Re: Crossover / Wine cannot install Office

From: Bob Hauck (postmaster_at_localhost.localdomain)
Date: 05/18/04 

Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:53:55 -0400

On Mon, 17 May 2004 18:47:03 +0100, Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:

> In message <8765av3f4b.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>, John Hasler
> ><john@dhh.gt.org> writes

>>Luke quotes:

>>> SuSE Linux now ships with a graphical database front end, called Rekall.
>>
>> When these guys write "There will never be a Linux equivalent of X"
>> they don't really mean an equivalent. They mean an absolutely
>> identical bug for bug compatible replacement.

> I mean a functional equivalent.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Most of us understand
"functional equivalent" to mean something like "does the same job". To
you it apparently means "compatible clone". You certainly can build
fill-in-the-form database apps on Linux. You just can't do it with VBA.

> Look, can we be a bit grown-up about this? You pick the tools
> according to the job.

It is certainly the case that you can build databases and spreadsheets
in Linux that perform the same functions as ones built with Access and
Excel. What you can't do very well is use Microsoft tools to do it.
You could use, say, Borland's tools, or IBM's, or Oracle's, or things
like Python or PHP, but not Microsoft's tools. We can argue all day
over what's "easier", but the fact is that people are doing it.

>From what you've said it seems that you are basically at least in part
in the business of building apps on top of MS Office. So _of course_
Linux isn't a good option for you for the simple reason that you must
have MS Office and nothing else will do. Since MS Office is not native
to Linux it won't work quite as well as it does on Windows and your work
product won't look as good to the customer.

And that's fine, if that is the business you have chosen. That does
not, however, mean that it is that way for everyone. Most of us are not
in the "building apps on top of Office" business. The spread*** or
the document is not itself the product. Minor incompatibilites just
aren't that important. 95% _is_ good enough if there's a significant
saving somewhere.

> If I want to maintain Access databases and applications in exchange
> for money, I'll use Access under Windows. End of story.

Indeed it is. If that's what you want to do you have to use Windows.

On the other hand, Joe Businessman who just wants to write a proposal
for a customer or do some "what if" planning with a spread*** or send
some email very likely _will_ be satisfied with OOo and Mozilla instead
of Office/Outlook/IE. He will likely also save a lot of money and
aggravation by adopting the former. But he won't be your customer.

> When I can get full functional support for Access databases (and a few
> other Windows programs) under Linux I'll go for it and happily bid
> farewell to Windows. I think it's more likely that I'll retire first.

In other words, when Linux becomes exactly like Windows you will be
satisfied with it. Well, that's not ever gonna happen so you might as
well give up now. If it were exactly like Windows, it would have
exactly the same problems and what's the point of that?

For you, Linux is a nice file server and firewall OS. For many of the
rest of us it does more than that. Your requirements in terms of MS
Office compatibility are an order of magnitude more exacting than most
people's and I think you might want to mention that when commenting on
compatibility. 

-- 
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.haucks.org/