OK, this is the suggested set of commands to use if OpenOffice.org doesn't start from the icon:

Starting OpenOffice.org Manually

To launch OpenOffice.org, use the included Start OpenOffice.org program by Terry Teague. If you encounter problems, you may want to try launching OpenOffice.org manually. With your X server running, open a Terminal and execute the following four commands (do not include the bullets):

setenv DISPLAY localhost:0

setenv DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH /Applications/OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program:/Applications/
OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program/filter

cd /Applications/OpenOffice.org1.1.2/program

sh soffice

In the meantime, I'll try downloading that NeoOffice and see if that actually works any better.

I do want a spreadsheet program that makes pretty graphs, plus the navigability that I get in Word as opposed to Appleworks, which is frustrating. I still mourn the loss of Fullwrite, which the "free" download you can get doesn't work well enough to bother with under latterday OSs.

One too many bites for a sour Apple? [link]

If I try a setenv command, I get bash: setenv:command not found

Weird. If I follow the suggested set of commands to start OO manually...:

If I try a setenv command, I get bash: setenv:command not found

this happens to me too. According to my O'Reilly Mac OS X book, it appears that setenv is a valid command only in the csh and tcsh shells. So it would appear that the manual instructions they give are incorrect or out of date. Does anyone know - did OS X switch from tcsh to bash recently?

This is interesting - when I get some more time I'll look into this further....

eta: OK, this is just weird. On my iBook, both the regular and xterm terminals are using tcsh, and the above setenv command works. Apparantly X11 on my Cube is using bash instead of tcsh. AFAIK both systems are set up the same (OS X 10.3.7, latest Apple X11, etc).

eta2: But anyway, if you can tell X11 to use the tcsh shell, that might get things to work.

One too many bites for a sour Apple?

I wish it was as clear cut as the Age headline writer thinks that case is.

While I don't think Apple is right giving a damn about ThinkSecret, I can see where they have the right to try and stop trade secrets from being published, like any other company.

I'm thinking, if I get a decent bonus this year, I might get myself a laptop. Y'all talk of this Powerbook thing ... how built up should one be? Increase memory (RAM or video)? Faster HD? Applecare?

I'd like to compare prices to a terrain with which I'm more familiar -- PCs.

iBooks are pretty price-competitive with PC laptops. But if I had to do it all over again, I'd probably pay the extra $ for a powerbook (my iBook only has VGA out to an external monitor, not DVI, and it can't drive an external monitor to any resolution higher than the laptop's screen already has).

I don't think 256 MB is adequate. My iBook has 640 MB and this seems fine.

I can't really say if Applecare is worth it.

I don't think 256 MB is adequate. My iBook has 640 MB and this seems fine.

So say I snapped entire and decided on a 15 or 17 inch jobbie. Would 512 be okay, or should it be 1GB?

I have absolutely no clue how to make X11 use the tcsh shell. I don't even know what that is. My slim amount of Unix knowledge is about 5-6 years out of date.

Would 512 be okay, or should it be 1GB?

Dunno. It depends on what you're gonna use it for.

A consultant of ours said his Powerbook (17 inch) was very good for running multiple virtual PC's. If you wanna do the virtual PC thing then I'd throw as much RAM at it as you can.

Heavy-duty graphics or programming could also use lots of RAM.