Well, if that is the case then you are absolutely right. Back to the drawing boards. On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, White, Matt wrote: > You are not missing anything here. Furthermore, WordPerfect uses a > non-textual interface even though it is not a X application rendering it > completely useless. > > <quote who="Chuck Hallenbeck"> > > Seems to me that Word Perfect for Linux, if it existed, would > > have the same problem that all proprietary software has: i.e., it > > uses a proprietary format that assumes the availability of Word > > Perfect for anyone wishing to work with the document. I know you > > can make plain text files with WP, but why bother to use WP if > > you want to make plain text files? What are the advantages of > > Word Perfect for Linux that would be worth the limitations of a > > proprietary file format? > > > > Or am I missing something? > > > > > > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, jude dashiell wrote: > > > >> Only version of that I've ever run into came on infomagic disks and > >> would need gnome or kde or some other form of x to run it. It's for > >> that reason I'd not use wp under Linux or even have it take up disk > >> space here. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Speakup mailing list > >> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > >> > > > > -- > > The Moon is Waning Gibbous (84% of Full) > > So visit me sometime at http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh > > My public encryption key is posted on that site > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > -- -- Charlie Crawford
