Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
It's arguably the prettiest alternative to Microsoft Office, with a clean interface in a soothing IBM blue. Oddly, the once-biggest name in computing christened it "Lotus Symphony," after a spectacular and expensive failure that dates back to the days of DOS. But this new IBM Lotus Symphony seems poised for success. It is the latest open source freebie, with version 1.0 released at the end of May. It includes a word processing module, a spreadsheet, and a presentation graphics package. Its underlying coding draws on OpenOffice, with a radically different user interface by IBM.
I don't see any reason for Lotus Symphony
Posted by: Trueash 2008-07-11 00:54:53 In reply to: Lou Dolinar
Sure, Lotus Symphony is usable, but I don't see anything that would make it any more useful than OO.o, unless you are willing to trade a good chunk of your system resources for pretty tabs.
I think IBM could have made a better use of its money if it spent in on polishing OpenOffice, rather than.
I think IBM could have made a better use of its money if it spent in on polishing OpenOffice, rather than.
It is not an open source program.
And the reason this is possible, as well as the reason that some of the OOo components are not included, is that Symphony is based on OOo1.x, which had a different licensing.
And the reason this is possible, as well as the reason that some of the OOo components are not included, is that Symphony is based on OOo1.x, which had a different licensing.
The whole article is flawed, due to the fact that Lotus Symphony is not open source - it was forked from early Open Office code that was under a proprietary license.
It isn't open source. This is the second Linux Insider artcle in the last week stating that IBM's Lotus Symphony is open source. It isn't. It is proprietary software available at no financial cost. The license forbids redistribution without the explicit permission of IBM, and there is no access to the source code. It appears that Linux Insider contributors neither read licenses before commenting on them, nor understand that binaries being available at no cost does not equate to non-proprietary. Lame journalism.
