From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 18 17:39:45 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703EB16A41F for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:39:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jahnke@fmjassoc.com) Received: from smtp.wizwire.com (smtp.wizwire.com [209.218.100.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD6643D4C for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:39:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jahnke@fmjassoc.com) Received: from pinot.fmjassoc.com (209.218.101.53.bvi2.wizwire.com [209.218.101.53]) by smtp.wizwire.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8IHdauu021507; Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:39:36 -0700 From: Frank Jahnke To: Ted Mittelstaedt In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: FMJ & Associates Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 10:33:04 -0700 Message-Id: <1127064784.635.154.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.1.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-WizWire-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner-From: jahnke@fmjassoc.com Cc: youshi10@u.washington.edu, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: IE in FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: jahnke@fmjassoc.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 17:39:45 -0000 > > > >One example: how do you suggest that complex forms in PDF format are > >filled out and saved on a FreeBSD system? > > > > PDF doesn't belong in complex forms that are filled out online. I didn't say these were filled on on line -- that can be done just fine with OSS or the free Adobe Reader products. What I was talking about was downloading PDF forms, filling them out locally, and saving them. Right now OSS and other free products can fill out forms and have them printed -- they cannot be saved. When the forms are 45 pages or more, treating the computer as a simple typewriter is just silly. You need to be able to go back and edit them. I know of no way to do that with anything other than a proprietary product, such as Acrobat. I have that running under Wine on BSD. > I use > PDF at my job and we use it for one use only - contracts. A contract > must be in paper with a human's signature on it to have any validity > whatsoever in a court of law, despite what you may read otherwise. The > PDF forms we send out are NOT intended to be filled out and printed, they > are designed to be printed only, then the printout filled out and signed > by hand. And we have alternative formats available (such as word doc) > for those who don't have Acrobat loaded. I'd send these out in .png > format > if I figured the user could print them off without botching the printout. > Or in PostScript to be fed directly to the printer. > > Every other type of form we deal with that doesn't have to stand up to > legal scrutiny (ie: needs a siggy) we have long ago migrated to online > webforms. That's fine: the documents I'm describing are downloaded, completed locally, signed, copied, and submitted (an original and six to eight copies). That your company does it differently is wonderful. I don't have a choice in this matter, if I wish to do business with this concern. And I do -- there are $24 billion in proposals that are funded annually that I would like to take part in. In many ways, this sums up the entire disagreement: I'm saying I have a need that I have to deal with. You are saying I shouldn't have that need if "they" did it properly. In this case, "they" don't. So I need to deal with it, and some Windows applications work just fine. I'd just like to run them on the computer where I do the majority of my work. > > No, you are missing the point totally. I'm arguing that the so-called > "desktop" isn't important. The desktop needs to serve as a portal to > the real applications and processing, which is centralized. It is a > means to an end, not an end itself. The servers in the center that are > doing the Really Important Work are of course all FreeBSD. If Microsoft > wants to spend it's life writing goopy gimpy winders that runs on the > latest Far East dreck, more power to them as long as they put a decent > networking stack in the thing so that my xterms don't get disconnected > all the time. So here we are at the crux of it, and I haven't missed that point at all. As I said, I have no issue with a server-client architecture, and I'll extend that all the way to having a mainframe and terminals. For many situations, it is a better or at least a reasonable way to go. If the only issue is how much local power or intelligence remains, that's fine. I do think that there will remain a lot processing that is done locally, like the web browsing that started this whole thread off, particularly for smaller concerns such as mine. For smaller companies having desktops works well enough, and is probably a better use of resources. It is in my case, where the needs are rather diverse and complex. > One example: an > >electronic laboratory notebook that complies with FDA tracability and > >data integrity requirements. > > > > You see this is a perfect example once again. Why do you need > traceability and > data integrity on a notebook? Because there's data there!! Move the > data to a central location and the notebook becomes a dumb window with > no data on it, and there's no need to pay attention to the notebook. A "laboratory notebook" is a term of art that describes the legal documentation of laboratory work which is ultimately used for patent prosecution and FDA approvals, among others. An "electronic laboratory notebook" is simply its electronic version, and there are companies who have tailored products to fulfill patenting and FDA requirements. These are specialized databases where access and modification rights (among other things) are handled carefully, and yes, they are all server-client based, though the client end does process a lot of data from diverse sources (like LIMs-- laboratory information management systems) before it is approved and entered to the central database. Nowhere did I say anything about a notebook computer. I was pointing out the need for a certain kind of software that is available for Windows that will not be filled by the OSS community. Whether the application will be ported by an ISV I have no way of knowing, but my initial inquiries have not been encouraging. The front-ends on user computers are not that complicated, and can certainly be run under emulation. Could this be created as a bespoke application? Sure. It would make absolutely no sense, though, as procuring all of the required USPTO, PCT and FDA approvals simply costs too much money and takes too much time. That was my point in its original context. > > An OSS operating system like FreeBSD or Linux is not just only good > as a platform for running > OSS applications. It's good for that but it's just as good for > running the kind of narrow market, sophisticated and expensive > applications > your talking about. The goal needs to be to knock some sense into > the ISVs that produce those applications and tell them you aren't > going to buy those apps unless they port to FreeBSD. It shouldn't be > to say "Oh, those poor babies life is so hard for them, let's make > it easy for them to say on their fat lazy asses and not bestir themselves > to bother porting to the operating system WE want" Here we are in 100% agreement. I already run a $10K FEM program, admittedly in its Linux form. I'd prefer a native one, but it runs well so it is close enough for me. I run it on locally, but that isn't inherent in the program -- it is just the more reasonable the way to run it at the moment. I agree that there is an opportunity for ISVs here, and it is one that I do support. But it is not one I can control. My company by itself is simply too small to have any muscle in the marketplace, and in the meanwhile, there are certain things I need to get done. I'll choose the tools that best suit those needs. If that means getting some desktop Windows applications to run on BSD, then that's what I will do. If a good Linux or BSD application exists, of course that is something that I would prefer hand down. But too often I don't have that choice. Even with these sorts of specialized applications you mention, you do need routine sorts of software, and right now those are available as consumer-level desktop tools. I just don't see the OSS community filling the needs people have in these areas, and practical alternatives of the sorts you are suggesting just not available. At least, I'm not aware of them, and even if they were, they probably would not make sense for me at the moment. I'd be happy to have a look at them, though. > > >There currently is no desktop BSD market. If anything, getting people > >like me to use it will help more software titles to become available for > >it, which can only be a good thing. I understand your position, but > >here I think we have to agree to disagree. > > I don't agree with that. I think we just disagree, period. It's a > shame these days that people have so little respect for someone else's > point of view that they are more concerned with the feelings of the > person than the actual ideas of that person. I think you've been > around those government shirts too long, you've been contaminated > by political correctness. Tell me, do you really believe in anything > anymore or is everything just shades of gray to you? Sorry > though I forgot the words to Kumbiya. > > Jesus, at least call me an asshole then I will have some hope you > actually believe what your saying! Simply, I think these sorts of discussions can proceed without ad hominem attacks. I think some useful information has come out of the thread, though we admittedly straying rather far from IE on BSD. > > Ted Frank