Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Crossover free today only

59 views
Skip to first unread message

buck

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 12:53:20 PM10/31/12
to
If anyone cares, today (only) you can download a fully licensed copy of
CodeWeavers CrossOver (run Windows Programs on Mac / Linux)

http://flock.codeweavers.com/

--
buck

notbob

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 8:48:19 PM10/31/12
to
On 2012-10-31, buck <bu...@private.mil> wrote:
> If anyone cares....

I don't. Been using slack so long, can't think of a single thing I
need windows/CW for.

nb


--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

Dan C

unread,
Oct 31, 2012, 11:26:45 PM10/31/12
to
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:53:20 +0000, buck wrote:

> If anyone cares, today (only) you can download a fully licensed copy of
> CodeWeavers CrossOver (run Windows Programs on Mac / Linux)

Who the hell would want to do such a thing?


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as the warp core breached.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

Auric__

unread,
Nov 1, 2012, 2:29:26 AM11/1/12
to
I grabbed it, under the theory of "you never know"... but really, if I need
to run a Windows program... well, I have a Windows workstation for a reason.

--
I weep for your dying grey matter.

Jim Diamond

unread,
Nov 1, 2012, 8:46:16 AM11/1/12
to
On 2012-11-01 at 00:26 ADT, Dan C <youmust...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:53:20 +0000, buck wrote:
>
>> If anyone cares, today (only) you can download a fully licensed copy of
>> CodeWeavers CrossOver (run Windows Programs on Mac / Linux)

> Who the hell would want to do such a thing?
It might be more "need" than "want". Every now and then someone sends
me a m$-office doc that doesn't work well in libreoffice. Yes,
perhaps I should not associate with such people, but you can't always
avoid them. Having crossover is good for these situations.

Jim

notbob

unread,
Nov 1, 2012, 10:43:36 AM11/1/12
to
On 2012-11-01, Auric__ <not.m...@email.address> wrote:

> to run a Windows program... well, I have a Windows workstation for a reason.

Yep. Any competent *nixer knows "best tool for the job" and the best
tool for a .doc doc is a .doc reader like word. Besides, who doesn't
have an old XP box kicking around, somewhere? They're like pennies on
the ground. They're everywhere. ;)

Sylvain Robitaille

unread,
Nov 1, 2012, 3:05:46 PM11/1/12
to
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:46:16 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:

> ... Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc that doesn't
> work well in libreoffice. ...

You might want to have a look at AbiWord: http://www.abisource.com/

SlackBuilds.org has a build script if you're inclined.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille s...@encs.concordia.ca

Systems analyst / AITS Concordia University
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Henrik Carlqvist

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 3:54:17 AM11/3/12
to
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:46:16 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
> Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc

In at least 9 cases of 10 that .doc file only contains text which should
have been written straight into the email. All you have to do is to reply
with your message in a postscript file. When you get a question back you
can point them to ghostview for Windows.

Everyone has their favorite file formats. Teaching users why bloated
attachments are bad isn't easy, but learning by doing has some
pedagogical points...

regards Henrik
--
The address in the header is only to prevent spam. My real address is:
hc351(at)poolhem.se Examples of addresses which go to spammers:
root@localhost postmaster@localhost

Loki Harfagr

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 5:23:04 AM11/3/12
to
Sat, 03 Nov 2012 07:54:17 +0000, Henrik Carlqvist did cat :

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:46:16 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
>> Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc
>
> In at least 9 cases of 10 that .doc file only contains text which should
> have been written straight into the email.

I'd even say that 99/100 cases are for text which should have never been written at all ;-)

> All you have to do is to reply
> with your message in a postscript file. When you get a question back you
> can point them to ghostview for Windows.

So did I many times and in some stretched cases when the poster seemed to
avoid the clue even after too many exchanges I jumped the gun a little
bit more and instead of the text attached an ogg movie video of my fingers
typing the text and, when asked about what it was, pointed that whith this
source he could easily reconstruct the mean way to obtain the text.

> Everyone has their favorite file formats. Teaching users why bloated
> attachments are bad isn't easy, but learning by doing has some
> pedagogical points...

Agreed, but, still I'm sad ;-) as in some of these cases their next mails were in
plain text (finally!) but I'm afraid that a vast majority still hasn't got any clue ;D)

Jim Diamond

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 10:05:00 AM11/3/12
to
On 2012-11-01 at 16:05 ADT, Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:46:16 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
>
>> ... Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc that doesn't
>> work well in libreoffice. ...
>
> You might want to have a look at AbiWord: http://www.abisource.com/

**sigh**

Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc that doesn't
work well in libreoffice, abiword, openoffice, gnumeric, ...

Indeed, for suffering through ms-word docs, abiword is nice because it
is an order of magnitude less slow and bloated than {libre,open}office.
But in my experience abiword is less capable that {libre,open}office.

Cheers.

Jim

Jim Diamond

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 10:09:41 AM11/3/12
to
On 2012-11-03 at 04:54 ADT, Henrik Carlqvist <Henrik.C...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 09:46:16 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
>> Every now and then someone sends me a m$-office doc
>
> In at least 9 cases of 10 that .doc file only contains text which should
> have been written straight into the email.
Fortunately, I don't get many e-mail messages where the "e-mail" part
is a .doc file. However, sometimes I get attachments which are.

> All you have to do is to reply with your message in a postscript
> file. When you get a question back you can point them to ghostview
> for Windows.

> Everyone has their favorite file formats. Teaching users why
> bloated attachments are bad isn't easy, but learning by doing has
> some pedagogical points...

In the cases I need to deal with, the document is usually something
that does "require" formatting. (And I do spend a certain amount of
time trying to teach people about TeX and LaTeX.)

I have sent windows lusers Postscript files in the past. It might be
amusing, but it is also a black hole of time.

Cheers
Jim

Sylvain Robitaille

unread,
Nov 5, 2012, 11:36:56 AM11/5/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 11:05:00 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:

> ... in my experience abiword is less capable that {libre,open}office.

In the sense that one is a word-processor, and the other is an office
suite, yes, of course. For my purposes (reading other peoples'
documents when they're too nearsighted to send in some sort of open
format, or even just plain text), Abiword has been quite adequate.

Sylvain Robitaille

unread,
Nov 5, 2012, 11:40:28 AM11/5/12
to
On 03 Nov 2012 07:54:17 GMT, Henrik Carlqvist wrote:

> ... All you have to do is to reply with your message in a postscript
> file. ...

I once responded to someone who'd sent me a Word document with an update
of the same document, but stored in Kword. "oh, I'm sorry! You can't
read the file I sent? I had the same problem with the file you sent
me." I've never had to do that again! :-)

Jim Diamond

unread,
Nov 6, 2012, 7:50:54 AM11/6/12
to
On 2012-11-05 at 12:36 AST, Sylvain Robitaille <s...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 11:05:00 -0300, Jim Diamond wrote:
>
>> ... in my experience abiword is less capable that {libre,open}office.
>
> In the sense that one is a word-processor, and the other is an office
> suite, yes, of course.
Oh come on Sylvain, surely you know that I meant that abiword is less
capable than "LibreOffice writer".

> For my purposes (reading other peoples' documents when they're too
> nearsighted to send in some sort of open format, or even just plain
> text), Abiword has been quite adequate.
That's good. Because abiword is not bloated like LibreOffice writer.
But, as I said, I am sometimes "forced" to read documents that don't
display correctly in either abiword or LibreOffice writer, but of the
two LibreOffice writer has less trouble than abiword.

Jim

Sylvain Robitaille

unread,
Nov 6, 2012, 11:00:19 AM11/6/12
to
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:50:54 -0400, Jim Diamond wrote:

> Oh come on Sylvain, surely you know that I meant that abiword is less
> capable than "LibreOffice writer".

Honestly, no. I figured you were referring to the fact that having the
suite gives you the flexibility of handling more than word-processing
documents, and I would agree that has to count for something.

The "office" suite hasn't been on my radar, though since long before it
was called "LibreOffice". I still know it as Open Office or Star
Office. I haven't bothered with it in that long, though, simply because
I haven't needed to. Things would be much different if I were dealing
with such files on any sort of regular basis.
0 new messages