Re: We should [NOT] move en masse to Nota Bene (sorry Anne!)

[Harry Binswanger hb@xxxxxxxx]

This thread should not turn into the familiar OS wars. All I'm saying is
that the dedicated workers at NB are doing *for us* the job of adapting
what's great about XyWrite to keep up with the modern computing world. No,
it's not as stable, transparent, etc. as XyWrite, but for me (and I believe
for many of us) the best parts of XyWrite are: its configurability (e.g.,
the .kbd file, SETTINGS.DFL, STARTUP.INT), U2, and XPL. Those things are
*essentially* carried forward in NB.
Your mileage may vary. So those who want to stay with XyWrite Itself (the
Platonic Form) will do so. Those, like myself, who want to take the NB
route will.

Peace be unto you.

--Harry
> No, I did not write that Ubuntu is the answer to everything, Bill. I said
> if using XyWrite is as important to you as it is to me, the best way to do
> it is through Ubuntu.
> I understand the need for proprietary programs, and from time to time,
> unfortunately, I have no choice but to use them. Wine, Linux's Windows
> emulator, will do for a surprising number of them. When Wine fails, I use
> VirtualBox to boot XP, which covers everything else.
> Clearly we differ on MSOffice, which I think has gotten more or more
> cluttered with needless "features" each version.
> > Oh sure, if I had nothing else, I could do some work on Linux. But it
> would take me three times as long and the files would not be exchangeable
> in the real world.
> I'm sorry, this is simply not true. But in any case, it's just ridiculous
> to have to boot a MS product to emulate an older MS product in the hope of
> getting some version of another MS product working. If I were in your
> shoes, and XyDos were that important to me, and I were unwilling to see
> how Adobe products work under a Windows VM in Linux, I would at least
> exert my curiousity about using a VM to run some version of Linux and
> dosemu from that. But that's just me.
>
> On 12/23/2012 10:30 AM, Bill Troop wrote:
> > At 23/12/2012 15:06, you wrote:
> >
> > essentially . . . that Ubuntu is the answer to everything.
> > But it isn't, Raphael. I need nearly all the components of Adobe Creative
> > Suite in my professional work nearly every day. That means Windows or
> > Mac. The alternatives on Linux are simply not professionally viable
> > solutions, in any way, shape, or form. I also need Quark, Fontlab, and a
> > host of other programs that are only available on the big 2. Why aren't
> > these great professional suites being ported to or written for Linux? And
> > as for Libre Office, the best thing about it is that it makes you
> > appreciate MSOffice 2010/11/13. Oh sure, if I had nothing else, I could
> > do some work on Linux. But it would take me three times as long and the
> > files would not be exchangeable in the real world. Linux is great but for
> > a vast number of professional users it is not viable. Otherwise I would
> > be on it. I love it!