Download SoftMaker Office

[mikeb]

Thats ok ... no problem then ...at least you noticed ... amazing how many do not seem to read anyone else posts here so a bit of a sore subject.

We are all human but at least some make an effort.

Greengeek.... yes it is a nice idea but I get the feeling the need to regster on a thrd party site before using software included in a free/gpl ish distro will not be accepted. Slightly frustrating I know...perhaps just have a screen sized button which takes the user to softmaker plus a pet linked from a dummy abiword icon....

mike

[mikeb]

Hmm seems like they made a boo boo

Dear SoftMaker customer:

You are a user of SoftMaker FreeOffice for Linux. We have just
released revision 697 as a free download.

This revision fixes a bug that could lead to program crashes during
regular typing. We therefore recommend to install the new revision.

applies to windows too but for that version it can self update.

mike

[anikin]

Does anyone else get the same issue as I get - with tiny dialog boxes appearing with Freeoffice? Some are resizable and some are not.

Dialog boxes per se are OK on DebianDog and Debian Jessie/SID. However, your attached image demonstrates another issue - font rendering in FreeOffice GUI. It is unacceptably bad for a product, that aspires to compete with MS Office. The installation flat out refuses to respect font settings in JWM and possibly other WM's. Have a look at my attached image and the discussion here: http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.p ... 29518.html

[mikeb]

If you search around the gui font situation was discussed earlier and from your link it is system dependant.

Its hard to cater for a system like linux which is so fragmented and non standardised and perhaps you should appreciate that someone is bothering at all to provide (free) software as an alternative to an expensive hi jack known as MS office which is not even available for linux at all, and without being a system hog either.

Get fussy when you start paying for stuff...

mike

[anikin]

If you search around the gui font situation was discussed earlier and from your link it is system dependant.

You could have ended it here, perhaps adding a link. Not that I've asked for help though.

and perhaps you should appreciate that someone is bothering at all to provide (free) software

No need to preach the obvious and wag a finger at me.

Get fussy when you start paying for stuff...

Arrogant, patronizing BS, I can afford to pay for stuff. Chill down.

[mikeb]

And your negative input is not exactly productive is it .....

thanks

mike

[mikeb]

It is unacceptably bad for a product, that aspires to compete with MS Office.

now thats a great example of arrogant BS by the way.....

mike

[Colonel Panic]

To be fair, Mike, I've just checked the GUI fonts (assuming those are the ones in the title bar right at the top of the Textmaker window) in my paid for version of Softmaker (2012), and it has the same problem as Anikin's pointed out that FreeOffice has; they are quite faint and indistinct, though not noticeably worse than the same fonts at the top of the other application windows are when JWM is running, so it could be largely a JWM problem.

Though they're still readable, it would be better if they were clearer and better defined. It's not just a case of the fonts being weak because it's the free version; the paid for version has them too.

I put up with it because; 1 / I don't look at the title bar that much, and b / it's a lot cheaper than Microsoft Office, which doesn't run on Linux anyway, and c / for the most part Softmaker 2012 does a very fine job as an office suite, even saving files to Office 2007-13 format (the one difference I've found between it and FreeOffice).

I haven't tried it in other window managers yet so I can't comment on those.

[mikeb]

Well to be fair this is a failing with linux on the whole.... its plethora of non standards...

mike

[Colonel Panic]

Well to be fair this is a failing with linux on the whole.... its plethora of non standards...

mike

Yeah you're right Mike, and as I said above (I've just edited my post as you were replying - sorry), other apps have the same problem.

Having said that, I shouldn't complain when Linux and Puppy in particular enables me to keep a twelve year old computer running and do pretty much everything I'd do if I had a Windows 9even machine (I'm not impressed with Windows 8 ).

Nevertheless, it's one advantage Microsoft and Apple definitely have over us - you always know you're going to get a strong set of fonts in their apps. Their standards mightn't always be perfect, but IME they're remarkably consistent in whatever app you're using.

[rufwoof]

In this post I've detailed an approach I'm trying with Softmaker/FreeOffice specifically in mind. Generally I find it usable excepting certain dialogs like file open/save as etc where the fonts are too small for comfort.

The workaround I'm using is to have two desktops (I'm normally a 1 desktop only user) and where the second desktop is set to display using a lower resolution (800x600 in my case compared to 1024x768 on the main desktop).

So when file/open dialog is small, drag that to the right (desktop 2) and its much more comfortable.

I've been using Libre Office up to now after having tried freeoffice and rejected such due to the menu/dialog fonts being too small for comfort, so time will tell if the workaround is viable enough to tempt me away from Libre. I know some find Libre slow, but I leave it resident and find that it works well/fast. ooo4kids is a another alternative (form of cut down libre that's very quick and relatively small) - and pretty adult despite its name, especially when set to 'expert' mode. The downside with that is spreadsheets are limited to 256 rows so for more spreadsheet heavy users that's a potential show-stopper.

[mikeb]

Well I have noticed over the years how fonts and puppy in particular don't get on.

Eg with standard Lucid browser fonts are often tiny , squinty terminal types...almost unreadable especially when on a glaring white background...same program and page on slax...nice clear and bold. I did apply a few improvements from there to puppy which helps...one of which is the bitmap font fix that's still comment out in some pups.

Performance in this area varies a lot...indeed puppy 2.12 had a nice font setup as it happens...... dpi's get played with, some import a pile of windows fonts but I have found when settings are right standard linux ones look great. console fonts can also go from pleasant to horrible or broken altogether....again this is not just a puppy feature/problem.

Unfortunate that softmaker gets a bit snagged on all of this but as mentioned often browsers are badly affected too.

mike

[Colonel Panic]

Well I have noticed over the years how fonts and puppy in particular don't get on.

Eg with standard Lucid browser fonts are often tiny , squinty terminal types...almost unreadable especially when on a glaring white background...same program and page on slax...nice clear and bold. I did apply a few improvements from there to puppy which helps...one of which is the bitmap font fix that's still comment out in some pups.

Performance in this area varies a lot...indeed puppy 2.12 had a nice font setup as it happens...... dpi's get played with, some import a pile of windows fonts but I have found when settings are right standard linux ones look great. console fonts can also go from pleasant to horrible or broken altogether....again this is not just a puppy feature/problem.

Unfortunate that softmaker gets a bit snagged on all of this but as mentioned often browsers are badly affected too.

mike

I think you're right Mike.

On a related note, I preferred the look of the old JWM (the one which came with Puppy 2.12 for example, and had themes like Blue, Peach and XP) to the newer JWMs. It seemed more solid-looking and the fonts easier to read.

[mikeb]

I and others have posted font info and fixes in the past but like all things on a forum such things get lost over time.

Perhaps a sticky font thread is needed....maybe in the Eyecandy section though to me its more of a general system need.

Mike

[rufwoof]

Thanks Mike.

Naughty but nice - I just copied all of windows 3.1 *.TTF fonts into /usr/share/fonts/default/TTF and now have a more comprehensive set of fonts to utilise within Libre, Firefox etc.

[mikeb]

goodly, and to be on topic as a freeoffice subscriber i get a free font a month which is a nice touch...and some nice ones too....

mike

[Colonel Panic]

Out of interest I've just booted up an old copy of 2.12, and you're right Mike; although (as you'd expect for its age) it is very "retro" it is quite pleasing to look at with good fonts.

I'd be extremely surprised if it could run Softmaker though; it'd probably take a lot of updating of libraries to get anywhere near it.

[mikeb]

I'd be extremely surprised if it could run Softmaker though; it'd probably take a lot of updating of libraries to get anywhere near it.

hmm could try it...I updated glibc to 2.6.1 from puppy 4.12. Was mainly to make wine happy. I changed gtk2 to 2.10 for firefox and also because the original gtk2 was highly unstable. As I have it now now it probably would run softmaker...
Thing was the fonts were nice including Rox which seems like a one off as its gtk1 but had nice true type fonts.... something good happened in the compile since I could not reproduce with builds from other pups.
Some gtk2 Roxes have crappy fonts for say sizes but names are ok...again varies with build....sometimes its where it looks for the gtk themes...sometimes /etc , sometimes /usr/etc...again that linux inconsistency pops up.
bitstream vera for all ...small but covered everything ...but no good for unicode.
Replaced with dejavu which covers unicode but it larger so serif and monospace were left out so often bitmap fonts are used which give that console look and small fonts. You can either add TTF fonts to fill in the gaps or point font usage to the sans ones via alias and gtkrc.

I also found Xfce4 helped with font management.

mike

[Colonel Panic]

I'd be extremely surprised if it could run Softmaker though; it'd probably take a lot of updating of libraries to get anywhere near it.

hmm could try it...I updated glibc to 2.6.1 from puppy 4.12. Was mainly to make wine happy. I changed gtk2 to 2.10 for firefox and also because the original gtk2 was highly unstable. As I have it now now it probably would run softmaker...
Thing was the fonts were nice including Rox which seems like a one off as its gtk1 but had nice true type fonts.... something good happened in the compile since I could not reproduce with builds from other pups.
Some gtk2 Roxes have crappy fonts for say sizes but names are ok...again varies with build....sometimes its where it looks for the gtk themes...sometimes /etc , sometimes /usr/etc...again that linux inconsistency pops up.
bitstream vera for all ...small but covered everything ...but no good for unicode.
Replaced with dejavu which covers unicode but it larger so serif and monospace were left out so often bitmap fonts are used which give that console look and small fonts. You can either add TTF fonts to fill in the gaps or point font usage to the sans ones via alias and gtkrc.

I also found Xfce4 helped with font management.

mike

Thanks for the advice Mike. I know you've got a nice variant of Puppy 4.15 which Darry (or someone) put on the 412 Collection page; I might see if I can get Softmaker Office to work in that one.

Best,

CP .

[mikeb]

I know you've got a nice variant of Puppy 4.15 which Darry (or someone) put on the 412 Collection page; I might see if I can get Softmaker Office to work in that one.

It will ... you could even use me lzm of it...

Actually it works on my 2.12 ...just been a while since I booted it.
Tis a nostalga bunny since all my modifications were developed on it and I updated until the point where using 4.12 made more sense.

Actually a ldd -v shows it might work on standard 2.12 if libstdc++ is ok with it...I would test but doubt if anyone's using it and 2.14x had all its libs updated so its not really 2 series apart from kernel and wrappers .

mike