Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 01:15:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Bruce Albrecht <bruce@zuhause.mn.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: "Larry S. Marso" <lsmarso@panix.com>, Natasha Hendrick <natasha@baldrick.geoph.uq.edu.au>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Word processors under FreeBSD Message-ID: <199709100615.BAA00468@zuhause.mn.org> In-Reply-To: <19970909084220.38015@lemis.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970908131004.3966A-100000@baldrick.geoph.uq.edu.au> <19970908130810.23848@lemis.com> <19970908093716.18380@panix.com> <19970909084220.38015@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey writes: > On Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 09:37:16AM -0400, Larry S. Marso wrote: > > In addition to StarOffice and Applix, which I'd categorize as poor "Word > > clones", > > I just received the September issue of the German magazine c't, which > includes a test of several word processors, including StarOffice and > Microsoft Word. StarOffice gets quite good marks, not as good as > Frame (the winner). Word is disqualified for bugs, but even without > them, doesn't get as good marks as StarOffice. I suspect c't was reviewing the Windows version of StarOffice. I was reading StarDivision's news groups, and one thing that came up was that the Linux version of StarWrite doesn't support additonal Type 1 (postscript) fonts out of their basic set very well. Someone came up with a kludgy method that seems to work (among other things, he munged the .afm files because swrite3 doesn't parse them correctly), but there's no official support for it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709100615.BAA00468>