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 Historical content remains viewable.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

Corel Please fix this product

4 views
Skip to first unread message

David Trotz

unread,
Nov 16, 2000, 12:02:27 AM11/16/00
to
I have to say I like the Word Perfect Office more than the MS Office 2000.
But I will admit this WPO2000 for Linux has some serious flaws.

1) It won't run on Mandrake 7.2.

2) It gives an access denied to saving files after being open for more than
one hour. (In some case less than that)

3) It runs irregularly when trying to interface itself with the Window
Managers. In my case KDE 2.0
4) Installing Photopaint causes spell check to break. (A fix is available
but this needs to be addressed.)

I am sure there are many more issues that Corel needs to address with a
Service Pack and soon, we are comin up on six months now since it's release,
Corel owes it to this Linux community, otherwise I threaten to try and post
an article about this at slashdot.com.

You cannot treat the Linux community this way. I am sick of seeing good
reviews, by magazines and such, while the program itself fails the beta test
being run by us the owners of this junk software.

YOU SOLD US A LEMON COREL!!! FIX IT!!!


Troy A. Griffitts

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 4:53:45 AM11/20/00
to
I must agree with most of this mail. I've just upgraded to RedHat 7.0
and have serious issue. Finally got the fonttastic server running (with
steps I'd never expect my dad to be able to follow (my lithmus test)),
but now get:
$ wordperfect
wine: readwriteprintcap.c:641: ParseLprPrintcapBuffers: Assertion
`(charsCopied < 4)' failed.
/usr/bin/wordperfect: line 223: 2832 Aborted "$corelwine"
"$app $_WINE_AppArgs" -winver nt40 - managed

But the real issue is stated by David below. I've been checking back
frequently for patches and NOTHING SHOWS UP! I'm excited about the
product, and actually get by the way it is. BUT WOULD NEVER EXPECTED TO
HAVE PURCHASED SUCH AN UNSTABLE COMMERCIAL PRODUCT FROM ANYONE OTHER
THAN MICROSOFT! Please don't bring this standard to the linux world.
I'd expect it from opensource. I can fix the problem. But not with
software for which I've paid good money.

I'd even understand since this is your first linux port, BUT PLEASE POST
A PATCH.

Thanks,
-Troy.

Dan Alder

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 1:46:46 PM11/20/00
to
> otherwise I threaten to try and post
> an article about this at slashdot.com.

Generally, putting the word "threaten" in a post is a good way of
getting it pulled.
However, in this case, I don't mind. Please feel free to post to
Slashdot - It might get me a bit more leverage to get a service pack.

--D

--
Dan Alder
Program Manager, Paradox & WP Office for Linux

dana.vcf

Troy A. Griffitts

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 7:27:39 PM11/20/00
to
> but now get:
> $ wordperfect
> wine: readwriteprintcap.c:641: ParseLprPrintcapBuffers: Assertion
> `(charsCopied < 4)' failed.
> /usr/bin/wordperfect: line 223: 2832 Aborted "$corelwine"
> "$app $_WINE_AppArgs" -winver nt40 - managed

Removed my remote unix printer (a Network Sharp PCL printer, using the
HP PCL 4/5/6 non-postscript driver) and now office doesn't crash on
startup with the above error.

RedHat 7.0
KDE
printers configured with printtool

I sure would like to print to MY NETWORK PRINTER with office! I can
print to it from everywhere else (but not anymore since I had to remove
it for office to start up correctly), including command line, lpr.


-Troy.

Dan Alder

unread,
Nov 21, 2000, 9:14:37 AM11/21/00
to
> Removed my remote unix printer (a Network Sharp PCL printer, using the
> HP PCL 4/5/6 non-postscript driver) and now office doesn't crash on
> startup with the above error.
>
> RedHat 7.0
> KDE
> printers configured with printtool
>
> I sure would like to print to MY NETWORK PRINTER with office! I can
> print to it from everywhere else (but not anymore since I had to remove
> it for office to start up correctly), including command line, lpr.


Does the sharp printer understand postscript at all? (just me grasping
at straws on this; I'm not really that familliar with printing...) You
might also try posting in the corelsupport.linux.printing group and see
if anyone there has any ideas...

dana.vcf

Aron Hsiao

unread,
Nov 21, 2000, 8:09:49 PM11/21/00
to


Just out of curiosity, can you shed some light on how much work
(if any) has been done toward repairing the following two problems?

1. Bad window behavior (WPO2K windows always wants to be on
top of all other windows under all non-KDE-1 systems).

2. Saving problems ("access denied" after some period of time,
requiring exit and restart with some lost data or even
a total loss of the active file).

Note that PhotoPaint 9, which seems to use a different version of
wine or a better internal interface with wine at least, already fixes
problem #1 and doesn't appear to suffer from problem #2, so it's not
impossible to get it right...

I ask about these two points because if they were to be fixed, I
would be able to switch to WPO2K as my primary office software under
Linux, and I would be able to wholeheartedly recommend WPO2K for
Linux to curious associates. As it is, I must be extremely lukewarm
or even slightly negative ("It has lots of features, but some almost
insurmountable bugs as well...")

I think even a small service pack to solve these two problems would
go a *very* long way to improving Corel's image right now with Linux
users -- it would show some good faith. Of course, if Corel really
intends to get rid of the Linux stuff like a hot potato (as some
analysts are suggesting), then it only makes sense that there are no
resources being dedicated to Linux. On the other hand, there is
still the "do the right thing" argument -- many people have paid a
lot of money for this software...

(They certainly won't continue to do so on a future version if this
version isn't ever fixed before another is released!)

Can you at least reveal whether _any_ work has been done yet, so
that those of us hanging on with baited breath can decide whether to
start building a file base in WPO2K or switch away before chaining
ourselves to it?

--
Aron Hsiao, Interesting But Fuzzy Memory
http://www.users.uswest.net/~aronhsiao/

Dan Alder (Corel)

unread,
Nov 21, 2000, 8:59:26 PM11/21/00
to

Aron Hsiao wrote:

> 1. Bad window behavior (WPO2K windows always wants to be on
> top of all other windows under all non-KDE-1 systems).

Which WM's in particular? I know we've got problems with lots, but a solid
list would help. (BTW, there are problems with some older enlightenment
builds - if you're using that, get a newer build.)


> 2. Saving problems ("access denied" after some period of time,
> requiring exit and restart with some lost data or even
> a total loss of the active file).

I've never been able to dupe this unfortunately. :-( Until we can
reproduce it, there's not much we can do... can you provide some
specifics? distro and version, other running software, what type of
partition your're using, etc?


> Note that PhotoPaint 9, which seems to use a different version of
> wine or a better internal interface with wine at least, already fixes
> problem #1 and doesn't appear to suffer from problem #2, so it's not
> impossible to get it right...

> Can you at least reveal whether _any_ work has been done yet, so


> that those of us hanging on with baited breath can decide whether to
> start building a file base in WPO2K or switch away before chaining
> ourselves to it?

Draw9L and PP9L both use a much newer version of wine than WPOL does. In
the process, they fixed a lot of issues. Unforutnately, they broke other
things that seriously affect the WP apps, so we can't just use the same
wine stuff. Most of it has been fixed, but we currently can't afford to
spend resources to fix the remainder and fully test it, as everyone's
concentrating on WPO2002 for Windows.

We have not abandoned plans to do a service pack, but at the moment I can't
say when that will happen. I am, personally, strongly in favor of a service
pack, and I've expressed this to the directors. But I can see, too, that we
have a need to release our version 10 products, and that we simply don't
have the resouces to do both simultaneously.

On the plus side, my title is still Program Manager, WP Office for Linux,
and as long as I'm here, there's at least some hope for the future. I'm
working on it. :-)

dana.vcf

Andrew Post

unread,
Nov 22, 2000, 9:41:05 AM11/22/00
to Dan Alder (Corel)
"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:

> > 2. Saving problems ("access denied" after some period of time,
> > requiring exit and restart with some lost data or even
> > a total loss of the active file).
>
> I've never been able to dupe this unfortunately. :-( Until we can
> reproduce it, there's not much we can do... can you provide some
> specifics? distro and version, other running software, what type of
> partition your're using, etc?

I've been bitten by this bug many times. My system configuration is:
Mandrake Linux 6.1
Helixcode GNOME desktop with Sawfish
Both WPO2K and the saved files are on /dev/hda7, an ext2 filesystem on
the local harddrive. Permissions on those files are -rwxrwxr-x.
Autosave was turned on.

I heard that turning Autosave off gets rid of the problem, but I can't
personally verify that because I haven't used WP for an extended period
of time since I got that tip.

Something to take to your superiors:
I understand that Corel's strapped for money, but this would mark 2
Linux versions of WP in a row in which a Service Pack seemed needed yet
none materialized. That, combined with non-existent official technical
support, and the acknowledgment that development of the next Windows
version of WPO2K is taking precedence over the current Linux version,
makes at least one Corel customer wonder what Corel's commitment to
Linux really is.

Andrew

Aron Hsiao

unread,
Nov 22, 2000, 10:54:05 AM11/22/00
to

At least in my case, turning autosave off does not correct the problem.
Neither does disabling spell-as-you-go, which has also been suggested.

I've sent Dan a whole mess of configuration information as well. I'd
like to encourage everybody who's experienced these two serious bugs
to send similar information to Dan either here or in some other way:

0. A description of the bug as you've experienced it
1. Window manager/Desktop and X release version
2. Distribution and release version
3. Output of the "ldconfig -v" command
4. Output of the "xdpyinfo" command
5. Output of "sh /usr/src/linux/scripts/ver_linux"

Note that I'm not associated with Dan in any way other than that he's
our hope at the moment (as far as I can tell) for eventually seeing a
fix, so I'm trying to be proactive and I'm suggesting that everyone
do the same. Let's help him out.

Go Dan!

- A. Hsiao

Denis Roy

unread,
Nov 26, 2000, 3:09:08 PM11/26/00
to
> I've been bitten by this bug many times. My system configuration is:
> Mandrake Linux 6.1
> Helixcode GNOME desktop with Sawfish
> Both WPO2K and the saved files are on /dev/hda7, an ext2 filesystem on
> the local harddrive. Permissions on those files are -rwxrwxr-x.
> Autosave was turned on.
>

It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".

D.
--

Denis Roy (MCSE, CNA, MCP)
http://www.naturex.ca

Aron Hsiao

unread,
Nov 26, 2000, 6:55:53 PM11/26/00
to Denis Roy

Denis Roy wrote:

Oddly enough, Applix has done it, and natively -- with very good
results on any number of different distribution platforms.

More to the point, Windows systems are _every bit_ as variable as
Linux systems are, if not moreso. The difference? Four service
packs for WPO2K for Windows so far, none for WPO2K for Linux.

If you want to know how hard it is to code for Windows, visit
officeupdate.microsoft.com and look at the number of fixes that
have been released by _Microsoft_ who are coding for their own
product, _Windows_. The difference again is that for the Windows
products, fixes are regularly forthcoming because work behind the
scenes continues.

Linux users at this point have seen no promises of future fixes
from Corel, nor have we yet seen any fixes yet past one or two
scripts that are easily circumventable anyway.

-A. Hsiao

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 26, 2000, 5:32:17 PM11/26/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
> will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
> Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
> standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
> software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
> platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
> place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
> them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
> on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".
>
I don't buy this argument.

Linux applications are hardware independent. Therefore, the hardware
question applies only to the operating system. Not only are the API's
for Linux standard, they are completely and publicly documented.

Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
porting to *NIX or using an API library. They also have a problem with
their application program and the scripts in their package. There is a
fix for the problems installing Fonttastic and the packages could be
fixed. I don't know if WINE will ever work, but ...

JRT

Dan Alder (Corel)

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 11:13:41 PM11/27/00
to
> Linux applications are hardware independent.

Well, not exactly. Once something's compiled, it's machine dependant, since
it's compiled for that particular processor. And if you're using assembler -
like all of our apps, and most that were initially or partially built in the
early 80s, were - then even the source is processor specific.

Linux is a fairly new phenomena, and all the rather nice programmers out there
have written all the base stuff in C/C++. And most of the apps that we run on
top of that are done in C/C++ too. But just like it's possible to write a
non-y2k-compliant mac app, it's definitely possible to write a hardware
dependant linux app.


> Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
> porting to *NIX or using an API library.

That would depend entirely upon what the reasons were. Although I'm of the
opinion that quality is critical, I do understand monetary pressures. We
(Corel) were running out of cash, and we needed a splashy release, ASAP. (I
actually think it went a lot better than it might have. We've only really
fumbled it since the release.)

Keep in mind too, that we're looking for a cross-platform release, not a
linux-specific one. A big part of this picture is to move win users to linux -
and making them comfortable there is helpful. You linux hardcores aren't
really the target audience...


> They also have a problem with
> their application program and the scripts in their package. There is a
> fix for the problems installing Fonttastic and the packages could be
> fixed.

This is where we really need the LSB. Until that gets finalized, we're going
to have issues like this.

dana.vcf

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 12:14:57 AM11/28/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
> will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
> Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
> standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
> software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
> platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
> place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
> them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
> on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".
>
I don't buy this argument.

Linux applications are hardware independent. Therefore, the hardware
question applies only to the operating system. Not only are the API's
for Linux standard, they are completely and publicly documented.

Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
porting to *NIX or using an API library. They also have a problem with
their installation program and the scripts in their package. There is a


fix for the problems installing Fonttastic and the packages could be

Michael Kellen

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 12:15:56 AM11/28/00
to
"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:

> Keep in mind too, that we're looking for a cross-platform release,
> not a linux-specific one. A big part of this picture is to move win
> users to linux - and making them comfortable there is helpful. You
> linux hardcores aren't really the target audience...

Dan --

Just who do you think users that are considering switching to linux
ASK before they switch?

They read web sites for reviews (written by "linux hardcores") and
ask the linux guru at work. And we tell them that Corel doesn't care
about the Linux product, and they ask what we suggest and they end up
with StarOffice or WP8 or LyX or Applix or they STAY WITH WINDOWS.
You lose a bunch, linux loses a little -- who needs who?

Oh, and for the thread ... SuSE 6.4, out-of-the-box, displays the
"won't save" bug after a bit over an hour of process time (By the
way, the Paint RPMS didn't fix the problem). I'm hard pressed to
get more standardized than that.

Michael Kellen
--
"You know that America has gone through a wormhole when *PAT BUCHANAN*
is the voice of fairness and reason."
-- Jon Stewart, _The Daily Show_

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 27, 2000, 6:08:42 PM11/27/00
to
"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:
>
> > Linux applications are hardware independent.
>
> Well, not exactly. Once something's compiled, it's machine dependant, since
> it's compiled for that particular processor. And if you're using assembler -
> like all of our apps, and most that were initially or partially built in the
> early 80s, were - then even the source is processor specific.
>
That isn't what I meant. What I was referring to was the fact that the
source code is hardware independent. That there is always a layer of
software (which is hardware specific) between an application and the
hardware. Did you ever write code for PC-DOS? This is REALLY hardware
dependent. Those programs often depend on specific hardware (even if
written in a high level language). On the other hand, even an
application written in assembler can be hardware independent if it only
interacts with a hardware independent API -- although it would be
certainly processor dependent (which isn't the same thing).

MS-Windows applications are hardware dependent because they are
permitted to have actual knowledge of memory and I/O addresses.
Hardware independent applications receive pointers from the OS, but they
only deal with them as symbolic names. MS-Windows, like DOS, take such
pointers and do arithmetic on them (a definite no-no). I understand the
NT is better, but the API still includes calls to get pointers.


>
> > Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
> > porting to *NIX or using an API library.
>
> That would depend entirely upon what the reasons were. Although I'm of the
> opinion that quality is critical, I do understand monetary pressures. We
> (Corel) were running out of cash, and we needed a splashy release, ASAP. (I
> actually think it went a lot better than it might have. We've only really
> fumbled it since the release.)
>

Currently your MS-Windows application is using this model:

+----------------+
| COREL WPO CODE |
+----------------+
| MFC |
+----------------+
| MS-Windows |
+----------------+
| Operating Sys |
+----------------+

The Linux version simply replaces the MS-Windows layer with WINE (I
realize that you also made changes to the applications).

If you used an API library, you would replace the MFC layer with
something like Twine, and then it would run natively on X-Windows. This
would still be a cross platform application. I understand that this
option would have also had problems since Twine was also not ready for
general release. Also, I understand that you are using Microsoft's
compiler (I was surprised to see Microsoft error messages appear on my
system) and that it has what are politely called 'extensions'. So, it
would also be necessary to resolve these differences. But, you
shouldn't have had to make any additional changes to the code except for
putting "wrappers" around the DLLs to make them 'so' libs.

The slightly more drastic method is to use a cross platform API. This
would require modifying the bottom layers of your code to interface to a
different library. However, you would only have to do this once and
then use one API library to compile for MS-Windows and one for
X-Windows. I understand that Borland is working on this.

And the most drastic method is a real port. You would need to do much
the same as with a cross platform API -- separate the application into
the top layers and the bottom layer which interacts with the API. Then
you would need to rewrite the bottom layer for the other system.

<SNIP>


>
> > They also have a problem with

> > their installation program and the scripts in their package. There is a


> > fix for the problems installing Fonttastic and the packages could be
> > fixed.
>
> This is where we really need the LSB. Until that gets finalized, we're going
> to have issues like this.
>

I note a certain irony here: that it was Red Hat's attempts to conform
to the LSB that broke your installation program. I fault them since
neither the Debian nor the RPM version will install without human
intervention.

JRT

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 1:45:22 AM11/28/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
> will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
> Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
> standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
> software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
> platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
> place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
> them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
> on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".
>
I don't buy this argument.

Linux applications are hardware independent. Therefore, the hardware
question applies only to the operating system. Not only are the API's
for Linux standard, they are completely and publicly documented.

Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
porting to *NIX or using an API library. They also have a problem with


their installation program and the scripts in their package. There is a
fix for the problems installing Fonttastic and the packages could be

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 11:24:22 AM11/28/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
> will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
> Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
> standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
> software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
> platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
> place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
> them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
> on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".
>
tyrerj.vcf

Dan Alder

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 11:34:53 AM11/28/00
to

> Just who do you think users that are considering switching to linux
> ASK before they switch?

I didn't say it was a _good_ strategy... <sigh>

dana.vcf

Dan Alder

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 11:41:30 AM11/28/00
to
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>
> "Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:
> >
> > > Linux applications are hardware independent.
> >
> > Well, not exactly. Once something's compiled, it's machine dependant, since
> > it's compiled for that particular processor. And if you're using assembler -
> > like all of our apps, and most that were initially or partially built in the
> > early 80s, were - then even the source is processor specific.
> >
> That isn't what I meant. What I was referring to was the fact that the
> source code is hardware independent. That there is always a layer of

<snip>

True, though it's still possible to do that in Linux (it's just not
accepted practice, so almost no one does it.)

> >
> > > Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
> > > porting to *NIX or using an API library.
> >
> > That would depend entirely upon what the reasons were. Although I'm of the
> > opinion that quality is critical, I do understand monetary pressures. We
> > (Corel) were running out of cash, and we needed a splashy release, ASAP. (I
> > actually think it went a lot better than it might have. We've only really
> > fumbled it since the release.)
> >
> Currently your MS-Windows application is using this model:
>
> +----------------+
> | COREL WPO CODE |
> +----------------+
> | MFC |
> +----------------+
> | MS-Windows |
> +----------------+
> | Operating Sys |
> +----------------+

MFC's only really in use in CorelCentral; the others either implement
their own interface layers, or just bypass it altogether...



> The Linux version simply replaces the MS-Windows layer with WINE (I
> realize that you also made changes to the applications).

And all the changes had to do with either incompatible differences in
the filesystem, or deficiencies in WINE.


I agree with you 100% that if all we needed to consider were technical
issues, then we went entirely the wrong way. However, the point of this
exercise is to make money, and that imposes different requirements.


> >
> > This is where we really need the LSB. Until that gets finalized, we're going
> > to have issues like this.
> >
> I note a certain irony here: that it was Red Hat's attempts to conform
> to the LSB that broke your installation program. I fault them since
> neither the Debian nor the RPM version will install without human
> intervention.

We were pre-LSB, too. OTOH, our script is kinda braindead...

dana.vcf

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 8:59:54 AM11/28/00
to
Dan Alder wrote:

> True, though it's still possible to do that in Linux (it's just not
> accepted practice, so almost no one does it.)
>

I .. don't want this to degenerate into a discussion of system
architecture. But, my specific point is, for example, I write to the
printer and refer to it by a symbolic name (e.g. as in WP 8 for NIX)
this is hardware independent. On the other hand, if I write to the
printer and know it as LPT0 then it is hardware dependent. A small, but
important difference for cross platform development.


>
> MFC's only really in use in CorelCentral; the others either implement
> their own interface layers, or just bypass it altogether...
>

So, you are calling the MS-Windows API with the standard SDK C calls, or
with your own in Assembler. You might be able to still use an API
library with SDK C calls, but otherwise, WINE was the only choice.
>
<SNIP>
>
> And all the changes had to do with ... incompatible differences in
> the filesystem,

If the program knows more about a file than its (fully qualified) path,
a symbolic name, you would have hardware dependence. Or, any part of
the program that deals with it on a lower level is hardware dependent.

> I agree with you 100% that if all we needed to consider were technical
> issues, then we went entirely the wrong way. However, the point of this
> exercise is to make money, and that imposes different requirements.
>

You have to remember some of Tom Peters' advice as well.

In this case, to make money, you need a good product and service.
Cutting your costs helps very little if it also cuts your sales.

I have been using Quarto since it first came out and WP since 5.1. I
like them better than the competition. The only issue for me is that I
have random crashes which is not acceptable.

However it appears from what you said that your best option was to use
WINE. I hope that they get this to work in the near future.

JRT

tyrerj.vcf

Dan Alder

unread,
Nov 28, 2000, 4:08:23 PM11/28/00
to
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>
> Dan Alder wrote:
>
> > True, though it's still possible to do that in Linux (it's just not
> > accepted practice, so almost no one does it.)
> >
> I .. don't want this to degenerate into a discussion of system
> architecture. But, my specific point is, for example, I write to the
> printer and refer to it by a symbolic name (e.g. as in WP 8 for NIX)
> this is hardware independent. On the other hand, if I write to the
> printer and know it as LPT0 then it is hardware dependent. A small, but
> important difference for cross platform development.

Yup. That's what I was getting at.


> > And all the changes had to do with ... incompatible differences in
> > the filesystem,
>
> If the program knows more about a file than its (fully qualified) path,
> a symbolic name, you would have hardware dependence. Or, any part of
> the program that deals with it on a lower level is hardware dependent.


There were a few spots that understood and attempted to deal with drive
letters. Since they don't exist under Linux, we needed to change stuff.
Not so much hardware dependant as OS convention specific.


> In this case, to make money, you need a good product and service.
> Cutting your costs helps very little if it also cuts your sales.

Agreed, though in this case, I suspect that any limit on sales has more
to do with a small market rather than the quality of the product. Don't
get me wrong - this needs to be fixed and is definitely contributing to
some lost sales, but I think the bigger factor is that most of the
hardcore linux market is happy with what they have (either don't use an
office suite, use a free alternative, or build their own... koffice
anyone?), and general desktop users are not moving off of Windows yet.


> However it appears from what you said that your best option was to use
> WINE. I hope that they get this to work in the near future.

Me too. (I use this stuff every day, too...)

dana.vcf

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Nov 26, 2000, 4:23:10 PM11/26/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
> will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
> Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
> standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
> software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
> platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I use Linux on the desktop exclusively. But I can
> place myself in Corel's shoes and feel their agony when someone tells
> them "WPO2K doesn't work on my machine cuz I compiled this, tacked that
> on and I'm using 0.5.3-pre-test-alpha-x of those".
>
I don't buy this argument.

Linux applications are hardware independent. Therefore, the hardware
question applies only to the operating system. Not only are the API's
for Linux standard, they are completely and publicly documented.

Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than

tyrerj.vcf

Andrew Post

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 8:24:35 PM11/29/00
to
Hindsight is always 20/20, but it seems fairly obvious to me now that
WPO2K had no chance of earning Corel the money it needed to stay on
track. Even if WPO2K for Linux were flawless, what newbie is going to
run it when there isn't a decent desktop environment yet. Sure, GNOME
and KDE are moving along, but, they're a long way from becoming
equivalent to MacOS or even Windows. Even by Eazel's own admission (and
that company has made phenomenal progress on Nautilus), a complete
desktop environment for Linux is still well over a year away. Given the
lack of a good desktop, Corel's little money would've been better spent
perfecting their desktop, and preparing WPO "on the side" for the day
that the Linux desktop isn't an obstacle to newbies using it. Corel
could have found a funding source to do desktop development if they
tried. Heck, look at the money that Eazel is getting to write open
source desktop code (they're even doing user testing!), and they don't
even have any viable products like CorelDraw, WPO2K, etc.

Andrew

"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:

> > Corel made a bad decision when they chose to use WINE rather than
> > porting to *NIX or using an API library.
>
> That would depend entirely upon what the reasons were. Although I'm of the
> opinion that quality is critical, I do understand monetary pressures. We
> (Corel) were running out of cash, and we needed a splashy release, ASAP. (I
> actually think it went a lot better than it might have. We've only really
> fumbled it since the release.)
>
> Keep in mind too, that we're looking for a cross-platform release, not a
> linux-specific one. A big part of this picture is to move win users to linux -
> and making them comfortable there is helpful. You linux hardcores aren't
> really the target audience...
>

> --

Dan Alder (Corel)

unread,
Nov 29, 2000, 10:26:29 PM11/29/00
to
Well, part of it is getting some mindshare out there - it was a strategic move. We
knew we weren't going to make much, if any, money on this venture. And I do kind of
agree with this; even if the initial release has a lukewarm reception, we'll at
least be able to claim that we were there at the beginning of the desktop movement.
Hopefully, by the point that it becomes viable, we'll have worked out all the kinks.
:-)

--D

Andrew Post wrote:

--

dana.vcf

Carl Fink

unread,
Nov 30, 2000, 10:48:49 PM11/30/00
to
On Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:09:08 -0500 Denis Roy <too...@videotron.ca> wrote:
>> I've been bitten by this bug many times. My system configuration is:
>> Mandrake Linux 6.1
>> Helixcode GNOME desktop with Sawfish
>> Both WPO2K and the saved files are on /dev/hda7, an ext2 filesystem on
>> the local harddrive. Permissions on those files are -rwxrwxr-x.
>> Autosave was turned on.
>>
>
>It is clear to me that any commercial app developped by a large company
>will have major difficulty in creating solid desktop apps for Linux.
>Unlike Windows, where there is mainly only one interface and a
>standardized API (among other things), Linux is a real free-for-all
>software nightmare where everyone installs anything on non-standardized
>platforms. This is a ticking time-bomb waiting to happen.

Um, this is disproved by the example of <insert stable software
package here>. Sure, we've all heard of problems with them, but on
various Linux systems StarOffice, Netscape Navigator, and RealPlayer
all run stably and install just fine. To be more blunt, all of them
work enormously better than WordPerfect for Wine for Linux.
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>

Andrew Post

unread,
Dec 1, 2000, 9:54:00 AM12/1/00
to ca...@dm.net
Carl Fink wrote:
>

> Um, this is disproved by the example of <insert stable software
> package here>. Sure, we've all heard of problems with them, but on
> various Linux systems StarOffice, Netscape Navigator, and RealPlayer
> all run stably and install just fine. To be more blunt, all of them
> work enormously better than WordPerfect for Wine for Linux.

I think that a lot of people would disagree with you on the comparison
with Netscape Navigator. Nav 4.7 crashes far more often than WPO2K. I
can't keep Navigator 6 for more than an hour without it crashing.

His point is valid in that companies generally haven't been putting
enough time into Linux software in order to make it stable enough for
everyday use (unless Linux customers are your main users in the case of
StarOffice, and unless you're Netscape, where Netscape's programmers
don't put enough effort into developing their software for any
platform). Linux projects always get pushed aside when the next Windows
version comes due. Linux is almost a hobby for these organizations.
RealPlayer is a good example: how long did it take them before
RealPlayer G2 for Linux came out of beta? Over a year, and only after
Redhat gave them a large infusion of cash? Creative Lab's commitment to
developing full drivers for SBLive! and others keep getting pushed back.
The list goes on...

Bottom line: salvation for Linux isn't going to come from companies like
Netscape, Creative, and Real. Its going to come from companies who's
financial future rests on Linux being successful. Otherwise, Windows
development always gets higher priority. Even Corel doesn't fit into
this category anymore (sorry, Corel).

Andrew

Andrew

Andrew

Dan Alder

unread,
Dec 1, 2000, 10:43:09 AM12/1/00
to


Basically, when the revenue from a given platform is only a tiny
fraction of that of the others, it's difficult to justify resources,
even if you regard them as strategically important. Often, companies
won't mind spending $5 to make $1 if there's a decent chance of a profit
in the future, but spending $50 or $500 for $1 is just a waste.

I think actually that it _will_ be the cross-platform companies that
provide the "salvation" for linux - because they already own the entire
spread of users that's missing from the linux space. The reason Linux on
the desktop doesn't work yet is simply because of the difficulties in
switching - sure I can run 90% of what I do in a day on Linux, but I've
had to change every app I use (except WPO) in order to do it, get used
to new keystrokes and behaviours, learn new utilites, and so on... and
there's that pesky 10% of stuff that I need to go back to windows for.
VMWare helps, but why not just stay in windows?

dana.vcf

Carl Fink

unread,
Dec 1, 2000, 9:30:25 PM12/1/00
to
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:54:00 -0500 Andrew Post <ap...@cbmi.upmc.edu> wrote:
>
>I think that a lot of people would disagree with you on the comparison
>with Netscape Navigator. Nav 4.7 crashes far more often than WPO2K. I
>can't keep Navigator 6 for more than an hour without it crashing.

I haven't upgraded since 4.61. It works and doesn't have the
unnecessary chrome from later versions. Pardon my unclear example.

>Bottom line: salvation for Linux isn't going to come from companies like
>Netscape, Creative, and Real. Its going to come from companies who's
>financial future rests on Linux being successful.

Actually I think it'll come from open source and free (libre)
software, not from any profit-making company at all. I used to agree
with you, but frankly I haven't purchased a really good program in
years and lots of free stuff is better.

Carl Fink

unread,
Dec 1, 2000, 9:31:54 PM12/1/00
to
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:43:09 -0500 Dan Alder <da...@corel.com> wrote:

>. . . sure I can run 90% of what I do in a day on Linux, but I've


>had to change every app I use (except WPO) in order to do it, get
>used to new keystrokes and behaviours, learn new utilites, and so
>on... and there's that pesky 10% of stuff that I need to go back to
>windows for. VMWare helps, but why not just stay in windows?

I haven't had to leave Linux for anything I want to do for about two
years. Literally. Granted I don't do, say, publishing layout or
chip design or something . . . .

SI Reasoning

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 2:17:56 AM12/2/00
to
>
> > In this case, to make money, you need a good product and service.
> > Cutting your costs helps very little if it also cuts your sales.
>
> Agreed, though in this case, I suspect that any limit on sales has more
> to do with a small market rather than the quality of the product. Don't
> get me wrong - this needs to be fixed and is definitely contributing to
> some lost sales, but I think the bigger factor is that most of the
> hardcore linux market is happy with what they have (either don't use an
> office suite, use a free alternative, or build their own... koffice
> anyone?), and general desktop users are not moving off of Windows yet.
>
>

I feel that this view is shortsighted. I bet there are quite a few admins
such as me out there who are evaluating and testing so that they can make the
next major upgrade to Linux. I currently support an office that made a major
move to Windows NT about 4 years ago. It was a major expense, but a necessary
one. There was a huge productivity gain that offset the cost. However, to
make the same move to Win2000 would mean replacing all the current computers,
including the servers again, and most , if not all of the software besides
the OS. If we have to make such a drastic move, why not move to Linux, and
continue to use our existing hardware, and incorporate familiar programs like
wordperfect with other stable Linux programs.
Personally, I think that WordPerfect for Windows is a dead end. Windows has
become dominated by Microsoft software and you will only see a decline in
marketshare. I am currently in a battle to prevent a switch over to
Microsoft Word. Momentum has been building in that direction and it becomes
increasingly difficult to fend it off. I have been trying to streamline all
new purchases so that anything new would also be Linux compatible. However,
the test of Wordperfect 2000 for windows seriously disappointed our test
staff who were looking for improvements over our existing bugs and found it
even more unstable. The Linux version has been even more disappointing,
especially because of the lack of fixes available for even the simple problem
of installation and casual use. Linux still offers your best opportunity but
you have to be serious. I don't see that at this time. Personally, I think
you should open up parts of your code and allow the open-source community to
assist you. With all the cuts that you have taken, I don't see how you could
credibly make the Linux version a strong contender without that help. I think
that people forget that Linux use is only slightly behind Mac use and is
growing exponentially. Unfortunately, I have had so many problems with the
test installation of Wordperfect 2000 that I am encouraging some of the
office workers who are helping evaluate to take a look at some alternatives
such as Abiword. However, if we move to Word then the fate is pretty much
sealed.

--
----------------------
SI Reasoning
sc...@yahoo.com

Carl Fink

unread,
Dec 2, 2000, 10:30:06 PM12/2/00
to
On 1 Dec 2000 21:30:25 -0500 Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:

>. . . I haven't purchased a really good program in years and lots of
>free stuff is better.

Being obsessed with fairness, I have to correct myself: I bought mtv
(www.mpegtv.com) and like it. That was early in '99 as I recall.

James Richard Tyrer

unread,
Dec 3, 2000, 1:42:48 AM12/3/00
to
Dan Alder wrote:

> Basically, when the revenue from a given platform is only a tiny
> fraction of that of the others, it's difficult to justify resources,
> even if you regard them as strategically important. Often, companies
> won't mind spending $5 to make $1 if there's a decent chance of a profit
> in the future, but spending $50 or $500 for $1 is just a waste.
>

It is just a question of how much you see to potential market to be.
The current Linux market is not large. But, the potential market for a
product clearly superior to MS Word is very large. There are customers
out there that actually prefer WordPerfect. But, now that MicroSoft has
become involved in Corel, I presume that the Linux "hobby" market is the
only one that will be explored.

>
> I think actually that it _will_ be the cross-platform companies that
> provide the "salvation" for linux - because they already own the entire
> spread of users that's missing from the linux space. The reason Linux on
> the desktop doesn't work yet is simply because of the difficulties in
> switching - sure I can run 90% of what I do in a day on Linux, but I've
> had to change every app I use (except WPO) in order to do it, get used
> to new keystrokes and behaviours, learn new utilites, and so on... and
> there's that pesky 10% of stuff that I need to go back to windows for.
> VMWare helps, but why not just stay in windows?
>

Having given the question of "cross-platform" some additional thought:

I do not see running WP on Linux using WINE as cross-platform from an
applications perspective.

The question really has two answers depending on whether you look at it
from the operating system or application perspective.

For the operating system, WINE is a good idea if it works since it will
promote the sale of the OS by offering the ability to run MS-Windows
applications.

But, from the application side, this is not a good strategy. You need
for your applications to run on many OS platforms and you need to do
this with a multi-platform API system to generate truly native
applications for each platform (with only minimal changes).

There appear to be disadvantages to using the Win32 API to write a *NIX
application with an API porting library since you really have not
developed any intellectual property. You are relying on someone else's
and another company could do so just as easily.

That is, if you ported WPO with MainWin, your competitor could simply do
the same.

Corel is currently straddling the two positions -- OS and Application --
with their own version of WINE but even if this worked perfectly, this
situation cannot last. If it is possible to make WINE function
properly, then it will eventually result in the release of a stable
product that will allow users to run any MS-Windows application on
Linux. And, WINELib/Twine (and their compiler converter routines) will
allow porting other Office suites to Linux just as easily.

On the other hand, if you rewrite your code to use Kylix (for MS-Windows
and Linux), or develop your own bottom layers for your code (one for
each API), you will actually have something that your competitors cannot
simply do the same with little effort on their part.

Other than that, WISE based products for Linux will be available next
year. It appears that the least expensive and fastest way to have a
reasonably product on the market would be to offer a WISE client for
CLOS and a version of WPO slightly optimized to run on it.

The problem there is that WISE based clients rely on actual MS-Windows
code and I presume that this will mean that the applications will not be
any more stable on Linux than on MS-Windows. The only advantage would
be that they probably wouldn't be able to crash the OS with them. Even
with the current versions of WINE, even X usually survives the crash.

http://www.mainsoft.com/products/mainwin.html

http://www.borland.com/kylix/

It will be interesting to see if applications ported to Linux with Kylix
will be more stable than their MS-Windows counterparts. If they are,
then this is clearly the way to go (in the long run).

JRT

Dan Alder (Corel)

unread,
Dec 5, 2000, 9:10:18 PM12/5/00
to
> new purchases so that anything new would also be Linux compatible. However,
> the test of Wordperfect 2000 for windows seriously disappointed our test
> staff who were looking for improvements over our existing bugs and found it
> even more unstable.

When was this testing done? There have been literally hundreds of bugs fixed in
four service packs we've released...


> The Linux version has been even more disappointing,
> especially because of the lack of fixes available for even the simple problem
> of installation and casual use. Linux still offers your best opportunity but
> you have to be serious. I don't see that at this time. Personally, I think
> you should open up parts of your code and allow the open-source community to
> assist you

Like they helped Netscape? I'm a bit skeptical, especially since the WP codebase
is over 20 years old, whereas Navigator was less than ten. I just don't see open
source being a solution for an existing product, especially if it needs to be
released commercially as well. There are too many conflicts.

> With all the cuts that you have taken, I don't see how you could
> credibly make the Linux version a strong contender without that help.

That's one of the reasons Derek and the execs are considering our options about
our linux line. It's kinda difficult to compete with the other distro producers
with the staff we have, and it might be better to focus entirely on the apps
instead of the OS, which will take care of itself.

dana.vcf

Andrew Post

unread,
Dec 6, 2000, 11:40:52 AM12/6/00
to
"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:

> Like they helped Netscape? I'm a bit skeptical, especially since the WP codebase
> is over 20 years old, whereas Navigator was less than ten. I just don't see open
> source being a solution for an existing product, especially if it needs to be
> released commercially as well. There are too many conflicts.

What do you mean, "Like they helped Netscape?" Netscape's problems were
born of failure to follow good software engineering practices in the
process of maintaining their code. They had to rewrite it because it was
unmaintainable. The peer-review process of the open-source community
simply forced them to confront this problem. That it took over 2 years
to rewrite isn't surprising, given the complexity of a modern browser.
And even if Netscape's engineers ended up doing most of the rewrite, it
was a huge contribution to urge them to rewrite instead of jury-rigging
the old codebase. Either way, a crummy Netscape-6 based on the old
codebase or a beyond-late mozilla-based Netscape 6, I doubt that the
outcome for Netscape would be much different in the short term. At least
now, Netscape has some chance in the long term.

Andrew

Dan Alder

unread,
Dec 6, 2000, 12:25:03 PM12/6/00
to
> What do you mean, "Like they helped Netscape?" Netscape's problems were
> born of failure to follow good software engineering practices in the
> process of maintaining their code. They had to rewrite it because it was
> unmaintainable. The peer-review process of the open-source community
> simply forced them to confront this problem. That it took over 2 years
> to rewrite isn't surprising, given the complexity of a modern browser.
> And even if Netscape's engineers ended up doing most of the rewrite, it
> was a huge contribution to urge them to rewrite instead of jury-rigging
> the old codebase. Either way, a crummy Netscape-6 based on the old
> codebase or a beyond-late mozilla-based Netscape 6, I doubt that the
> outcome for Netscape would be much different in the short term. At least
> now, Netscape has some chance in the long term.
>
> Andrew

But what you have is a beyond late NS6, that's buggier than v4, and is a
major memory hog. I'm sure the architectural advances and rewrites are
very nice, but there's really very little useful in that package that I
can use (other than CSS1 compliance, but the CSS2 spec's been official
since May 98. Where's that support?). I can't get it to run for longer
than about 10 minutes without crashing. The Mozilla builds are only
marginally better. In the end I have a buggier, slower version of the
thing I had before. How does this help me, as the user?

I understand the complexities of the development process (I work for a
software company, remeber?). However, there are very different
philosophies at work in the OS and commercial development: the former is
driven by people who have an interest in programming; the latter by
people who have an interest in making money. My resposibility is to my
employer's investors, not my developers. This means I have deadlines
that must be met, regardless of the quality. (In reality, that just
means we plan to do less in order to meet those deadlines - remove
features, prioritize required fixes, etc)

Does that excuse us from writing bad code? Of course not. But if it
works, and makes money, it doesn't have to be perfect. Most users could
care less what technology is used and how a program is put together - as
long as it does it in a stable, consistant and usable way. The fact that
we use WINE, for example, rather than doing a complete port, is
irrelavent, if the customer has a suite of working business applications
that allow them to get on with their work.

In addition to WPO Linux, I'm also the PGM for Paradox. I've thought
hard about opensourcing it, but it just doesn't make sense to do. I
can't see any way my customers would benefit from it. I'll get a press
release, but beyond that... <shrug>

IMHO, open source works well if you have a brand-new, from scratch
program, that you don't intend to ever make commercial. Start with
legacy code, you'll just end up rewriting (and why do you need the
original source then?). Add selling the app, and you change the purpose
of the project from software production to revenue generation. I just
don't believe it will work that way.

--D


--
Dan Alder
Program Manager, Paradox, WP Office for Linux & OEM/ESD Products

dana.vcf

Andrew Post

unread,
Dec 6, 2000, 10:04:31 PM12/6/00
to
>
> But what you have is a beyond late NS6, that's buggier than v4, and is a
> major memory hog. I'm sure the architectural advances and rewrites are
> very nice, but there's really very little useful in that package that I
> can use (other than CSS1 compliance, but the CSS2 spec's been official
> since May 98. Where's that support?). I can't get it to run for longer
> than about 10 minutes without crashing. The Mozilla builds are only
> marginally better. In the end I have a buggier, slower version of the
> thing I had before. How does this help me, as the user?
>

You've had a better experience with Netscape 4.x than I have. I've seen
it regularly chew up all 256MB of memory in a single bound, crash merely
by pressing the OK button after entering a username and password to a
usenet server, and render text as blocky as a MacII. It's embarassing
for an x.7 release to be still crashing with such regularity. It
certaintly wasn't the web browser that Linux needs to be a success
(either by developer or investor standards).

> I understand the complexities of the development process (I work for a
> software company, remeber?). However, there are very different
> philosophies at work in the OS and commercial development: the former is
> driven by people who have an interest in programming; the latter by
> people who have an interest in making money. My resposibility is to my
> employer's investors, not my developers. This means I have deadlines
> that must be met, regardless of the quality. (In reality, that just
> means we plan to do less in order to meet those deadlines - remove
> features, prioritize required fixes, etc)
>

I bet that Netscape's investors are wishing tonight that they didn't
push the release of Netscape 6 so hard. Especially when the most recent
versions of IE are working so well...


> In addition to WPO Linux, I'm also the PGM for Paradox. I've thought
> hard about opensourcing it, but it just doesn't make sense to do. I
> can't see any way my customers would benefit from it. I'll get a press
> release, but beyond that... <shrug>
>

I agree that open-source isn't the solution for all software. I just
don't like suggestions that Netscape's decision to open-source their
browser is the cause of their problems. Their problems date back much
further than that.

Andrew

Dan Alder

unread,
Dec 7, 2000, 10:25:27 AM12/7/00
to
> I agree that open-source isn't the solution for all software. I just
> don't like suggestions that Netscape's decision to open-source their
> browser is the cause of their problems. Their problems date back much
> further than that.

Maybe. I'm not a serious coder (I am a programmer, it just doesn't
interest me enough to get into that heavily). From the standpoint of the
user of the product, I see a product that I've had to wait 2+ years
beyond the predicted date for, that has gotten slower and buggier, and
that doesn't do anything more than the last version. I don't see that as
an advance, no matter who built it.

dana.vcf

Gavriel State

unread,
Dec 7, 2000, 7:56:00 PM12/7/00
to
Andrew Post wrote:
>
> And even if Netscape's engineers ended up doing most of the rewrite, it
> was a huge contribution to urge them to rewrite instead of jury-rigging
> the old codebase. Either way, a crummy Netscape-6 based on the old
> codebase or a beyond-late mozilla-based Netscape 6, I doubt that the
> outcome for Netscape would be much different in the short term. At least
> now, Netscape has some chance in the long term.

Here's a very interesting perspective on the issue that's well worth a read.

http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$47

http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$257

Fundamentally, code that's been tested and pounded on and worked with for
a long time is good code, even if it's 'architected poorly'. It's better
to work incrementally from something that works well than it is to throw
it all away in the name of a 'clean rewrite'.

Think about the Linux kernel. When people decided to port it to CPUs other
than x86, the initial assumption that many folks had was that it would be
impossible, since the kernel was fairly tightly wired to the x86 architecture.
Did they throw all the code away and start architecting a new kernel with
portability in mind? No - they worked the portability into the existing code,
bit by bit, seperating out what needed to be seperated, and adding new
architecture where it was needed.

This is the same decision we made when we decided to port WP9 to Linux
through WINE. We had a massive existing codebase and the choice was
between throwing it all away and trying to do something completely new
and keeping the existing code and re-architecting the lowest layer -
which in this case was Win32.

That there are problems has nothing to do with the approach, and everything
to do with time and resources. Most of the more serious problems with WPO
have more to do with system configuration issues (fonttastic, startup
scripts, XF 4.0) then they have to do with WINE. Many others are WP itself.
And there are some issues that are due to WINE. But the real problem is
that there hasn't been an ongoing commitment to maintenance since the
product was released. Period.

Do you seriously believe that while Netscape wasn't able to do a from-the-ground
up portable rewrite of a *browser* in three years (with the help of the open
source community), Corel could have rewritten an office suite with 10 times the
complexity in any less time and had it any more stable than the current
offering?

-Gav

--
Gavriel State
CEO
TransGaming Technologies Inc.
g...@transgaming.com

TK Wimble

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 8:38:12 AM12/8/00
to
"Dan Alder (Corel)" wrote:

>
> > 2. Saving problems ("access denied" after some period of time,
> > requiring exit and restart with some lost data or even
> > a total loss of the active file).
>
> I've never been able to dupe this unfortunately. :-( Until we can
> reproduce it, there's not much we can do... can you provide some
> specifics? distro and version, other running software, what type of
> partition your're using, etc?
>

Dan,

I have put a little research into this bug, and I think I've found, at least
what I believe, to
be a problem..... Unfortunately, it took me 6 crashes while writing a
contract to finally
put some energy into this. I agree with everyone else who says "FIX IT!".

The problem may be stemming from a lack of file descriptors. I ran an lsof -p
on
the wine program, and found that it had 365 instances of the same DLL opened.
Below is my output of lsof....

Also, the problem doesn't seem to stem from how long WP is running. I've left
my
contract open for about 2 days now after I finished it and it's been fine. It
seems to be
based on usage of the program. What led me to look at file descriptors is the
fact that
just before I experienced the "permission denied" problem, I always noticed
that WP
would flag a perfectly spelled word as incorrectly spelled -- EVERY TIME.
Although
I haven't tried, perhaps shutting off the automatic spell-checker might be a
work-around
until WP releases a much-needed service pack for this product.

Configuration: Mandrake 7.1, i386, whatever XFree86 that came with Mandrake
7.1,
and WPO 2000.

Hope it helps!
Lawrence "TK" Wimble

wine 8084 root 35r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 39r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 40r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 41r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 42r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 43r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 44r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 45r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 46r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 47r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 48r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 49r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 50r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 51r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 52r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 53r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 54r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 55r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 56r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 57r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 60r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 61r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 62r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 63r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 64r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 65r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 66r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 67r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 68r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 69r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 70r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 71r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 72r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 73r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 74r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 75r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 76r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 77r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 78r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 79r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 80r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 81r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 82r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 83r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 84r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 85r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 86r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 87r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 88r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 89r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 90r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 91r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 92r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 93r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 94r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 95r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 96r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 97r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 98r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 99r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 100r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 101r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 102r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 103r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 104r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 105r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 106r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 107r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 108r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 109r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 110r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 111r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 112r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 113r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 114r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 115r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 116r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 136r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 137r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 139r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 140r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 141r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 142r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 143r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 144r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 145r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 146r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 147r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 148r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 149r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 150r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 151r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 152r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 153r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 154r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 155r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 156r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 157r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 158r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 159r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 160r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 161r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 162r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 163r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 164r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 165r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 166r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 167r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 168r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 169r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 170r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 171r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 172r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 173r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 174r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 175r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 176r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 177r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 178r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 179r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 180r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 181r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 182r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 183r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 184r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 185r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 186r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 187r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 188r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 189r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 190r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 191r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 192r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 193r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 194r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 195r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 196r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 197r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 198r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 199r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 200r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 201r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 202r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 203r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 204r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 205r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 206r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 207r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 208r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 209r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 210r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 211r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 212r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 213r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 214r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 215r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 216r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 217r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 218r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 219r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 220r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 221r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 222r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 223r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 224r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 225r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 226r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 227r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 228r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 229r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 230r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 231r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 232r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 233r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 234r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 235r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 236r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 237r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 238r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 239r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 240r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 241r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 242r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 243r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 244r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 245r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 246r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 247r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 248r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 249r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 250r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 251r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 252r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 253r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 254r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 255r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 256r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 257r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 258r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 259r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 260r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 261r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 262r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 263r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 264r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 265r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 266r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 267r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 268r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 269r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 270r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 271r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 272r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 273r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 274r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 275r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 276r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 277r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 278r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 279r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 280r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 281r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 282r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 283r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 284r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 285r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 286r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 287r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 288r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 289r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 290r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 291r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 292r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 293r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 294r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 295r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 296r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 297r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 298r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 299r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 300r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 301r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 302r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 303r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 304r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 305r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 306r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 307r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 308r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 309r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 310r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 311r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 312r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 313r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 314r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 315r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 316r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 317r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 318r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 319r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 320r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 321r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 322r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 323r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 324r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 325r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 326r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 327r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 328r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 329r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 330r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 331r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 332r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 333r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 334r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 335r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 336r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 337r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 338r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 339r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 340r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 341r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 342r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 343r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 344r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 345r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 346r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 347r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 348r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 349r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 350r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 351r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 352r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 353r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 354r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 355r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 356r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 357r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 358r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 359r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 360r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 361r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 362r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 363r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 364r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 365r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 366r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 367r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 368r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 369r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 370r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 371r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 372r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 373r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 374r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 375r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 376r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 377r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 378r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 379r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 380r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 381r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 382r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 383r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 384r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 385r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 386r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 387r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 388r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 389r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 390r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 391r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 392r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 393r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 394r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 395r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 396r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 397r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 398r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 399r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 400r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 401r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 402r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 403r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 404r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 405r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 406r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 407r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 408r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 409r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 410r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 411r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 412r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 413r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 414r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 415r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 416r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 417r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 418r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 419r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 420r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 421r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 422r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 423r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
wine 8084 root 424r REG 8,5 77824 352993
/usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll

Dan Alder

unread,
Dec 8, 2000, 12:51:48 PM12/8/00
to
> Although
> I haven't tried, perhaps shutting off the automatic spell-checker might be a
> work-around
> until WP releases a much-needed service pack for this product.

<snip>

>
> wine 8084 root 35r REG 8,5 77824 352993
> /usr/lib/corel/shared/Writing Tools/9.0/wt9uien.dll
> wine 8084 root 39r REG 8,5 77824 352993

...

You might be on to something here - wt9uien.dll is a core part of the
writing tools, which handle the spell checker, grammar checker, etc...

Let us know what you find.

dana.vcf

Denis Roy

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 12:24:08 AM12/12/00
to
Oddly enouogh, the first thing I do when I install _any_ office suite is
disable spell checking, and I have never had any problems accessing my
filesystem after using WP9 heavily...

Maybe it is the darn spellcheck that has a leak...

D.


--

Denis Roy (MCSE, CNA, MCP)
http://www.naturex.ca

Dan Alder

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 8:50:27 AM12/12/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> Oddly enouogh, the first thing I do when I install _any_ office suite is
> disable spell checking, and I have never had any problems accessing my
> filesystem after using WP9 heavily...
>
> Maybe it is the darn spellcheck that has a leak...
>
> D.


Sounds like it. I'll try a few things...

dana.vcf

Ernie DeVries

unread,
Dec 12, 2000, 11:07:35 AM12/12/00
to
Denis Roy wrote:
>
> Oddly enouogh, the first thing I do when I install _any_ office suite is
> disable spell checking, and I have never had any problems accessing my
> filesystem after using WP9 heavily...
>
> Maybe it is the darn spellcheck that has a leak...
>

So if you do this, do you lose all spell checking capabilities or only
the "real time" flagging of misspelled words?

Denis Roy

unread,
Dec 13, 2000, 5:26:51 PM12/13/00
to
Only the "realtime" spell checks (and Prompt-as-you-go). I find the red
underlines a pain in the ass. I always have the options of doing a
manual spell-check once in a while. If indeed the on-the-fly
spell-check is the problem, I'd recommend turning it off, and manually
spell-check.

D.

--

Denis Roy (MCSE, CNA, MCP)
http://www.naturex.ca

0 new messages