Comments on: DreamLinux 5 Review

By: Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:20:10 +0000

I could not use DL5 after install. It seemed fine. I input my username and passwords and when I rebooted I could not get in again. Does your review mean that this problem has been fixed? Or did I get a bad iso image?

I loved Dreamlinux 3.2 and 3.5 way back when, but once 3.5 was outdated and un-upgradeable I had to make a choice and I am now using other Debian distros, trying them out. But I really miss Dreamlinux. It totally sold me on Linux.

By: heru sb

heru sb — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:34:17 +0000

now, i was downloading dreamlinux 5,

By: Dreamlinux

Dreamlinux — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:20:42 +0000

[...] Blogs • DistroWatch • Dedoimedo • Gnuman 3.x: ZDNet Blogs • Tux Geek • Dedoimedo [...]

By: Curious.Cat

Curious.Cat — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:55:55 +0000

So how’s DL5 borkage rate if pointed to Sid instead of Testing? Anyone tried that?

By: Ariya

Ariya — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 01:52:58 +0000

Well, I am impressed with the quickness of response to clicks in Dreamlinux 5. That the names don come up when the cursor hovers over an icon in the Plank dock is not a problem, as we have photographic eyes, rather than letter reading eyes.

Softmaker is very good office suite, for I have used it in the Windows days, and was given to me free by the makers of Softmaker. It may not read some newer MS Word files, but who cares about MS Word?! Both Open Office and Libre Office has many glitches, which Softmaker does not have.

Excellent work!

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:45:03 +0000

Spent sometime downloading the distro, our internet speed in Indonesia is way too slow. I was expecting a great distro, much better than last version.

But… Nothing special, last version was more impressive. Went back to Mint 10.

By: bob

bob — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:23:51 +0000

I also tried Softmaker and decided to try it on an older machine. The machine is an old IBM Thinkcentre, P4-2.8 GHz, 40 GB HD. I pulled out a couple of RAM sticks leaving 768 MB of RAM. It’s running Mint 9 (based on Ubuntu 10.04, an LTS release) and the office program that came with Mint 9 was OO-O 3.2.0, which I haven’t changed.

From a cold start, OO Text took 6 seconds to start, Textmaker 2 seconds. Subsequent starts were about 2.5 seconds for OO Text, about 1.5 seconds for Softmaker’s Textmaker.

From within Textmaker I was unable to open an xls spreadsheet. That is, it appears that the elements are separate and not really a suite. I got a “cannot open document” message instead of Planmaker opening and opening the spreadsheet.

Although being used to OO and Libreoffice, I found Textmaker easy to use. Things weren’t where I was used to them being, and the keyboard shortcuts aren’t all the same, but things weren’t difficult to find. In fact, some things struck me as easier to find in Textmaker than they would be in the Libreoffice or OO for people new to either program.

Notwithstanding that the review I’d read previously which I’d thought indicated that Softmaker 2008 would open new MS files better than OO 3.1, I couldn’t open a docx file in Textmaker. In addition, I couldn’t open xlsx nor ods spreadsheets in Planmaker.

From Textmaker one can export to PDF, but can’t open a PDF file. That may not be much of a disadvantage-one can always open the pdf files in a pdf reader of some sort, but Libreoffice and OO-Text will open pdf files.

I didn’t test the presentations program.

My take?

For users who need to be able to read xlsx, ods or docx files, Softmaker 2008 won’t be appropriate. For computers with a reasonable amount of RAM, Libreoffice or OO is probably better-as a suite it will open spreadsheet files from within the wordprocessor and vice versa, there are more loading and saving formats available and the difference in resources will be much less noticeable, or perhaps not noticeable at all (as revdjenk found.)

For users with older computers with limited resources who are ok with the more limited formats available for saving and opening, Softmaker would seem, in the limited time I tried it out, to be a very reasonable choice.

By: pouic

pouic — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:56:46 +0000

They could have used Cairo-Dock as the bottom dock, it would have really boosted their desktop. just a suggestion.

By: Mike L

Mike L — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:17 +0000

Wow thanks for the great writeup in looking into TextMaker.

By: revdjenk

revdjenk — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 04:11:40 +0000

After seeing the comments here on the Softmaker 2008 free version, I decided to give it a quick test. (I am running LinuxMint12.)
Opening the app:
Softmaker’s Textmaker and LibreOffice Writer open in about the same time on my system, the initial start takes 5-7 seconds, subsequent starts are almost instantaneous. Score on opening – equal.
Presentation:
Textmaker’s toolbar’s and menu remind me of Word 97, the last MS Office I used regularly. It appears to mimic Word feature for feature, and in menu setup. This is both good and bad, as I now go straight to format to change everything about my setup, including the page. Textmaker, like Word 97, have the page setup under File, instead. I see that as a mistake, now. (And what’s with the two tab selection places, in the toolbar as well as at the corners of the rulers? I know, when you remove the rulers, you can still gain access to tab changes. How often does that happen?) But if I were coming straight from an older version of Word, Textmaker might make more sense. But coming from any newer version of Word or for that matter from LibreOffice, it is a throwback. Besides, Textmaker’s look grates against my desktop’s theme. Winner – LibreOffice
Features:
Textmaker seems to have more capabilities from the start, compared to LibreOffice; Thesaurus and page numbering are there and ready. Search and Replace follows Word’s form, which is better than LibreOffice’s unix-like codes needed in searching for line breaks, for example. However, except for the search & replace quirks in LibreOffice, its extensions bring it up to match Textmaker. Advantage – Textmaker, slightly.
Textmaker also adds a new document format, their own. Yikes! At least they offer .odt!
Now, I am comparing a three/four year old free, but closed, Textmaker to the latest, free and open, LibreOffice. But the newest Textmaker (gets kudos for not going to the ribbon) still, continues with this 15 year old look for $100US. I have been using Libre/Open/StarOffice for over 12 years now. I, for one, will be sticking with what I have come to know.
God Bless
Doug