Abdullah Mustafuh Atta Quadaphi Fuck-Head Al-Towel-Rag:

Your "God" is our "Satan," have fun burning you scum. You disgusting animals, you will be a fresh farm of much needed organs for people who need livers and hearts, but I personally would rather die than receive a heart or liver from your satanic self.

Hey, Ayatollah towel heads, you will be sent to heaven to meet your maker. (That would be Satan)

I have no ability to stop my hatred towards you Ayatollahs, you better not peep out like a mushroom in a festering swamp lest I shoot your vile head off and harvest your organs for people who need them and cremate your vile self for crop fertilizer.

Re:ISLAM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379636)

I was in a mechanized Infantry company in Germany back in 1989-1991. We use what is called a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, it weighs about 51,000 pounds and looks like a tank. We were doing live fire exercises at night and we finished about 2 am. I was driving a Bradley in a convoy of about 10 other Bradley's, returning to the motor pool. The drivers used a large night vision scopes to see by (it's like watching green TV) and the Bradley commanders use one that attaches to their helmets. While driving a commanders is to stand on his seat so that half of his body is outside of the vehicle, so that he'll have a better view of the surroundings. At about 3 am, I saw a man standing by the dirt road we were traveling on. I figured he was one of the German range patrolman and that he was just waiting for us to pass. Right after the Bradley in front me passed, this (man) walked right out in to the dust of that Bradley. I hit the brakes to avoid hitting him. At exact moment my commander said watch out but it was to late. I new I must have had hit him, I didn't see him come out on either side. My commander then asked me if I had seen a man walk out in front of us too. I said yes, and then he said that he had too. But when he turned around to check for a body, there wasn't one any where on the road. This dirt road was about 50 feet across and when we returned to the motor pool, took a flashlight and checked the whole front end and found nothing, no blood, no piece of clothing there was nothing.

Got in secretly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379457)

Got in ha ha, nothing to see my ass!

Is this necessary? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379467)

Why does slashdot always alternate between poorly researched , poorly written or old recycled news!!

THIS styory was already seen a few days ago in Yahoo! This story was taken almost word for word!!!!

What's da dillio yo!!

This is not a TROLL, this is the truth... see it for yourself

Yahoo! [yahoo.com] had the story 3 days ago!!

Moderators fear the truth (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379529)

This has gone on long enough!!

Stand up you spineless chicken-shit nerds
STAND UP OR LET SLAPDASH DIE!

BSD is dying ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379469)

you know the rest...

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379473)

foist powst!!!

goodness gracious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379476)

this is surely the greatest news i've ever heard. i'll now be able to crash my linux box at will with just the mere click of a mouse.

Re:goodness gracious (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379623)

jesus, it took over ten minutes for the troll mod. are the moderators all busy wanking today?

Office XP (2, Troll)

talonyx (125221) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379477)

Shelled out a myriad of cash for Microsoft's Office XP, a few weeks ago.

Despite how much you might hate the company, this is one hell of a product. Launches in seconds, takes up scant amounts of ram, hasn't crashed yet. It's going to be a tough one to beat... especially since every area where it excels (no pun intended), Staroffice falls behind (what a hog!).

Whatever happened to it having been released open source? Where is GStarOffice with GTK+ widgets and Gnome integration? At least KOffice works well with the rest of the KDE apps...

Re:Office XP (1)

krogoth (134320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379552)

I've had a few crashes, Access is the slowest piece of software i've ever seen (when's the last time it took your software a few seconds on an Athlon 1.2GHz to perform simple calculations on a 300x3 table?)... I find it hard to believe that it takes little RAM. I do like the move away from MDI though.

As for the SO6 download being slow... i'm saturating my 1.5Mbps DSL line with 3 simultaneous downloads.

Re:Office XP (5, Informative)

Steve Luzynski (3615) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379562)

Scant amounts of ram?

Someone mod this +1, Funny, please.

I'm running Office XP right now. Outlook is currently using 23M of RAM. Word is using 28M. (Windows 2000 + Office XP)

Word doesn't even have a file open, not even a blank file.

I don't count that as 'scant amounts'.

And it loads quick because that "Microsoft Office" icon in your startup menu preloads most of the thing during your boot/login process where you think it's normal for your disk to be thrashing itself apart.

Re:Office XP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379612)

Wow, you truly are a moron.

Re:Office XP (2, Informative)

Trelane (16124) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379621)

Really? Interesting.

I guess, if it worked for IE, why not Office?

Make your stuff *appear* to load faster, even though the slow part is at the beginning and consumes RAM even when inactive. Whee!

Re:Office XP (1)

sampson (33383) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379690)

i'm running outlook 2002 right now at work (that's outlook XP, no?) and it's taking up only 8.2MB... 2MB when it's minimized. i'm not sure how you managed to get the 23MB number, maybe it's the porn attachments you have or something *shrug*

Re:Office XP (0)

GreenBugsBunny (160180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379580)


Despite how much you might hate the company, this is one hell of a product


I agree, I just wish they would play nice with others so people who choose not to use their platform could still work with people who do. I don't expect them to release MS-OfficeLinux anytime soon (or ever, for that matter), I only wish that they either open up their document format or use a more standard one (XML would be good).

Re:Office XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379607)

Launches in seconds, takes up scant amounts of ram, hasn't crashed yet.

Yeah, riiiight. Try running Outlook. First, takes 6 MB of ram, thats acceptable. But it crashes many times DAILY for me. I think the updates released actually made it less stable. Try it out. Everything else is quite stable though, but all I want to know is what's up with Outlook...

(Posted anonymously to protect the shame of admitting I run Office, and even worse, Outlook. But I have all the updates, so don't hate me TOO much :))

Re:Office XP (0, Offtopic)

indiigo (121714) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379668)

The MSKB had over 400 "issues" upon release of Office XP. It's now well above 2000.

Re:Office XP (5, Insightful)

John Fulmer (5840) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379670)

Please note that Office (any flavor) does not take "scant amounts of ram". Rather, it hides ram used in the system memory used column, and actually preloads many if not most of the Office specific DLL's on boot up, whether you want them or not. The memory that appears to be used by Office, is only the glue code that links the DLL/OLE/NET components together.

The reason that Office appears to launch almost instantanously, is that most of it was already loaded on bootup.

Just a clarification...

jf

Office 2000 just as good (3, Interesting)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379696)

I'm an ardent support of Office itself (one of three really good MS products nowadays, along with the latest version of IE and the service pack 2 release of Windows 2000). However, I was sorely disappointed by the "improvements" offered by Office XP.

A lot of what was in it was already offered in Office 2000 (an underrated application suite) without the messy product activation. I recommend if you can get a copy of Office 2000, do so. It's very stable and runs like a champ.

SO (2, Informative)

crumbz (41803) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379479)

StarOffice kicks ass apart from some file interoperability problems. But that just might be me. I think I'll wait awhile before I try 6.0.

First Post! (1, Funny)

Lunastorm (471804) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379481)

Now that StarOffice is going to be released soon, I feel that we truly have a competitor against MS Office.
I am happy they rid StarOffice of the terrible interface from 5.2 and are focusing on the applications themselves, which all look fantastic!
My only wish is that they would have anti-aliased fonts, and maybe something like FrontPage, but those aren't as important as having a professional office suite on Linux. Now the WAR against Microsoft can be won.

Competitor (3, Insightful)

Red Aardvark House (523181) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379601)

StarOffice could be a strong competitor to Office if for nothing other than the price. At $479.00 a head, this adds up awfully quickly. Not to mention saving on upgrade fees in the future.

We shall see if corporations are ready to give up some functionality (admittedly, MS Office is still the one to beat there) to save on costs.

With MS raising the price, it might come to pass.

MS support... (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379499)

from the article: The new version of StarOffice is simplified to make file exchange easier. The software has support for XML file formats; more robust Microsoft Office import and export filters, including support for Office XP; and redesigned dialog boxes, new templates and graphics.


will the "more robust support" actually be decent enough for serious transfers between my Word documents? Also an important feature would be importing WordPerfect8 files. I have 100's of papers written in WP8 and for me to switch over would require filters for that. Anyone know anything about that?

I am going to try it as soon as I see some more information (the website was lacking what I really wanted to know).

I really hope I can ditch WP8 (although it is still the best for what I need) and run something more up-to-date :)

Enjoy the download :)

Re:MS support... (2)

ryanw (131814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379549)

This is actually one of the things that kinda' upsets me also. Everyone is making a big deal at how it doesn't open Word Documents very well.... Well HECK, there isn't ANY support for opening WordPerfect documents. Being that this product is "OpenSource" wouldn't you think they'd throw in as many filters as possible to make it more competitive? I don't understand that. Could someone enlighten us, Please?

Simple answer: Simple text! (4, Insightful)

jiheison (468171) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379583)

Seriously, there are few things that annoy me more than receiving a Word document from someone. Rarely, if ever, is there any justification for not simply using a plain old ASCII text file. They are smaller, platform independant and if formatted correctly, no harder to read.

Re:Simple answer: Simple text! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379712)

Yes agreed.

People don't understand that Word documents don't make sense to send via email or what have you. I recently sent a company my resume and they sent me back a Word document. I forwarded it to my friend and went to read it on his computer... It was like 5 lines and basically said "yeah thanks for sending that resume we'll look at it someday"... Anyone who would even think to send that in anything other than plain text should be executed

Problems with StarOffice (2, Informative)

dafoomie (521507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379500)

Well, the problems faced by many is the ability to read/write to Word 2000/XP format. Some companies tried to make the switch but couldn't share documents very well with other departments/companies. Best they did in StarOffice 5 was Word 97. It would be a lot more successful if it could do that. It's not Word or Office by a longshot but is Office really worth $400 when you can get this for nothing? It's still pretty good.

Double Standards (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379510)

People complain when Microsoft releases a browser for free and undercuts Netscape. However, Sun releases an office suite for free (obviously to undercut Microsoft) and people applaud this showing of "choice".

Why the double standard?

Re:Double Standards (2, Informative)

RichiP (18379) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379553)

Personally, (aside from MS's other immoral and unfair practices) I have no problem with MS giving IE away from free ... it's BUNDLING it with the OS. Most people wouldn't take the time to download other browsers because IE's already there.

Re:Double Standards (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379602)

let me attempt to explain...

internet explorer is a pretty solid piece of software. microsoft releases it for free, and people actually use it. this pisses the linux herd off... it takes balls to release something that actually works, and give it away for free. open source developers only like free software which crashes constantly (eg. mozilla).

on the other hand, star office is a steaming pile of crap, which only the most devout zealots would touch with a 10 ft. pole. i'm sure microsoft is might upset about losing the "linux know-it-all" demographic.

Re:Double Standards (2, Insightful)

mz001b (122709) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379648)

I think part of the problem is that Microsoft's browser was free, but not open. That means that they still control the direction of the browser, and can use that to their advantage to gain market dominance. With SO or OO, you are getting an Open Source product. If you don't like the direction it is headed, you can change it.

It's a hard battle (3, Interesting)

ryanw (131814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379513)

The problem with StarOffice is that it hasn't completely worked to import/export word/excel documents. Until that day people will never truly be able to switch to it. I would LOVE the company I work for to switch to this software. But until it's completely MSOffice complient nobody can use it.

And just as it gets good at opening MSOffice 97 docs. They change their document just enough to screw everyone over with the release of Office2000. And just as that starts to work they screw it up enough to not work with XP.

How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work???? I haven't been involved in the project, but I would really like to hear some feedback to why nobody can open freaking word documents. The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".

Re:It's a hard battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379561)

MS Just Sucks.

Re:It's a hard battle (3, Informative)

ceswiedler (165311) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379566)

Because Microsoft uses incredibly proprietary formats. These days, it's not even a file format you could call as such, is a serialized COM stream. That means it's dependent on the processor type, OS, etc., and therefore extremely difficult to reverse-engineer.

Re:It's a hard battle (2, Interesting)

zog karndon (309839) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379679)

Sigh. The Word 2000 (and XP) file format is well documented; however, you do have to sign an NDA in order to obtain it. Further, it is *not* dependent on processor type, and so forth - MacWord reads WinWord files (and vice versa).

Re:It's a hard battle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379682)

What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Yeah, you have to have a certain processor type to open a particular document. What brilliant reasoning.

Do you think MS has a different parser for each processor type embedded in Windows?

What don't you just crawl in your hole and stop embarrasing yourself and wasting everyone's time.

Re:It's a hard battle (1)

krogoth (134320) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379576)

The truth is that MS knows everyone wants to be able to read their documents, and is making an effort to stop this. The file format changes may have been among the most significant new features in some releases :) (pay to add a talking paper clip, pay to remove it...)

Re:It's a hard battle (1, Redundant)

DeadMeat (TM) (233768) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379577)

How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work???? I haven't been involved in the project, but I would really like to hear some feedback to why nobody can open freaking word documents. The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".
Because the .DOC format is entirely undocumented. What little information people have comes mostly from reverse-engineering the .DOC format, which is a very slow process. Also I've been told that one of the MSDN CDs that Microsoft shipped out to developers once inadvertently included a partial (and not entirely accurate) specification for the .DOC format, but for all I know it's a myth, since I don't have a copy.

.doc format (2)

DrCode (95839) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379624)

They actually had a specification for it on their website a couple years ago. But it was one of the messiest, most convoluted thing I've ever seen.

Truth (0, Flamebait)

blang (450736) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379619)

The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".
Sorry to rain on your ant parade but:

The truth is MS Just Sucks. You answered your own question. Besides that, it is in MS interest to make it hard for anyone to interoperate. So, they not only suck, but they suck for a purpose, namely to pick your pockets.

Re:It's a hard battle (3, Informative)

aralin (107264) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379638)

Its pretty easy. Your are not allowed to reverse engineer the format by the EULA on MS Office license. You can try to do it from the documents since you do not sign any license for these, but then you don't get the whole format. You get just some features used in every document. And its binary and intentionally obfuscated format so its even way harder. I was doing some format conversions earlier and even with DOCUMENTED formats its extremly hard task.

Re:It's a hard battle (1)

indiigo (121714) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379649)

That's weird, because Office 2000 uses the same doc file format as XP, and 97. How is Staroffice screwing up documents? If it's in the html customized stuff, it shouldn't matter, as 99.99% of businesses really don't use those features in Word Documents.

The only real issue is WYSIWYG compatibility, tables, and format coherence. Then the migration begins. I'm all with you. Cost of licensing per year for our firm is around 10K.

Re:It's a hard battle (3, Troll)

dpilot (134227) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379671)

Because aside from sucking, Microsoft understands that their market grip is in proprietary file formats and protocols.

I believe it was back in the Halloween documents that they talked about "complex or subtle protocols and file formats" as a means for holding/gaining market share. You simply have to understand the goals in architecting and designing a protocol/format and parser. For most of us, it's simplicity and robustness. For Microsoft, add in the difficulty of reverse-engineering as perhaps more important than robustness, and clearly more important than simplicity. Lest you think that this is just a weapon against lil'old Linux users, don't forget that it's also a prime tool to keep their own users on the upgrade wheel. How often has it been said that the first MS Office user in an office eventually "forces" the whole office to upgrade, simply by passing around files in the latest default format.

The flip side of this is that the most robust things are generally also simple. IMHO it is inevitable that MS has had to trade off robustness in order to bring these difficult-to-reverse-engineer protocols and formats to market. In other words, it's deliberate foisting of second-rate goods counter to the customers' best interests.

Up until this Fall, the market has LOVED it, too.

Re:It's a hard battle (5, Interesting)

JahToasted (517101) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379686)

They change their document just enough to screw everyone over with the release of Office2000. And just as that starts to work they screw it up enough to not work with XP

Would you expect Microsoft to do anything less

How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work????

Parsing isn't that hard most of the difficulty comes in getting all the different OLE objects embedded in the document to work. Star/Openoffice, Koffice, AbiWord can all format the fonts, layouts, etc, quite well. The problem comes when you have an Excel Spreadsheet embedded in the word document as a table. Then each cell of the excel table is a word document. Then you gotta think about Macros, VB, etc.

Getting these things to work right is hard even for microsoft. Where I work now I have an Access database (I should've demanded they use something else, but they already had it installed everywhere) deployed to over 20 sites. I wrote the database in Access 97, but making it work in Access 2000 can be very tricky. Not only that, but at some places some of the Visual Basic Modules won't work in 97... welcome to my hell...

Anyway the point being, Microsoft has trouble in making THEIR office read previous MS Office files. I can only imagine how difficult it must be for someone who doesn't have the specs to make an app capable of reading them.

MS Word format really does suck (3, Interesting)

mj6798 (514047) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379715)

How hard is it REALLY to parse out Word Documents and have it work???? I haven't been involved in the project, but I would really like to hear some feedback to why nobody can open freaking word documents. The TRUTH .. not our typical "MS Just Sucks".

Word format not only is a complex binary format requiring documentation at multiple levels, it has significant undocumented portions. Worse yet, it allows executable content which can call on a lot of Windows-specific facilities. MS Word format really does suck, and that's not an accident: Microsoft likes it that way. The implications for users aren't good, though: vendor lock-in, viruses, and data that becomes inaccessible in a few years are only some of the problems resulting from the way MS Word stores its documents.

My first question (2)

JesseL (107722) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379514)

Have they gotten rid of that "integrated desktop"? That was my single biggest grip about previous versions.

Re:My first question (5, Informative)

corky6921 (240602) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379616)

Have they gotten rid of that "integrated desktop"?

Yes. I think that was everyone's single biggest complaint about StarOffice. They have also gotten rid of the "memory hog" problem with 5.2, which was that it loaded all five applications into memory and used up about 64MB of physical RAM whenever you wanted to load it.

Their big new feature is using an open XML format for documents. I also believe they have killed the problem where StarOffice took over all of your email clients, other text editors, etc.

I think this version of StarOffice is honestly the first one that will be a real competitor to MS Office, but I think it will really only be used by small businesses and individuals. Large corporations are already dependent on Outlook/Exchange/macros to do their work, and I don't see any large corporations switching off of those anytime soon (especially since there is no real groupware solution that Sun offers that compares with Exchange.)

Re:My first question (1)

ryanw (131814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379709)

I think this version of StarOffice is honestly the first one that will be a real competitor to MS Office, but I think it will really only be used by small businesses and individuals. Large corporations are already dependent on Outlook/Exchange/macros to do their work, and I don't see any large corporations switching off of those anytime soon (especially since there is no real groupware solution that Sun offers that compares

Does Office 2000 or OfficeXP import/export XML documents? If so, are they using the XML standard or have they bastardized that too?

If they use Standard XML I can't see why more people could use StarOffice in a business. As long as they tell people to send the documents in XML format. But that depends on that getting into MSOffice.

yes (2, Informative)

_damnit_ (1143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379656)

The integrated desktop was the first thing to go. You can read a lot about what has gone on with Star Office at openoffice.org [openoffice.org]. There you'll find the source, etc.

Still not up to par... (1, Offtopic)

Dop (123) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379515)

...but it may be my fault.

Granted I'm talking about the previous release, but my fonts all still looked like crap (blocky and hard to read) and the text area just wasn't as smooth as Office.

I kinda wish everyone would stop trying to make Unix a desktop machine when windows and mac do it so much better already. That's the one thing they do very well. There's nothing wrong with having unix servers and win/mac clients.

I have yet to see an OS do both (server and client) very well. Maybe it has something to do with the basic design concepts?

It's obvious that U are talking out of your ass!! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379564)

So Please do us all a favor and eat a bullet!!

You and your inbred karma-whoring family deserve to die slow painful deaths!!!!

Blow me and die biatch!!

Thank You in advance!!

Re:Still not up to par... (1)

mandria (442627) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379631)

>I kinda wish everyone would stop trying to make Unix a desktop machine when windows and mac do it so much better already.

StarOffice is available for windows also. I doubt there are going to be a lot of people switching their whole desktop to unix just because of the office suit. Even if S.O. is succesful and people actually start doing the switch they still not going to switch to unix because of training and costs and yatta...yatta...yatta.

Just my humble opinion

Cool! (4, Interesting)

astroboy (1125) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379538)

They lost the desktop, added better font handling, and do XML... this is great.

One thing I couldn't see -- and I can't get at the downloads to check -- is to see if their Presentation software, Impress, can play movies in slides now. This is actually a big thing; in the hard sciences, where a lot of people use non-Windows and give presentations, one of the major problems for people who want to switch to Linux is that if you have results you want to show in movie form, you're pretty much stuck with using PowerPoint, or exiting your presentation and starting up xanim or something...

Staroffice (4, Insightful)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379539)

To all those who say 'Staroffice isn't 100% compatable, so we can't switch our office'. Well.. I understand the logistics and all.. but.

To switch to staroffice, you have to instruct your staff to learn to use it, and adapt the workflow to staroffice, not the other way around. The same goes for switching to any product.

The financial benefits of using staroffice in many cases outweigh the use of OFficeXP

Unix Screenshots? (3, Insightful)

ceswiedler (165311) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379540)

All of the screenshots on the Sun site are of the Windows version. What does it look like under X Windows?

Re:Unix Screenshots? (2)

ryanw (131814) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379572)

It looks pretty much 99% the same under unix as windows. They built a ToolKit alot like GTK or KDE has. They comple cross platform and their toolkits make it all look the same cross platforms.

"Webtop"?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379544)

Sun's page talks of StarOffice in the "Desktop & Webtop" category.

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK IS A WEBTOP? Can someone please explain this to me in plain English? Thanks.

If you have to ask then UR a dick! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379587)

Please stop

KTHXBYE

Slashdot Feature Request (-1, Offtopic)

Chris Brewer (66818) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379546)

When a story submission is rejected, it would be nice to be given a reason. I mean, look at this:

2001-10-02 18:29:08 StarOffice 6.0 Beta released (articles,sun) (rejected)

Talk about being impersonal. Sure I can see the reason was that 753 other people had the same idea as me, but at the time I'm thinking "What, because it's a competing product to KOffice?"

Huge Improvement (3, Interesting)

jmkaza (173878) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379554)

When I first tried StarOffice my intent was to use it for a week to see if it was a viable alternative to MS Office. I didn't make it through the day. Kudos to Sun for finally taking the hint and creating a product that any Office user can use with little to no relearning curve. With Microsoft's new subscription licensing program, this couldn't have come at a better time. Hopefully 6.0 will prove to be a competitive product.

Where's the Source? (0, Troll)

WildBeast (189336) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379557)

Is StarOffice not Open Source anymore? Anyway I'm sticking with KOffice and MS Office on my boxes.
I really don't get it, where's the Source?

Re:Where's the Source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379653)

The source is at OpenOffice.org

StarOffice is just packaging OpenOffice, a bit like ximian is doing for Gnome...

Re:Where's the Source? (1)

jmkaza (173878) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379664)

The source is at OpenOffice. [openoffice.org] StarOffice isn't open source, per se. Sun takes the code from openoffice, adds in fonts and other 3rd party licensed software they pay for, and distributes it for free to eat into Microsoft's market.

Yeah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379565)

Got a really good troll rate going here. Lets see if we can keep the troll to nerd ratio well above 3:1 better yet dare we go for 4:1.

Re:Yeah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379597)

What the fuck? Why is it now that when I hit that damn back button that all my wonderful text clears. I want to try to resumbit cause slashcode says 2 minute crap blah blah blah whatever. I hit back so I can try submit again and all my text gets deleted by Taco. What the fuck is with that? You don't think I have heard of copy and paste you stupid slashcoders think again.

Coparison between KOffice? (0, Offtopic)

laserjet (170008) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379582)

Has anybody that has used Star Office done a comparison review between the new Star Office and the newest KOffice? KOffice looked pretty good, but I don't use office programs much anymore, so I didn't get a chance to work with it for long.

Re:Coparison between KOffice? (1)

Jon_E (148226) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379643)

KWord still butchers MS-Word documents .. staroffice is a little better in the x-compatibility dept (imho) ..

Sigh (4, Interesting)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379584)

Any idea of we'll be seeing a compatible implementation of something that can do everything Outlook can do (including connecting to an Exchange server)? I don't mean just email, but I mean Calendar, Tasks, Contacts booking meetings etc.

As soon as I can get something that would replace this one last piece, then I can switch away from Windows in my company (as I have at home). Unfortunately, the company relies very much on Outlook's functionality, and will not move away from Exchange server, so if I want to move it's up to me to find and install a compatible alternative, but so compatible that the REST of the users can stay on Outlook if they choose to.

In my opinion, this is one thing that any true Office suite needs before MS-Office can be truly replaced. As buggy and insecure as Outlook is, it organizes the company that I work for, and it can not be removed from my desktop until a fully compatible replacement is available. It's the one last thing that ties me to Windows.

Re:Sigh (5, Interesting)

jermz (6352) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379702)

Try Insight from bynari [bynari.net][bynari.net]. They make both a client (Insight) and a server (Insight Server). The client can talk to an Exchange server, and includes calendar, addressbook, and email, just like outlook, but on Linux. The server is feature-compatible with Exchange, and is built on exim, openldap, and cyrus IMAP/POP. Outlook clients can talk to the Insight server just fine, even transparently. I am demoing it right now, and it might just replace Exchange here, and allow me to run Linux exclusively.

How's the Word format support? (2)

antdude (79039) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379596)

I noticed in SO v5.2, some of my fonts, spaces, and tabs are not correctly formatted (like my resume). Is this still the same issue with v6.0 beta?

Thank you in advance for a reply. :)

Is the schedule gone? (1)

Whatever Fits (262060) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379627)

Have they removed the scheduler/calendar option? I don't see it in the list of features. The only reason my office went through the trouble of switching to Star Office was that they supported all the office software including, especially, calendars and scheduling.

Real interoperability with Office? Schweet. (2)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379630)

The feature-touting list is actually pretty strong for this version. I used StarOffice briefly back in its 5.1 days, and while I found it to be a capable word processor, its Microsoft Office support was sorely lacking.

Now, not only does it contain the basic file filters, but it sensibly starts utilizing things like the default Outlook address book. Will all of this stuff work? It's questionable. But one of my best arguments for the Mac was "and this program can read Word files". Now, hopefully, I can say the same thing for Linux.

Limerick (2, Funny)

575 (195442) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379632)

Once a man up in Washington state
His competitors, how he did hate
A new Office contender
Useless it was rendered
"Change Word formats, make it obsolete!"

Re:Limerick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379728)

Exactly. (???)

Mirrors and Such (2)

Quizme2000 (323961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379634)

For those of us that remember how to use ftp [openoffice.org]. instructions are on the sites on how to download. Have Fun

Re:Mirrors and Such (1)

slambo (10757) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379681)

OpenOffice and Star Office are two different products, although the new Star Office draws heavily from OpenOffice, downloading OpenOffice != downloading Star Office.

Re:Mirrors and Such (1)

Quizme2000 (323961) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379724)

Oh...Well I guess I'll stop compiling the source then, I got the link from the Star Office page. I guess thats what happens when you make an assumption huh?

Openoffice vs Staroffice (2, Interesting)

bram.be (302388) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379660)

What is exactly the difference (technically speaking) between staroffice and openoffice. Are there real differences or is staroffice iddentical to openoffice with some commercial features (like netscape mozilla) ?

Re:Openoffice vs Staroffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379703)

Unfortunately OpenOffice has no spellchecker. It is useless, imo, without one.

Oh joy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2379700)

Does this one still require 2 1Gig processors and 768 megs to run?

The only reason I even installed 5.2 is for the few times I have to interoperate with MS products.... and most of the time it crashes when trying to read those.

$479 for Office XP!?!?! (2, Insightful)

sewagemaster (466124) | more than 12 years ago | (#2379725)

$479 for Office XP!?!?! remember that's in US dollars well. the price is just insane. it's funny that a company that produces unstable bloatware 'suites' think that they are just as good as the hardware designers. because it looks like it's even more expensive than a bloody computer processor!

each year they add a few clicks here, move the menus around, change the file format a bit so no one could parse it properly and then they would sell it for sky high. well if they quality of the software justifies the cost, that's fine. but obviously but unfortunately it's not the case. now that's the cost for one person if he/she wants to buy it. if he makes (let's say) $30 an hour. it would take him 16 hours = 2 days of salary just to be wasted on this.... minus tax, minus food/shelter/money to be spent on car/insurances... that's about 3-4 days of salary just to get something like that...oh man....!

now imagine the whole company wanting to upgrade for whatever reason (yes.. it's true... just look around the labs in your college/university campus. they ALL want to spend so much money for the upgrade for whatever reason...)...

BUT afterall, i never bought a copy of office. my windows is a pirated version. so it's still free for me.... unfortunately it takes at least one person to buy it before i can burn myself a CD copy...

hope the new version of staroffice is not as bloat and can actually keep consistant formats so i can write my engeering docs and paper on it day in and day out!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...