Slashdot Mirror
Rumblings of MS Office for Linux at CeBIT
An anonymous user noted that "ZDNet UK has an article concerning rumors at CeBIT that MS has a team of programmers working on a Linux port of Office. The report quotes a LinuxCare employee, and is probably only slightly more solid than the same rumors we've been hearing for ages now. " Again note, purely speculative rumor. This one comes from Linuxcare's Arthur Tyde.
Please tell me what your basis is for this statement, and provide references. I've always assumed the stuff about secret API calls is just a myth. I've never seen any evidence to support this.
I guess if we were all prepared to unplug from the rest of the world and putt-putt-putt around in our little motorboats aimlessly, that we'd all agree with your no-more-Microsoft policy.
I don't buy it. Neither do many other people (but plenty of Slashdot maroons will agree with you, of course).
Anyhow.
Think of this (and maybe this has already been said, but I'm not reading all 200+ responses to see): What if they aren't making Word for RH or Debian or Suse? What if they're making MS Linux, and oh, you get Office too? And of course, we at MS have "innovated" some "enhancements," meaning that you won't be compatible with the rest of the Linux community anymore. But you do get Office real cheap! Think Borg.
M$ as it stands has nothing to gain and everything to lose from porting Office to Linux. After all, most users want Office and not much else so they're not going to pay the extra money for Windows if they can get it on Linux. However, M$ may be broken up soon. An obvious split is into an Applications group and an OS group. There will be *big* questions asked if the Applications group continues to support only the OS produced by the OS group. So maybe they are just preparing for the inevitable: anit-trust is going to effectively force M$ to produce Office for Linux.
Ummm, if Microsoft wanted to use QT to port Office they could just buy TrollTech.
Then:
See ya, KDE. I was getting tired of that fricking K getting prepended onto all the decent Apps I used to run on plain Linux/X anyway....
"Linux Bloatware?? ;-)"</i></b>
* Mozilla
* Netscape
* Star Office
* GNOME
check some of your old emails, mr balmer.
"For God's sake, Linux is about the only place left that they don't get to say,"
.. but do you read kt.Linuxcare.com? The Linux developement world is similarly dominated by egomaniacs.
True
I would rather a big company with stockholdres to care about than a meglomaniacle set of self important hacker g0dz.
Ummm, when Microsoft builds Office for OS X, it will have nothing at all to do with the X Window System. Apple isn't endorsing the X Window System on OS X, and Microsoft will build for Apple's proprietary GUI, which will remain the dominant GUI for OS X.
Translation: The port of Office to OS X won't do squat for Linux. If anything, it will the OS X desktop will server as yet another living demonstration of how powerful a Unix-based system can be if the X Desktop is scrapped.
" A pre-announcement or pre-release of Office for Linux would make a ruling by Judge Jackson forcing Microsoft to release Office for Linux at best a non-event"
Read Judge Jackson's finding of fact. He dismisses Linux as irrelevant. He would never, in a million years, consider anything to do with Linux to be a remedy to MS's monopolistic wrong doing. Guys, wake up - the DOJ trial has precisely _nothing_ to do with Linux, and the Judge has said so, in a public document. Please actually read the finding of fact.
re: MS Office ported to Linux -
Frankly, this will NEVER happen. While MicroSloth's code does indead stink their marketing is excellent. They know that if Office ran on Linux many people would not need to run any sort of Windoze. Office & NT, or Office & Windoze XXXX travel as a pack. If you broke the linkage then their is no need for their OS - if their is no need for their OS folks might look at other applications. That's a closed loop that they have fought hard to establish - why else did they basically give Office away during the early days of Windoze? Why would they break it on their own?
No, this is just a rumor and a silly one at that! We will see Office on Linux when hell freezes over or when MicroSloth's OS division is broken totally away from its Applications division - not before!
If microsoft would buy trolltech, the ...
qt-free-edition would automatically become
placed under the BSD-license. so that
would be no problem for KDE
Have a look at the Free-QT-Foundation for
more information on this well-discussed
topic (it's on www.kde.org).
ac
I remind you that at one time Windows 3.1 was the standard. Simply because someone wants to use different tools to do a job doesn't make them a maroon. Simply because something is the standard doesn't mean it is good. If you don't want to abandon Windows, fine. No one is forcing you. We CHOOSE to abandon Windows because we find Linux more attractive. Being plugged into the rest of the world is not essential if you hand printed reports to a boss who doesn't know or care what format you are using. Nor is it essential for home use. And if the people you DO need to deal with also use Linux, everyone is happy. Not to mention, if anyone wants to adopt any new technology, they face the prospect of being a trend setter - I.E. incompatibility with the rest of the world. We accept that cost for the privilege of running Linux. That is our choice. Please consider that, while being in step with the world requires Windows, some of don't care about being in step, and that does not make us maroons! We are different. If we are lucky we are trend setters. That's all.
Question is whether it is worth the efforts. Say given the fact Windows and *nix are two so totally different environments .. I think we are not talking about porting here but a re-write, a complete one.
See Opera for instance .. Noah was already waiting for it. I installed the latest alpha .. it created a C:\ directory 8-}
I mean it is a WWW browser, just a browser !! They probably do not even do too much dirty OS plumbing.
Add to that nitty gritty stuff like i18n, multi user vs. single user, various hardware platforms.
Being a developer I dare say the gain would not be worth the pain and as terminals are becoming more and more popular again too, say you can have both worlds .. no, forget about it.
MacOS X is a Mach microkernel with other layers on top. One of these layers is BSD Unix. Another, separate layer, is the YellowBox/OpenStep/Cocoa APIs. When commercial developers port apps to Cocoa, they don't have to know, or care much about the BSD layer at all. They just write to the Cocoa APIs. Especially given the fact that most Mac apps are _very_ focused on GUI, and that the GUI of MacOS X is _not_ based on X (i.e,, MIT's X windows), there really is very little overlap between a Cocoa port and a port to any flavor of Linux.
Your entire statement about Clinton/Gore could equally be applied to the Reagan/Bush administration (Iran-Contra, anyone?) or virtually any other administration. It's not like Clinton invented spin control.
Furthermore, your little foray into national electoral politics really does nothing but to weaken an otherwise well thought-out post. (Although the idea of Judge Jackson ordering a port of Office to Linux is pretty unlikely.) You should consider letting off your national political steam by calling a talk radio station, or ringing some doorbells in your neighborhood for your candidate of choice. Don't detract from the politics of Slashdot -- bashing Microsoft.
Porting is slow, but the software market moves fast, and media perceptions of the market move even faster. I figure they have been working on the port at least 6 months now, so that they'll have something in hand (or in progress) the day that they decide they need to have it.
I see this a very positive thing. One of the only things stoppping business from using Linux as the platform of choice is the lack of MSOffice. Ok you could look at staroffice etc but a generation of secretarys/pa/admins are Word,Excel and Access trained. Its also hard to fault Excel. This would be a good thing, credit where it is due.
'Produce' is the perfect description for Microsoft Office -- one big rotting head of lettuce.
One Word. Homesite. Frontpage is the biggest piece of junk for serious web developers.
Sie sind Schlusse homosexuelle Deutsche. Wir zerstörten Sie in zwei Kriegen. Wir sind!! höher! Alles Deutsches sollte mit ihren homosexuellen russischen Freunden gezeichnet werden. Die Konzentration Lager zu uns dann wieder öffnen und die Amerikaner senden sollten dort. HAHAHAHAHA dann die Welt von enitre ist französisch und wir regieren, wie wir HAHAHHAHAHA!! verdanken würden!
Recompliing all of their apps for "MS Linux" seems like an awefully expensive way to crush what really isn't a huge threat. For one, it would be impossible to sell 'seat licences' for MS Linux, and that's a huge portion of MS's revenue.
And even if it did happen, the numerous free applications available on Linux/MSLinux would still cost them alot of revenue.
I agree, it is not enough for for Microsoft to win, the others must be seen to fail
OK, assume you can buy the desktop for Linux. Next question, at what price? Not the sticker price, but the price the biggies get it at. If it is feature limited, and sold at a 'discount' for it, will there be a competititive upgrade price - which goes to the issue of bundling. A well engineered breakup - pricing is everything. Would the hyp. apps division roll out office 2K for windows95?? If they won't, would they sell that right to someone who would? Finally, would the playing field be level - or only if you live in redmond. At the least, documented interfaces need to come out. IBM and Fujitsu had a sweetheart deal brokered, for an operating system= another story. The collusion factor of a split entity may be worse than a monopoly
If Microsoft ported IE to Linux and only offered the binaries, would you actually want to use it? Even if, by some small chance, it was an efficient, stable application? What would happen if the Linux community became dependent on Microsoft's browser? What would happen if Microsoft's proprietary HTML nuances became the norm? What would happen if IE was eventually the only widely usable and accepted browser available? What if Microsoft decided that, since it's OS market had fallen apart due to Linux, it should start extracting license fees for its browser or worse yet, set up a pay-per-browse system? (UCITA anyone?)
Does anyone else think we need an Open Source browser that is of such quality that IE and Netscape both go away for good?
Yeah.. that's alot of questions.. but hopefully someone will answer them before it's too late.
Microsoft isn't one to lie about something once it's out in the open. BetaNews talked to some Microsoft spokespeople and say nothing of the sort is in development. Sorry for all of you who had your hopes up. http://betanews.com/article.php3? sid=951431032
KOffice.
Warrant for assumption: Duh! Judge J. told MS chief counsel this past week that he regarded MS as a monopoply exactly like Standard Oil at the beginning of the 20thC. States and DOJ are holding firm for a breakup. Which will be rigorously imposed since MS is refusing to negotiate on those terms and time's about up.
Rumor: MS is working on Office. But MS will not release it--not while MS has desktop monopoly, nor while MS is MS. Under the present regime, it makes no sense for MS to legitimize Linux that way. But the ancien regime is actually dead already, the people (us) just haven't been told yet.
Now if you're Biff Gates you know you can't be the big cheese of all MS component businesses if MS gets busted up. Antitrust settlement/judgement will demand separation of ownership as well as of operations. So you're looking to buy some insurance.
Where do you want to be? In the OS division which will face problems like never before, or in applications/Internet division where you have another monopoly--with a higher profit margin. Right. Now what could possibly give you a stepping stone towards becoming The Big Shot of the emerging Linux market? Right! Office for Linux, IE for Linux, Mediaplayer, etc.
MS programmers may well be working feverishly on a Office for Linux port, but it won't be Microsoft that releases the product: that will come from an as-yet-to-be named Gates-owned company born of the great MS breakup.
You're Welcome!
MS will only bring out their Office, when Linux reaches a critical point. When there are enough users for any OS, they will port an Office to it. MS doesn't want to help Linux, they just want to make some money, do not forget it's a company. I think it will be a good thing for Linux, Staroffice is not that good, nor any other office program do.
Is it just me or is this guy the only one who actually gets it here?
Applications sell an OS. Everybody knows that. Microsoft wants to sell Windows and without a "killer" app or two they would have a hell of a lot harder time selling it to people. So why would they make Office for Linux? It makes no sense.
Microsoft hasn't gotten to where they are today by being so overconfident. They don't take those risks. The lack of user friendly apps is what has kept Linux distributions catering to power users. Power users don't use Linux because they want something that behaves like Windows, or that tries and fails to cover up the messy details. Mac OS/X is proof that it's in no way impossible to make a UNIX operating system into an easy-to-use system. One that's a hell of a lot more extensible and easier to use than Microsoft Windows can ever be. Microsoft's never had a monopoly on ease-of-use, it's just had a monopoly on the people that care about ease of use. Once Linux gets the applications that people care about, that changes. It's already changing: GNOME and KDE aren't very far at all. Microsoft wants to prevent that from happening.
They might hope that porting to Linux will help them convince the Gov. that they will play by the rules from now on... It might even be becuase they are unsure of wether Windows will hold it's own in the future and try to broarden their market so that a collapse of the Windows market would not result in their demise... (Well OK I'm dreaming again :-)
Say what you want, but Office would be great to have in Linux. I haven't yet seen a product better than either Word or Excel. They are great products. I'd definately buy it if they did it.
But please get rid of the freakin paperclip!
Why? For the same reason Office is ported to Macintosh. Microsoft conquered the desktop through Office, not the outstanding (HA) technology of windows. If you cant beat someone, at least put your software on their desktop and make a buck.
I'd just pray to the WINE gods and in the meantime try to slip StarOffice under his nose.
(I mean, what are the odds he'd figure out that a Word doc isn't coming from Word? Sometimes PHB qualities can be put to good use.)
Office was never ported to Mac OS.
MS Word and Excel were developed for Mac first, and later they were ported to Windows.
I don't think MS will port Office to Linux. Microsoft wants you to use Windows, not Linux.
Ives
What Linux is lacking isn't an office suite, there's at least one or two good ones and a couple more on the way.
What Linux really needs is a good browser and a good HTML capable mail client.
If MS ported IE and OE to Linux I would drop netscape and friends in a heartbeat.
Why do I like IE/OE:
"Browse in separate process" One pages dies and the rest keep goin.
Crash of browser does not crash the mail client. I have lost SO many email messages due to Netscape choking on some bad Java, then taking down my mail client. It's so bad in the latest versions that I create TWO users accounts, one for browsing and one for mail. Kind of silly eh???
Creation and editing of HTML email. It is so slick to be able to hit send on a web page, then snip out all the adds so I mail only the "good stuff". Add to that the capablility of directly editing and previewing the HTML code (OE5) and you have a geeks dream email client.
Why would MS want to port IE/OE to Linux: Control the browser and you control the desktop. For example I hate KDE, however if IE/OE only worked on KDE I would drop gnome/enlightment in a heartbeat....
...my first response to the story was "bollacks". ;) (OK, very subjective point)
However..on reflection, I wish MS would release office for three reasons:
1) It would legitimize Linux as a desktop platform for business, causing every other software vending Tom Dick and Sally to jump on the bandwagon.
2) Office tends to look and feel slightly better on the Mac than it does on Windows - so, is it too much to speculate that the Linux version would be the best ever
3) Internet explorer. If they release office, why not release a decent version of IE for Unix? Again, the Mac version of IE looks and feels slicker than the corresponding windows version and I'm totally, totally sick of Netscape who have seriously lost their way.
Indeed. I'd love to see MS Office on Linux. I wouldn't necessarily use it, however!!!
Please tell me what your basis is for this statement, and provide references. I've always assumed the stuff about secret API calls is just a myth. I've never seen any evidence to support this.
I don't know about the secret APIs thing - my guess is that they wouldn't provide any significant benefit, even if they do exist. The benefit that I do see for MS applications developers is that they get access to the API documentation earlier and have far greater access to the people who designed and wrote the APIs than applications developers outside of MS do.
Expect him to grow a pony tail real soon now...
thank you
No matter, here are my predictions of what this mythical application would require
To run as root
To overwrite your libraries
A system with 512Mb Ram, 850Meg Drive space available for Office and Altheon 850
Persistent net connection to report back to MS.
Same Microsoft, different day.
Finally we may get some usable, professional-quality software on Linux. It's been a hobbyist OS so far, not too stable and generally ignored by vendors of decent apps. If that changes, it'll be great: More variety, more freedom. There's always room to innovate, and this proves that even a marginal, poor-quality system like Linux can try hard enough to earn a shred of respect from the big boys.
Here's a hint, guys: Watch closely when this product comes out. Use it. Learn it. Live with it. It will be your best possible lesion in how to write solid code and workable, productivity-enhancing apps! We all win by this, and especially Linux. The credibility gap will never completely close, not with an OS designed and implemented by amateur hobbyists, but for low-cost, low-requirement applications, Linux may eventually be worth considering. Of course it can't compete in the enterprise, but you guys can be proud of yourselves for having made something people can use. It's not like you're Microsoft! You shouldn't be ashamed that you can't compete. Come on, it's not even a fair contest. Be proud of what you've done, and you should be tickled pink that Microsoft has given you this nod. It's not instant legitimacy, but it's more than anybody ever expected.
Maybe M$ is trying to create an impression that Windows is more stable and faster by making their M$ Office Linux port run like 3DS MAX 3.0 on a 486DX33 with 4MB RAM. Anyway, I think it's just something they want to show to the Department of Justice when they get accused of enforcing the 'barriers to entry' to keep people on Windows.
if they can make office unstable for Linux users, those users will come back to windows.
If a man is not a liberal at 25, he has no heart.
If he's not a conservative by 45, he has no brain.
...and if he hasn't moved to the center by 55, he has no soul.
You should be spanked heartily for propagating such salacious rumors. The last thing you will ever see, and I mean EVER see is a M$ program for Linux. There, end of story!
Because they make great software! That's Why.
I Dont agree there, 'cause, as you know, MS might be split up, and a independent office devision could have a mayor market in LINUX. To tell you the truth i would quite like to see it there. And remember, there already was office for the mac a long time, altough without access. I dont much care for windows, but have to use it and to be frank, i do like office and have not seen anything that come's near on the linux platform. (please dont flame me, tell me if there is one) CyberDog
Wow, you're friends with Gandhi?
Why do you tacitly assume a secretary must be female? Sexist pig!
Man, I can't wait to get my hands on Office if the rumors are really true. As it stands, the only program that I have is Netscape, which will crash my Linux box. :-)
Does anyone know how to enable xmouse under windows 2000? tweakui no longer shows the setting, and changing the registry setting as suggested at http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/voelker/ntemacs .html#modify-focus no longer works. Please reply to esprout@hotmail.com too if you are kind :)
But since the hammer of Windows is what has gotten Microsoft into trouble with the Justice Department with its abuse of monopoly the corporation may want to get beyond being the "Windows" company and make Office the company's major source of income. Office already is a large source of income, possible as much or more than Windows, I'm not sure. Certainly selling $500 copies of Office to Linux users as well as Windows users and Macintosh users would continue to generate a lot of revenue for them. And Windows will certain continue for a long time because of the "Application barrier to entry" so there won't be a sudden lose of revenue from porting Office to Linux, either. Opening up Office to Linux would say to the courts that MS is no longer trying to defend its OS monopoly and thus, perhaps, sparing the company a break-up.
Brian Brown
Let's keep in mind that Microsoft's Office suite is the number one suite out there. Microsoft knows that Linux's popularity is growing and does not have any control over that. The way I look at things, they're adopting the "if you can't beat them join them" attitude on this one. There's a number of editors and suites (StarOffice, Wordperfect and co.) and having "the" Microsoft Office suite ported to Linux does not enhance Linux in any way (it sure won't make itself Linux's selling point. hehehe). The only thing that I can see this doing, is filling Microsoft's coffers, using their competition's product, a very wise decision indeed.
Food for thought. *AGB*
Did you invent the internet too? :)
I can't decide if your a paid employee of Micro$oft, or just an obnoxious troll, but either way, please eat shit and die!
nobody can get momentum behind an office type suite for linux if there is a floating rumor that MS is porting its MS office. They probably are developing a Linux version, but it will always be second rate, as long as the company is still selling its own OS.
Because they make great software! That's Why.
What are you smoking? Have you used a Microsoft product, ever?
I didn't think so either.
Actually, OS/2 died when they moved their development centre across half the continent, and a crucial part of the key developers chose rather to switch jobs instead of families.
Perhaps you mean "ITS OS" rather than "IT'S OS."
Or perhaps your education is lacking.
Errrr... what have the Germans got to do with communism? Shoo, little boy.
They can make it buggy and let it crash all the time so people will blame the OS instead of the app. They gain by letting the DOJ know there IS competition and they get to show the OS has nothing to do with it
All of these points were made a few days ago on that writer's experience with Microsoft article. Please don't moderate this crap up, we've been over it. And also, please don't post Microsoft ports Office BS anymore, either.
Wow, you spewed so much flammable fluid out in this one that it's not even going to require a match. Just a little bit of steel and flint.
Then, Attack of the Libbertardians can commence.
I doubt it. In a desktop environment, Windows is still easier for a non-power-user to to install, administer, and use than Linux. It still provides greater interface consistency on average (both between applications and between systems). It still has better hardware support. It also provides a single centralized organization to go to for support and upgrades. (Don't talk to me about Red Hat and similar companies - the Linux support companies haven't proven their ability to survive in the marketplace the way MS has. MS (or some fragments thereof) will surely still be around in 5 years. It's hard to be sure of the same about Red Hat.)
Lack of app support is hurting Linux, but it's not the only factor, by any stretch.
Vous êtes perdant allemand homosexuel. Nous vous avons détruit dans deux guerres. Nous sommes supérieurs!!! Les allemands devraient être tous tirés avec leurs amis russes homosexuels. Alors nous devrions rouvrir les camps de concentration et envoyer les Américains là. HAHAHAHAHA alors le monde d'enitre sera français et nous régnerons comme nous devrions HAHAHHAHAHA
Oh yeah, just what we need, Micros~1 virus writer's toolkit, er, Word, for Linux.
You it is German homosexual losing. We destroy it in two wars. We more are raised! The German one all must be drawn with its friends russian homosexual. Then it must reopen us the encampments of the concentration and emit the Americans there. HAHAHAHAHA then the world of enitre will be French and us we will reign as we they would have HAHAHHAHAHA
Office Macros? A great idea, not... Unless you're part of a dastardly plot to port Word Macro Viruses to Linux...
You're serious? You know people who are eager to support Linux desktops instead of Microsoft desktops?
They're paid by the hour and approved for overtime, right?
There is one thing none of us are considering. Lets assume that they port Office. Let us further assume that even 1 of 4 IT managers want to change the desktops to linux, and run Office off of it. Admin will not go for it. Why, you wisely ask? Story time. I am begging my co to make the switch. Of the IT staff here 1 is pro linux, 1 is pro MS. Even the Linuxhead will not endorse the sw. on the desktop. Not for reasone of useability. Not for reasons of Office. The big reason to not change anything is RETRAINING COSTS for hundreds of workers. Think your admin will allow the downtime. The monetary cost. Think again, guys.
You willing to bet your life on this? Overheard MS employees in the MS cafeteria saying that they have a version of Office running on Linux CURRENTLY. If MS stands to make money from this then they'll do it.
You Linux fanatics must really be frantic, with all the baseless fantasy-horror-stories about Windows 2000 I am seeing spewed all over the net the last week.
It's really, really sad to see so much repressed fear being expressed. Have fun with your hobby horse OS is all I can say. I have fun fooling around with Linux and the BSD's too. I have a half dozen older boxen on my home net running Linux and BSD variants. Guess what? Windows 2000 connects to them better than anything I've ever seen come out of Redmond. It's damn stable, too.
if they expect the business to be split up, or the monopoly ended (which will probably happen, since thats what the laws are for) it makes good business sense for the office suite division to do this.
Strikes me it's a dumb move on behalf of ms &Co the moment they port office ovet to linux it's GOODBY windBlows ( luverley thought).
Why would Word Macro Viruses be a risk for Linux Users. Didn't we already go through this?
Linux has Better Security(tm), so a virus can't burrow deep within the system and create problems. All a macro virus would be able to infect would be a user's home directory. Oh? The info in the User's home directory is really the only thing that didn't come off a free Linux CD? It's the only data on the drive that's important and irreplacable in the first place?
Er, um....
If the Linux version of Office works very poorly compared to the Windows version, then MS can tell all the PHB's, "See, Linux just isn't ready for the demanding business environment yet.".
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Well first of, let me say that I have to use MS Word for school all the time and it sucks big time. Now since I got that out of the way I can continue.
Bussiness wise, it only makes sense for people to start looking at a free operatoring system to use- if it saves money, I think it is a advantage. There recently has been a huge influx of X/Linux office procucts because it is unchartered or un-dominated ground. Both Corel and Sun have office software for linux. KDE is developing a office suite and most interestingly I have heard rumors that Helix Code formed more to develope a office product than to extend gnome (though they do that too). The Gnome/Helix Code office product seems the most intriguing to me because it seems they are looking to copy MS Office. Even the fine goofy details like Visual Basic in Word they are working on (check it out at www.gnome.org/gb)!! Way back in the golden days, MS was slow to the word-processing game (which became the office software game) but they stole and cheated as always.
Real men dump cores! Read my journal, I am neat.
In January, Eric Raymond spoke here at Washtenaw Community College about a whole lot of things. He concluded the lecture with "The 7 bullets Microsoft must dodge to survive the next 6 months". And he said that a friend and informant of his inside M$ said that the Linux version of M$ Office ALREADY exists and the date of it's release will be determined by the outcome of the DOJ trial. I write all my college papers in text editors and Pagemaker.
Until I see M$Office.tar.gz on freshmeat or linuxberg, I don't believe it. As everyone else has said, "it speculation", fact is; M$ is a propreitary software company that charges nearly $420.00 for consumer Office 2000. Then they make it for Linux? Who is going to by it when Star Office does everything except rip you off! ~j
Q&A
- --------------------------------
Does Microsoft have plans to offer a Linux version of Office?
No.
The history of Linux and recent discussion about it has focused on its role as a network operating system used by IT developers and other sophisticated users. Desktop applications for end-users need services provided by a robust desktop operating system like Windows.
A modern desktop application requires a rich set of operating system services that are broadly available on each desktop. Without these services an application ISV is often put in the position of providing least common denominator functionality or re-implementing services that exist in other operating systems--neither of those alternatives is necessarily good for customers. Some examples of these services include application interoperability, consistent user-interaction models across the customer base for dialogs / menus / toolbars, an infrastructure for setup and administration of applications, mechanisms for connecting to databases, etc.
Today Linux is fragmented and its different variants don't all provide a standard set of these standard services.
You say that customers aren't asking for it, but I can provide you with names of many customers who want to see Office on the Linux platform. So, that must mean that customers are asking for it, correct?
I agree with you that Linux has been a topical subject recently. However, we conduct extensive research to ensure that we are listening to customers of all types and understand their needs. We are also hearing from a vocal set of customers that they would like Office functionality on Linux, but today there is no indication of broad support for Linux as a desktop alternative beyond those Linux users that are already comfortable with Linux on the server, customers that already use variants on UNIX (such as in academia), or customers that are "experimenting" with Linux. It is important that we focus on specific customer needs and work to meet them and as application vendors we are interested in solving specific customer problems. We are constantly talking to customers in a variety of ways to help insure that we are listening to a broad base of computing users that spans many particular interests and needs, including:
User Surveys, through which we gather general input about usage patterns through a variety of survey methods
Usability Testing, through which we observe users working with Office in their workplace and our labs
Activity-based Planning, through which teams of Microsoft developers visit customer sites to understand how users get their work done every day
Office Advisory Council, an example of the programs through which we work with enterprise customers to understand their needs
User Input, through which we gather individual customer requests through various email aliases, web sites, and phone calls
(only if you need to mention this) Any customers that want to provide input should visit our website at: http://www.microsoft.com/office/ and click on the "Write Us" menu item if you are a registered owner of any Microsoft products or send mail to linuxq@microsoft.com
Will future versions of Office support Linux?
Based on the extensive research that we do across many types of productivity application users, we're hearing that today Linux does not offer customers the necessary infrastructure for a productivity suite like Office and we do not feel the level of operating system services is mature enough that we could offer a release of Office that would meet customer expectations. However, we are always continuing to evaluate the marketplace and base our development on the needs that customers express.
It seems that Linux has the potential to significantly reduce TCO because it is cheap, reliable and provided open source code. How will Office and the Microsoft back/front end solution measure up to this?
The easy-to-use Office front-end combined with the scalable, and reliable BackOffice servers enhances the experiences of end-users and IT administrators alike. BackOffice tools like the Systems Management Server reduce TCO by simplifying the roll-out of Office 2000 clients.
In general, TCO reduction is based on scenarios that are important to customers. Many customers that are familiar with Linux and other UNIX variants find the services offered make for an attractive server platform. For typical customers of Office and Windows on the desktop, the same cannot be said. Again, as application vendors our role is not to judge the choices people are making, but rather to evaluate the marketplace and choose to invest in areas that help solve customer problems in a way consistent with our goals.
Will Office support open source code? Why or Why not?
Office is already an open, widely used development platform that provides end-users and developers a rich, well-supported set of tools through VBA. In fact, Office 2000 Developer provides developers with VBA 6.0, over 600 programmable objects, and all of the supporting programming tools and documentation for building custom applications to work with Office 2000.
In terms of providing open source as a mechanism for adding features and addressing customer issues with Office, we do not think open source is compatible with the level of service, product consistency, and vendor relationships customers expect from us. With over 80 million customers of Office around the world in over 30 languages, the challenges of maintaining an source model significantly exceed even the largest such program today. As with any customer feedback we will continue to watch this closely and focus on addressing customer needs.
-----------------------------------------------
ZDNet article
MS porting Office to Linux?
It may sound crazy, but developers say all the signs -- and rumors -- are there.
By Mary Jo Foley, Sm@rt Reseller March 11, 1999 4:34 PM PT
Could Microsoft Corp. be doing the unthinkable in porting Office to the Linux operating system? Rumors concerning the existence of an Office port to Linux have been circulating increasingly in recent weeks.
Since last fall, when open source advocate Eric Raymond published an internal Microsoft (Nasdaq:MSFT) document outlining the company's view on Linux, Microsoft's interest in the open source operating system has been well documented and analyzed. The so-called "Halloween Memos" did not mention any intention on Microsoft's part to port Office, one of its cash cows, to Linux.
However, when asked earlier this week whether anyone at Microsoft is currently involved in porting Office to Linux, Steve Sinofsky, vice president of Microsoft Office, said "I can't talk about that right now." He added that, "Linux is not there yet for end-user productivity applications. Lots of factors need to gel before we make a commitment [to delivering Office on Linux]."
Developers: Work is underway But developers outside of Microsoft claim that the software maker has gone beyond the contemplation stage. Last week, Unix expert and technical author Simson Garfinkle mentioned on a radio talk show broadcast in the Boston area that he had corresponded with developers with inside knowledge of Microsoft's Office Linux porting efforts. Garfinkle declined to comment beyond what he said during the radio show.
Another developer active on a number of industry news groups mentioned that he had been in touch with developers working for Microsoft who were working on moving Windows application programming interfaces (APIs) to Linux.
"These [Microsoft] techies are programmers in the dev [development] group. They are running Linux on boxes at Redmond and most have Linux on their home computers. I don't think that MS is afraid of Linux but they ought to be," said the developer, who requested anonymity.
Another developer and Linux advocate, who also requested anonymity, agreed that a decision by Microsoft to port Office to Linux could have the unintended effect of fueling Linux at NT's expense.
A Microsoft Office port to Linux "will be good for corporate adoption of Linux," the developer said. "I can tell you that I would be able to move my main workstation over to Linux if I had Office for it, since that is what my employer standardized on."
Hurdles ahead If Microsoft decides to field an Office Linux product, it will have to overcome some major hurdles first.
Porting Windows applications to Linux is not easy, especially if the Windows apps are tied tightly to the operating system, notes Scott Petry, vice president of marketing with Cygnus Solutions, a cross-platform Windows-Linux porting tool vendor based in Sunnyvale, Calif. Cygnus is working with Corel Corp. to port WordPerfect to Linux via the WINE Windows-to-Linux translation layer.
"Office would be one of the most challenging apps to move to Unix or Linux," Petry notes. "There's the Win32 APIs and Microsoft's implementation of the Win32 APIs, which is what Office relies on. A lot of hand-coding would need to be done to move Office just to the standard Win32 API set, let alone to Linux."
Microsoft also will need to create a viable business model, via which the company and its partners can make money from Office running on an open-source platform. While Corel (Nasdaq:COSFF) and Star Divison GmbH have made public their intentions to offer desktop suites on Linux, Microsoft's main rival, Lotus Development Corp., has not announced any intentions to move SmartSuite to Linux.
"Customers are asking us about Linux, but we can't make money on it today," says Howard Diamond, chief executive officer of Corporate Software & Technology, a Norwood, Mass., software reseller. "Our challenge is walking the line between shareware and the corporate market. The wrap-around things -- like applications services and support, is what you need to sell."
If Microsoft does undertake an Office Linux port -- even if it is only a prototype or test -- it wouldn't be the first time that the company has made sure to cover all its bases with the Office platform. Microsoft historians will remember that Microsoft denied to the bitter end that the company was doing a version of Office written in Java, only to admit officially last year that the company was working on a Java-ized Office project, which it ended up scrapping.
Average consumer: Linux is looking like a great desktop OS. It has some applications that are somewhat compatible (Star Office, ApplixWare, etc..). But I'll wait for Microsoft to finish their port of Microsoft Office and Visual Basic.
Just look at how many people are waiting for Linux until it has the games and applications they want.
Why is it that when you get a quote, you get an Excel spreadsheet. Often when someone sends you a document, if it is not plain E-mail, it is usually in Word format. Non-programmers think that an Access database is a real database and how databases should be built -- especially after they build one. Can Linux and its office suites compete with that? It is very difficult.
There are many EXCELLENT office packages for Linux, but they are not Microsoft Office. WordPerfect is great and my customers still use it, but they are getting more and more pressure to drop it and go to Word. Why Word? Well, because it comes free with the desktops they are purchasing! Not exactly free, but in the minds of most, it is free as it is "bundled" with the computer, O/S, and complete package they purchased (e.g., Dell or Gateway).
Microsoft leveraged their operating system monopoly in order to dominate other markets. They took their cash cows (DOS and later Windows) and milked them. They spent megabucks on development of inferior products such as Word, Excel, IE, and Visual C++. They turned these inferior, limited products into world class products through years of development, aggressive marketing, bundling agreements, tying and other techniques, some of which are clearly illegal (reference Judge Jackson's findings of fact). Basically, they were good businessmen, and kept the DOJ off their backs long enough to achieve near-total domination on the desktop.
A version of Microsoft Office for Linux would significantly further the Linux acceptance on the desktop. With Gnome and KDE as user interfaces, Office as the desktop suite, and the stability of Linux, the Linux desktop platform would be very attractive! Linux would be "validated" in the minds of many corporate types.
What would be the impact on Microsoft and its Windows cash cows? I am sure that is the question Microsoft is asking internally and why we may NEVER see Office/Linux (unless Judge Jackson stipulates they develop such, or he breaks up Microsoft).
My 2 cents. You may publish this if you wish.
You do not really need Win to run Office, though. The Mac has had Office for years, and though this has helped save the Mac as a platform, it did not "make" Macs more prevalent in th ebusiness world. MS could port it to Linux, and we could see the same scenario. It may help Linux a little, but one proggie does not a platform make. Tom
"quotes a LinuxCare employee, and is probably only slightly more solid than the same rumors we've been hearing for ages now"
Actually, Art Tyde is the CEO of LinuxCare. Not a random employee.
--
see shy jo
Let us assume, for a moment, that the Applications team at Microsoft has won some sort of politicial victory and is being allowed to port Office or parts thereof to Linux.
This would be a good thing for a bunch of people. I could get rid of Windows for a bunch of stuff, because I wouldn't need Word for preparing documents for people who are illiterate in any sensible document-preparation scheme.
It would be a good thing for Microsoft, who would get to make a bunch of money from Linux users who will end up using Office to match corporate standards, and would let them boost their antitrust defence by pointing to the Apps team developing for rival platforms.
The other place it would be a win for Microsoft, and a huge loss for free software, is that it would undermine a lot of the impetus behind free productivity apps. Why persist with Abiword and Gnumeric when you've got Word and Excel? Free software types know the answer to that question, but most people won't care, and potential rivals to Office will bite the dust to a lesser or greater degree.
Actually, looking at his posting history, I have a feeling that Scooby's *default score* might be -2 by now.
;)
...And I have a feeling that Corel/The Wine Project will do it before Microsoft does, since Microsoft uses crappy proprietary porting tools (which they also own now, woo-boo-hoo.) like MainWin or whatever.
That's actually really cool. We need a "Use -1 Bonus" for that feature, though, guys.
And the *original* post in this thread was *really* funny. Especially that "W2K" bit. ROFL! Why is it only at (Score:4, Funny)? Moderate it up to 6!
(I don't care if it's the press release, that's all The Onion ever does, and that's really funny too. Why? Because it's well done!)
Also, moderate the entire story down to (Score 0: Redundant). Like many other people, I'll believe the "MS-Office for Linux" hype when I see it.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Because with the possible breakeup of MS into seperate divisions by the DOJ it would be wise for MS to hedge it's bets. Don't you think?
After all they have enough money to pay for the development but they DON'T have to ever release it. If they are indeed going to be broken up then it would be in the BEST interest of the Applications group to have a Linux version of Office.
actually, you've got it backwards. gtk+ license would be much more favorable to them than qt. gtk+ is LGPL. OTOH, in order to release a qt app without releasing the source, they would have to pay a licensing fee to troll-tech, since qt is only free if you release the source to your qt apps. anyway, motif is still the most popular toolkit for commercial unix apps (was last i checked anyway) and it wouldn't be all that unlikely for them to write their own, if they made its API similar enough to the windows gui API. that would minimize their porting, and put most of the work in developing the tk.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
This is standard MS practice. They actually have no intention of producing an MSOffice for Linux, but want to damage their competitors (Corel, Star Division, Applix) by spreading rumours to the effect that they will. I'm surprised that you're all still being taken in by it.
Deleted
Maybe if they port MS Office, IE5.x, Adobe PS 5.5, Flash 4(dev.), Adobe Illustartor, and Homesite I may actually have a reason to boot to linux.
^_^
--[shangodee]
Oops, that should be:
(tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new office suite, but keep her OS...see which she chooses).
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Who cares if there is a linux version of Office. There are many alternatives at least as good as it freely available. What we need is a browser and mozilla is NOT QUITE ready. If M$ wants to make a dent in Linux, and maintain a monopoly in at least one arena, they should port IE. hate to say it, but it is WAY better than any of the alternatives.
sig 11: Believe me - there is no port.
sig 11's sig: question authority..
Oh, I belive you Mr. 11! I do! No wait, ummmm. Question authority? Umm. Grog confused.
> LinuxCare: I know you guys have a tremendous
> amount of Linux talent and a lot of understanding
> of the community in general. Please, please
> start acting like grown-ups so you can get the
> respect you deserve!
Linuxcare has had some community relations problems in the bay area. For one thing, there's something inherenly alienating about working for a Linux support company. Most of the people active in the community *stop* attending community events. It's almost like a black hole (well, a grey one, because people DO get spat out) of Linux talent.
Many of the linux geeks who were early hires at Linuxcare have long gone: five community members (out of 11 total who left) as of mid-November. Given the growth rate of the company, that's a lot of turnover. Most of the people who resigned did so to take higher paying jobs elsewhere. Within 24 hours, I had a job making $20k more a year.
Let's say that the local community relations is bad enough that some bay area Linux geek (who never worked for the company) had bumper stickers printed up that say: "Linuxcare doesn't."
_Deirdre
...Linux Bloatware??
'sapientia potestas est'
Nifty. Anyone want to explain? The post didn't look all that bad...
This sig is false.
What would be worse if Linux vendors found themselves in the same boat as Apple, with Microsoft threating to pull Office for Linux unless they got certain concessions.
Of course that would be a silly scenario -- MS would have to give RedHat (etc) a desktop marketshare before they could have the power to take it away. (And, no, Linux vendors don't currently have a desktop marketshare in the Windows or MacOS sense. What they have is Unix workstation marketshare, with a userbase that by-in-large couldn't give a damn about mainstream office productivity software.)
On the other hand, A Linux port of IE for Solaris port could happen.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The IE/Unix ports were so crappy that one wondered why they even bothered. (Except for marketing reasons.)
It could be that an Office/Unix port would just be a "dogfood" way to improved their unix porting libraries to the point where they are usable for large applications. If the porting libs could run Office decently, they probably could run anything.
Why would MS invest in unix porting libs? Probably not for their own purposes, but to give away or sell cheap to traditional Unix application vendors. "Don't maintain your Unix source tree -- save money and develop on Win32 only." Corel is already pursuing such a strategy for Unix apps, except using Winelib instead of MS's tools.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Agreed, it's a difficult scenario because companies like RedHat have no intellectual property, and therefore not much to conceed. The only thing possible is a split-the-market deal, as Microsoft illegally proposed to Netscape.
The point holds that if MS Office shipped for Linux, and Linux started to get a desktop marketshare, Microsoft would think of something to twist the Linux vendors' arms over. It's the nature of the beast.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
assuming OS X survives, MS will have to replace it with a Cocoa-native port
Why? I would imagine that Apple needs to support Carbon indefinately. (90% of the apps Mac users use will be Carbon, not Cocoa.)
That means Unix
No it doesn't. Cocoa is the old NeXT API. Athough it expensively used to run on Solaris, HPUX, and Windows, it's not a normal Unix API. Perhaps GNUStep, someday.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Off-topic, but I really question that IBM's PC mis-steps had anything to do with the anti-trust case.
/2 screwup was the result of monopolistic actions, not the avoidance there of. They tried to extend their mainframe monopoly by introducing a mainframe-centric client OS (OS/2) that favored a proprietary hardware platform (PS/2). The plan failed mainly due to poor execution (and because the mainframes started to get their butts kicked by client-server Unix systems).
If anything, the huge
But, you are essentially correct that Microsoft is "whistling dixie" internally when it comes to the anti-trust trial. If anything, they are consolidating divisions across product groups to make a breakup more difficult.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
IBM didn't really lose their market lead until the PS/2 was introduced in 1986-7. They were making a ton of money selling open, clone-able PCs.
As for why they didn't buy MS, I'd guess that it was mainly because Gates wouldn't sell. Don't forget that MS was giving them a sweetheart deal, and they were getting DOS essentially for free (in exchange for redistribution rights).
I can't quite recall the details of IBM's antitrust case, but it was more complex than software/hardware bundling (IBM has always built their own OS for every system but the PC), and it was limited to the midrange S/38 and AS/400 lines. I believe it had something to do with leasing practices.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I'm not sure they care about the resources required. They have a lot of money that they throw at research and development. There are countless R&D projects you folks never hear about. A large portion of Microsoft's budget goes to these projects.
Researching the prospects of porting MSOffice to Linux is a likely scenario. Whether they ship it or not, only time will tell. Who knows what the marketplace will look like next year?
/will
All politics aside, I'd be happy to use Office for Linux. Simply put, it's better than anything else currently available on the platform. And of course, for those of us that have to interact with the real world occasionally, having support for MS formats is fairly critical, whether we like it or not. If MS wants to release it and loosen the Windows monopoly, more power to them.
-lx
Recall that Office for the Macintosh is almost always at least one major version behind Office for Windows, and is missing the newest whizbang features that certain people desire.
If this is done intentionally or not, I cannot say, but it is a second rate produce compared to Office for Windows.
-B
> MS will probably use some flavor of WINE when porting office to Linux.
Um... why? They would probably use something like the virtual win32 environment they used to port IE to Solaris. Huge, bloated, doesn't work well...
That would probably help them, even, for if the Linux version was horrible to use, it might disuade people from using it, and switch back to windows.
Or not; who knows.
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
...will we see M$ Office for Linux. They know that is the *only* thing keeping people from using it en masse as a desktop OS.
Rock on,
D
as linux picks up speed
HA!
Wrong.
Porting Office to Linux would be the biggest speed boost that Linux has ever seen... There's simply no reason that Microsoft would want to do that... It'd eat into their OS business so much, that the rest of their businesses would suffer immensley.
Think about it:
If you don't need MS Windows to run MS office, then you don't need MS Visual Studio to write apps with... If you're not running Windows, you also don't need to run IE, because there's lots of other browsers available, and no one's railroading you into using IE or any other one. If you're not using IE, then why would you want to use IIS as your internet platform? Then again, if you're not using windows on the desktop, what sense does it have to have windows be your server? Not much... The argument can be made that Windows as servers might work better because it's made by the same people that make the desktop OS... that argument would go away...
Microsoft is at least standing very confidently defense against the DOJ. Even if they've lost this round, there'll still be a round of appeals. If they showed any signs of reorganizing themselves according to how they thought they'ed be broken up, that'd almost be a sign of guilt, which they probably don't want to do around now...
RIGHT NOW, microsoft is one company. The OS divisions line against linux is that among other things, lots of apps arent' out for it. If the apps division released office for linux, that'd be cutting off the nose despite their face. shooting themselves in the foot. Pick an analogy!
What messed IBM up in the early 80's was that they were SO concerned with the antitrust trial that they didn't really bother to think about the ramifications of what they were doing in the PC business. Microsoft knows better. They're going to continue on their current course until they have no choice but to stop.
Microsoft is one company... They look at these things too...
What good would it do to raise the applications divisions sales by $2 billion if it led to a $1.5 billion loss in operating systems, a $500 million loss in development tools, $50 million dollar loss in corporate support services, $50 million loss due to people forgoing their MSCE's...
That's a shallow list, but i'd tend to think that with all their ancillary programs, like client access licenses, etc... They'ed lose a LOT more than $100 million in sales across the company simply by allowing Office to ship for Linux. It's not like it would happen next quarter. But it would.
Like I said, with companies standardized on x86, a Mac version of office means nothing to microsoft. Office for Macs means nothing, since most companies outside of publishing don't want to standardize on hardware available only from one source. They could port office to Solaris, AIX, Irix, and everyother non-x86 operating system and do fine. But the moment they release it for FreeBSD, Linux, or BeOS (as examples), they're opening the gates to their downfall.
Most office workers use soley microsoft office at work. Some might use Lotus Notes as well, and that'd be another hurdle to cross. If a company has 5,000 computers all running just windows and office, then they can save 250,000/year or however long their hardware upgrade cycle is, just by switching their desktop OS to linux and staying with office.
Simple. Microsoft isn't in business to let it's application development teams build up more competition for it's OS development teams. Solaris/Sparc runs on obscure hardware that NT can't? Fine, give them an IE port and hope that the accelerated death of Netscape will outweigh the few lost sales of NT/x86 workstations. But practically every copy of Solaris/x86 (and Linux) in use means one more Intel system that won't see NT installed, and so no ports for them.
hmmm. How about: Office for MacOS X, Office for Solaris/Sparc, Office for HP/UX, Office for Linux/PPC, Office for Linux/Alpha, Office for Linux/MIPS-SGI, Office for Linux/Sparc (just to kick Scott McNealey one more time), maybe even Office for BeOS/PPC.
I remeber last year (or was it two years ago?) when MS had a beta Media Player for Linux, and was supposed to release a full version "in a few weeks"...that page was there for a few months....
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Reason: they sell MS Office. But they give away IE and media player. Which do you think they would start with?
2-3 years ago Microsoft released a version of Internet Explorer (3, I believe) for Solaris and HP-UX. I have _NEVER_ seen a slower program. It looked like they had re-implemented the entire Windows (3.X) OS (including the sucky cursors) inside a Solaris process.
Seriously, porting Office to Un*x is a serious challenge. Between the N-thousand Windows APIs and the alleged undocumented ones, I believe it should be rewritten mostly from scratch...
I'll wait and see, but won't hold my breath.
... the users of alternative operating systems and office suites succumb to this. Even if m$ manages to release the schweetest office suite of all time, I like my m$ free environment - and I wont give it up. Things are stable, productive, and system failures have logical solutions. If a m$ office suite is a hit with linux users ... I will be very dissappointed. Quit feeding the fire, havent you learned anything yet????!
rm -rf ms/*
Getting pretty low on ideas, eh?
Joseph?
That's pretty weak...
>> If you don't need MS Windows to run MS office, then you don't need MS Visual Studio to write apps with...
Now _here's_ a terrifying thought - what if porting Office necessitates porting a part of MFC => Unix cross development on Visual Studio. Then you get Office for Linux, IE for Linux etc. _and_ a development environment from MS (even if they only use that in-house). This means that MS put their browser into Linux/Unix-space; now here's some serious competition for any browser on Unix (including Mozilla for sure). I wonder what kind of havoc that will wreak...
I for one am looking forward to having Office on Unix - even if the product sucks as much as it does now, it will be common ground for replacement of Windows boxes with Unix. Then we have the possibility of migrating from MS Office to Star Office or whatever, since they will both be running on the same platform and therefore comparable to the PHBs and regular users.
MS porting Office to Linux isn't terribly surprising, though, when you consider that MS office has been the dominant office product on the macintosh for a long time.
Since the organization is easily big enough for different divisions to go off on their own and have seperate short- and medium- term goals than other divisions, or even the company as a whole, there's no clear contradiction here.
I am curious, though, about this: MS will probably use some flavor of WINE when porting office to Linux (it's faster and easier for them). No doubt they'll uncover WINE bugs in the process (after all, they know their own OS better than anyone else) --- will they contribute their bug fixes back to WINE? Or will they simply modify the code? Would the latter be legal under the license that WINE uses?
ObDisclaimer: I work for a company about to be acquired by Corel, so apply salt when digesting my posts.
This is probably how it will progress. Microsoft Office for Linux appears. It has a lot of problems and everyone says Microsoft doesn't know what they're doing and that Linux is fine; Office is screwed. Then Microsoft releases Microsoft Linux, and the problems go away! And Microsoft says that they, as a professional development company, know how to make a business platform and that a loose-knit bunch of geeks running around playing with source code do not. Their "corrections" to solve problems in Linux has allowed their product to work reliably; not any changes to their Office code.
Regardless of where the real problems lie, Microsoft has the $$$$ to run a PR and Ad campaign to drive this point home into the non-technical people who make major purchasing decisions. The rest of us can whimper and cry at will about what is "right" or whatever; but it will be the OS/2 story all over again.
Then the "Microsoft Office on Microsoft Linux" campaign kicks into full swing. "Fort those of you who actually want to consider running Linux".
Dave
Dave Bennett
Chances of MS having a team working on porting Office to Linux: 95%
Chances of Office being available on Linux sometime in the next 3 years: 10%
Chances of Office "going Open Source" sometime in the next 10 years: 0%.
--
Here is the result of your Slashdot Purity Test.
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Sure, everything is possible. Aside from political and business interest concerns, I think the technical issues alone would be sufficient to make a Linux port to Office a major headache. Why? Because Office made heavy use of operating system infrastructures not yet available on Linux.
I am not an Office guru, but it should be no surprise to see that Office needs COM, OLE, VBScript and maybe lots of different FoobarX to survive and stay functional. And that is where the problem comes --- not much of that (if any) is available under Linux. Does anyone know how the source-level Windows compatible library is supposed to solve that kind of problem?
He's said exactly the same before too.
:)
Thats why he's #1 karma whore
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
How's about we slap a big 'ol "I'll believe it when I see it," on top of that one. Why would Microsoft make MS Office for Linux? That's exactly what IT managers around the globe are waiting for as an excuse to do desktop replacement. I think that having Office on Linux will open the floodgates for putting Linux on the desktop, and the next step after that is replacing Office with Star Office.
It seem very unlikely that MS will ever do anything that will make the corporate user more comfortable with using Linux. I know there are people that would jump all over the chance to stop buying Windows licenses at my company, how about at yours? The only thing that keeps them from doing so is the lack of MS applications, specifically MS Office.
Of course, if there were 30 Mini-Microsofts, we might just have a different story on our hands.
Microsoft CEO #23 to his development staff:
What can we do to differentiate ourselves from Microsoft #'s 1-22, 24-30?
Little Geeky Programmer: Hey, let's port MS Office to Linux!
Microsoft CEO #23: Hmmm....
Hedging the risk, and diversifying on the
market, nothing else. This has nothing
to do with any technical reason. If they
split the company, guess what will happen.
The app. part will scramble for any penny
they can get a hold on. I think this is
the smartest move they could possibly make now.
In short term this will give them a huge
leap, although in a long run who knows
what will happen. Quite a few times they have
proved they can make up pretty quickly
for very nearsighted dessions.
Anyone else on that?
That's not all they are spreading....
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
When they lose a customer to Linux, they lose out on not only selling os upgrades to them, but also applications. This would remove the latter problem. However, after the admitted anti-netscape code present in Windows 98, I would never install anything , anything , at all, that MS made for Linux. However, Linux users are, by education and virtue of Linux itself, a lot more aware of what is going on with their system. I could imagine MS embedding code that would make linux fuck up - how about, say, the 'office daemon' that lurks waiting to 'make office start faster' or something, and also happens to crash once every few days, suspiciously? Oh well.... anyway, um.. who cares! Death to MS.
Juln
There's evidence to suggest that they control the Mac. How can anybody want them to get equivalent leverage (and ability to decree the killing of competing technology) on Linux?
Well, I doubt that they could get "leverage" over Linux, as they could with Apple. In a nutshell, M$ gets leverage because they enter into relationships wherein companies cater to their whim lest they suffer dire financial consequences.
So if they do have leverage over Apple, it's because Apple perceives that it could suffer financial hardship if M$ pulled the plug on Office for the Mac. Fewer people may buy Macs knowing there's no Office support.
You don't really have that with Linux for several reasons:
1. Linux isn't a single entity. There's no (real) centralized decisionmaker so there's really no one for M$ to get leverage over.
2. The Linux community, being pretty much M$-agnostic (if not largely anti-M$), began without M$ and will continue without M$. If more people adopt Linux because there's now an Office suite for them. Great. If those people go away when M$ pulls the plug on their Office suite. Great. The core will still remain & thrive.
I'm more worried about M$ motivations toward companies that are now developing (if not delivering or close to delivering) commercial office suites for Linux: Corel, Sun, Applixware, etc. I really fear that Corel could put out a great product, only to be stomped into the ground by M$, and then have M$ pull the plug on their own product ("Oh, that was just an experiment"). Too many great companies with great products have shrivelled up and died after M$ barged in & took over their market.
I can see no reason why MS Office for Linux would be a BAD thing! It will bring more attention to Linux and broaden its user base! Why is that so terrible? I have lived to hate Microsoft, but I will admit that I use Win 2000, and it is actually pretty nice - the only problem with it is its COST. Linux could mop up the consumer / SOHO side of personal computing because Win 2K is priced out of the reach of the average Joe. The availability of "mainstream" apps can do nothing but BENEFIT everyone involved. By releasing Office for Linux, M$ would be admitting that Linux is here to stay! :) Flames to /dev/null
Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
I'm talking about things like perl and ftp programs.
I also notice that our ISP has dire warnings on their administration site, which basically says, "Either use our administration tools, or Frontpage's but don't try to use both."
Basically, if you've created a Web site in Frontpage (and I still try to use Notetab when I can slip it by) it just becomes easier to use MS version of ftp (the one built into Frontpage) and MS Perl-substitute (called "Frontpage server extensions").
My guess is they'd try to pull something like this in Linux. Like install Office and maybe Emacs all of the sudden doesn't work so well, or Wordperfect has a tendency to crash more often. Pretty soon, it just becomes easier for the Linux developers to use MS Office than to fight with what it is doing to the system.
Of course, I have been know to be a wild-eyed, paranoid wierdo... but I think people can check what I've said about Frontpage independently. (Really, try creating a "Frontpage Web" and try to make it work like an ordinary Web site, you'll see...)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
But I haven't been at M$, if I had been at their
exhibition hall, I would have checked it out for you,...sad
But it was refreshing to see linux runing on the desktop at soundblaster, hauppauge and many others, even if I had to tell the guy at soundblaster to run xmms with visual plugin to show something impressive on the screen (he wanted). To blame them: It wasn't installed on the PC, running S.u.S.E 6.3.
I saw Linux powerd 604e PowerPC you could get in 19" racks.
I saw a nice satelitte card data & TV, they are working on, data going both ways, developing a Linux solution and have a really fancy trick to get the picture on the screen without pushing it through some form of Bus.
Was a really great day, but I'm tired....
Yours Michael
Why would they? If they think that they can make money on it, they may very well do it. I think it'd be more of a ballance of development costs against how many copies they think they can sell at ~$500 a pop. With the share of Linux Desktops approaching (or exceeding -- I don't know the current stats) the number of Mac desktops, the potential for them to make $$$$$ might be there (in their eye at least). Just my 2 cents.
I doubt that there going to give it away. There a growing market for M$ to sell a high priced item.
Now, here are my thoughts on the situation. EVERYONE could stand to gain from Microsoft competeing in the Linux market. For example: 1) If Microsoft begins marketing their media player, Office, Internet Explorer, etc. then that would give more corporate users freedom on their desktops. If your entire company is using a standard Microsoft product and no compatible implementation exists for Linux, Solaris, etc. then you're basically stuck using MS. However, if you can now use a different OS and maintain compatibility, then you've got the freedom to chose. 2) Microsoft opening up a little source code to Linux benefits everyone. Here's my logic: It helps them with the Justice Department, as well as in their bug department. By developing software for other platforms the government may think they are abandoning their monopoly policy. Also, releasing source code, EVEN AT A PRICE, would allow users of the software on Linux, Solaris, or whatever platform it's on, to submit more detailed bug reports leading to better bug fixes, possibly even in products for other platforms.
Personally, I welcome any development for Linux. Microsoft now has an arrangement with my University which allows me to get Office 2000 for $20, Windows 2000 for $50, and Visual Studio for $25. I admit, I like the free software for Linux. However, with reduced prices like these, I'm more likely to use them.
Now, what I would really like to see is Microsoft helping on the desktop from an interface standpoint. If Microsoft were to port some of its development tools and libraries to Linux, release the code, and then develop a well-designed Window manager for Linux, I think it would be extremely beneficial to Unix users. I'm not advocating a Windows clone for XWindows, but a completely original design for the Unix desktop would be wonderful!
Sorry for the long post. What do you all think about the subject?
Microsoft already has ported IE to Solaris and HP-UX. Don't expect it to happen for Linux.
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
I've tried it before. It really stinks: slow and unstable.
--
"A dessert without cheese is like a beautiful woman who has lost an eye." -- Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
IE for Solaris and HP/UX has been out for a while (version 4, I think). Never used it myself. Anyone out there tried it?
I would never underestimate MS and expect them not to have something ready if the tide suddenly turned, either in the marketplace or in the courtroom.
I've said this before as an AC:
Signal11, do you have a subscription to a magazine called "just enough lingo to make idiots think you're smart"?
'cus from this post, and the one about SSH, it's obvious that you're just borrowing all of your opinions from those more in the know...
humbleness is a good thing Signal11
Q: What do you think about American Culture?
A: I think it's a good idea.
(adapted from Gandhi)
Office for the Mac is usually half a major version behind that for windows; recall that Office 98 had a few new features over the windows version, and was, in fact, out in '98. Office '01 will likely be similar. Add to that the fact that the Mac versions of MS apps are considered by many to be much more usable than windows versions, and your argument loses steam. Furthermore, i haven't seen a whizbang feature that i *want* in a word/excel/pp program since Word 5.1. Perhaps Bill & Co have just done too good a job convincing you you need those features.
Why ??? Well... bigger market for Office is one. And what about the VBA (Visual Basic for Applications) inside office ? Getting their own programming language into a competitive OS could be worthwile don't you think ?
And maybe they could build upon some OSS libraries that they would add 'features' (not bugs) to. Accomplishing that would stir up the Linux community probably. And the corporate world would embrase linux but only with the 'infected' libraries. That could break up the linux community. And nothing better for M$ than their competitor fighting amongst thereselves.
Could be a reason to finally join hands and stop all the 'the-distro-I-use-is-superiour-to-the-one-you-use' wars. And all the diffs in configuration etc.
Just a thought (and a negative one, but my damn Window$ crashed a few mins ago...)
MarsDude
Microsoft actually did release IE for some platforms. IE 5 is available for Solaris and HP-UX. For more info, take a look at this
I agree, a linux port of Office invalidates 60% of the reason most offices run windows!
It's GOTTA be BS.
Let's assume this is the case. How do you motivate programmers to create a program under those conditions "hey people, we're gonna make an office suite for Linux, don't worry about making it great - we're only writing a spoiler".
I think it's reasonable to assume that MS would only create an Office Suite for Linux to make money - the same motivation they have elsewhere (Macintosh anyone - MS make more SW for that platform than anyone else).
-wibble-
Is anyone else a little nervous about having Office "integrated"(Microsoft loves this word...it doesn't just run) into Linux? How many macro, VBScript, and other nasty bugs and virus problems are running around in their products that can now make the jump to Linux and *BSD because they ported their core engine?
First off I don't believe that Microsoft is spending the money on making a linux office port. Its too much of a change in architecture, and too much of the code needed to run Office is in active X and IE 5. I may be wrong on that but the way its interfaced to the OS and to the Internet I don't see why it wouldn't be.
If Microsoft was making a linux port they'd have to come out with it soon to beat KOffice and all the other Linux office suites for mindshare. If they don't they'd have to do what they did to netscape and offer it for free just to compete and to push the others out of the way.
They can do this and still make money. During 'development' of the suite they can offer out time limited betas that expire after 90 days. After all the rest of office suites are out of the way they announce that they are going to release and the beta program is closed down. A few months or so later all the free betas expire and the new office still isn't out. People will have lost interest in the other office suites and the documents made by MS office for linux may not be readable (encrypted for security perhaps?). People will have to buy/install windows and office for windows just to do work. Microsoft can claim that the final release was delayed because of a large bug found, who can fault them for bug fixing. After the majority of people have switched back to windows they can annouce that they're restarting the beta program, but who's going to use it? With the low responce to the second beta program they can claim that there isn't interest in office for linux and drop the program.
I know there are some holes in that arguement, like you can save files in older formats of office and read them with other office applications, but how many people are going to do that? And it now seems to be illegal to decrypt data that you didn't encrypt (al la DeCSS But lets not get into that).
Also Microsoft has announced that they would like to start renting applications. The office port to linux could be the start of this, combined with one for windows. They could set up the renewal process for the linux version on a 'overloaded' server that will only send out the new license code a week after the expiration of the old code. Users would be so frustrated but in dire need to use office that they'd switch to windows just to get their work done. But they can only do this after the competition for office suites under linux has been removed. Interest would lag for linux office and they could close down the project saying linux was a failure.
If they're careful everything they do here is legal. Underhanded and evil, but still legal. If they only offer their betas as free instead of the final product then they won't run into the same anti-trust problems they had with netscape. They can use their betas to draw away the mindshare from the other office suites, and then cancel the project to move people to windows where they can actually get at their data again. If they get enough mindshare from the rest of the suites then those might die, and that's what Microsoft would want.
Software Engineer & Writer of Military Science Fiction and Fantasy Blog: petermwright.com Twitter: WrightPeterM
It lets them bid Office to large corporations that have gotten the Linux bug.
A bit late, but they're denying the rumor.
"Microsoft always considers customer feedback for future development, but at this time, this is not something MS is working on."
Putting aside the debt over the accuracy and/or truth to this rumor, let's say that MS is porting office to Linux: Would you use it? Since the rumor about MS porting their Windows Media Player to Linux, I've been giving this a lot of though. Would I use MS software on my Linux boxes or not? I admit that the prospect of FINALLY getting streaming media on my Linux machines was very tempting. Thanks god Red Hat and Real Networks made that announcement :) Temptation aside, I really think that allowing Microsoft to gain a toe-hold on our Linux machines is a really bad idea. Remember the Halloween memo? "Embrace and extend..." The thought of MS gaining entry to our machines and slowly spreading one app at a time is really scary. We've managed to wrestle our desktops from MS and regain CHOICE. I'd like to see MS port Office to Linux. Then I'd like to see it fail miserably :) I know that the more the community grow, the less discriminating it will become in it's choices of software (newbies would see the MS name as attractive possibly...) but I'd like to think that if Office2K Linux was released tomorrow, we'd know better :^) Chris
Patent the innovation, not the code.
Anyone who wants to can use the kernel mods which require the application to do the MSLinux dance, but you wouldn't be able to modify your applications to do this dance without paying MS the license fee for their "insight".
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
--SolidGold
--SolidGold
Everything you know is wrong. Or more accurately, inaccurate.
They are not to be trusted. I would NEVER run anything they intentionally wrote for Linux - they would intentionally break stuff, or use it tosned information about my machine to them or..who knows? This is the outfit that brought obviously falsified video tapes to their trial! They know no honest way of functioning.
And now that I think of this, running MS code under WINE is probably not going to smart any longer either. I wouldn't put it past them to put in code to detect that situation and do ugliness. They are very treacherous.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Wasn't there a story on /. a few months ago about MS looking to hire Linux programmers? I wonder what they've been working on...
Answer: to try and take over Linux. It's their most basic strategy and they've used it time and time again. Look at what they tried to do with Java: creep in, make proprietary, control. The problem with Java is that they were going up against another large company that was maintaining strong control of the specs. Linux is way more fragmented.
Fragmentation is Linux's strength, you say? Too fragmented for Microsoft to control or harm? Maybe. Users like us will always have a 'free' Linux, but Microsoft's marketing machine is powerful enough to divert mainstream use into its jaws. And that is what is going on in M$ high-level meetings.
----------------
Overheard: "Aww, why'd you go and install Windows on a perfectly good machine?"
Maybe for an average home user it wouldn't be much of a difference which operating system office is running on but for business's that have to have licenses for all the running copies of windows it might just start to add up enough.
Linux is cheaper, more secure, easier to customize, extremely network friendly, runs on cheaper hardware and has a nice buzz behind it. Only thing holding it back is an office suite with 100% compatibility with ms office. Would ms really want to jeopardize the sales for their most succesful product. Why would anyone bother with win2k anymore. Maybe next thing that we'll see is ie for linux(I wouldn't mind, unless mozilla really catches up) although I seriously doubt.
...that Mainsoft is porting WinMain (or at least is rumored to) to linux (can anybody confirm/deny this?). This is the _same_ strategy they used with IE for Solaris/HP-UX, and resulted in a bloated, but working product. If/when this port is done, it will be the same story - bloated, slow, but working. And people will use it.
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
Visit
That means Unix, and once that happens, how hard is it to make a Linux/BSD port?
Really hard. Why? 'cuz Gates has to swallow it.
And remember that OS X has Aqua. I'm willing to bet that MS is going to take very full advantage of Aqua's prettiness to hide some mess. So what if it doesn't work? It looks nice!
And remember that MS likes to take advantage of lots and lots of undocumented features released to them under NDAs (okay, that's just what I observe). Linux probably doesn't have 95% of those "features".
I have a possibly scary hypothesis. Microsoft creates it own linux distribution, but it deliberately makes it incompatible with standard linux. It then releases MS Office for its version of linux, but MS Office still won't work on ours.
How is this possible, you ask? Wouldn't the GPL prevent this awful event from occuring? Not really. Microsoft would have to disclose any changes it made to the OS because of the GPL, but what if they made other applications changes. They could create their own fully proprietary X-server for instance. MS Office could only run on MS X and no other. Suddenly everyone who doesn't know any better is buying Gatesux from MS. All the stability of linux with full application support from Microsoft...
A scarier thought is what if they deliberately try to fork the code. MS could concievably make some really stupid changes to the OS. No one else would support them because they were obviously so stupid. It would be a matter of principle to most coders to refrain from adopting them. Then suddenly office is released and depends on them. All other linux distros are suddenly screwed. Insert BSD-like code fork here.
Is it possible? Dunno, but kind of a scary thought though...
P.S. Yes the Gatesux pun was deliberate...
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
Antitrust lawsuit? No, we're not preventing other OS's from competing with us. In fact, looky here...we make apps for linux and mac! We support the development of other OS's.
Isn't this the old trick from the Microsoft public relation department?
They deliberately put out the rumour, that they are going to port Office to Linux - the rumour has the effect that no other companies start to port their word processors, since they know they can not beat Word.
The net result is that Linux-opponents still can argue: "Linux does not have any real word processors".
Off course I could be overly pessimistic. If it on the other hand is true, that they are porting Word - I will say "Thanks, that's just what Linux needed.".
--
A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos
-- A Mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems. - Paul Erdös
There will never, ever be a version of Office for Linux. Let's all get that straight, this article should be in the National Enquirer. The ONLY reason that people use Windows in a corporate environment instead of Linux, or whatever else is because companies have standardized on Office. Office sales=Windows sales. Period. No retraining, no strange document conversions, great support, great user and training manuals, training classes available everywhere, etc., etc. Microsoft would never make Office available for Linux, since this would negate the only reason people need to run Windows. An OS is useless without it's applications and this is exactly where Microsoft got it right. Slashdot may hate Microsoft, but obviously they are not stupid or they wouldn't be where they are today.
If MS releases an Office for Linux, corporations will immediately pitch in for it and grab en masse licenses to run on all their Linux boxen. It'll be a piece of crud, but it's Microsoft; it must be standard.
Sooner or later, Microsoft will release its own Linux so people can theoretically run Linux Office without any problems. (Note: theoretically.) They come up with their OWN standards and throw their weight around. Microsoft Linux won't be pretty, but people will swallow it up. After all, these are the people that made Windows--the GUI everybody and his brother grew up with.
Their new standards break anything previously compiled for Linux, making a mockery of what Linux originally was.
MS Linux will have outrageous system requirements that are eaten up by memory leaks and poor optimizations. All the while, the geek/hacker community will be tired of it all. It'll go on, and on, and on, and Linux as we know it, will, of course, fade. After all, you can't argue with an 800-pound gorilla.
Years will pass. Then, one day, an enterprising young geek at some university (it doesn't have to be Helsinki) will come across this cool old OS in an ancient unadulterated form of some artifact cryptically called "Debian". He'll rewrite it to run on his computer and post the source. He becomes a sort of hero to the geek/hacker community, as they finally have a powerful, intricate, free-as-in-beer-and-speech platform to work, to play, to frolic, to grok.
Then Microsoft will try to write Office for it.
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
Considering all the FUD Microsoft has written about Linux, I find these rumors very odd, and I still believe there are more snowballs in hell than MS-developers porting MS Office.
But if this happens to be true, I'll be happy. A giant like MS will attract the attention of many others towards Linux.
2) These changes are made available to anyone who wants them, as required under GPL. Of course, nobody wants them. They patent the innovation, anyway.
AFAIK this is not possible because of the GPL under which Linux is released. You can't modify a piece of GPL'd software and then go patenting it. This would violate the GPL.
From the GPL licence article 6:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
With Sun trying to use staroffice's cross-platform capabilities to steal market share from Microsoft, it would make sense for microsoft to try to port office. On the other hand, doing so would cause alot of people to reconsider linux as their primary OS. So, they are either going to lose market share to linux if they do, or market share to staroffice if they don't. I think it all comes down to who they think is a larger threat.
Regardless of my personal feelings I don't think this is that bad. After all, it's not that they will grab the control of the OS. And I think there will not be able to modify the GPL. ...
Besides, they will come into a market that already has some powerful toys (er, tools). KOffice will be released quite soon, StarOffice as buggy as it is, it is a strong competitor, and least but not last there is Word Perfect.
What will be the place of Microsoft in this scenario ? Well, you'll have to consider that someone that owns a Linux is aware that there are cheaper word processors on the market and I think the price will make the difference. And this will be the main criteria because now there won't be a monopoly (something like : everyone is using Word so I'll have to buy it).
Thus, I think they should do whatever they want
Unless, this is another weird marketing campaign. Try our Word for Linux for free and see that it is just as slow as under Windows. Probably I'm just being paranoid
Just one more thing - if you're going to port the damn thing, please loose the paperclip !
Seems to me that it's an MS rumour which they spread regularly ...
-- Neil
AFAIK, GTK+ is LGPL, not GPL, so they should be able to use it.
As for Qt, they would have to use the professional edition, which shouldn't be a problem at all for Microsoft to spend some money... or they could use winelib (yeah, right, like they'd help to improve wine).
As for the Solaris/HP-UX IE, when it was released sometime ago, I remeber reading in a Microsoft site that they used Motif for it.
--
Marcelo Vanzin
Marcelo Vanzin
Hello!!!!!! Does the word "Market Share" mean anything to you? MS probably makes more money off of supporting Office than the actual software sale. Regardless, they make enough money period, that they can afford to give away from freebies.
It crashes more frequently on my box than any other app I have. I used it on an Ultra 10 w/Sol 2.7, and it made Netscape seem fast and stable...
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
There is power in being ubiquitous. Office needs to be supported, at least in some capacity, on all desktops. I highly doubt that they are doing a full port, since it is so heavily integrated into the operating system (Office really is a full development suite, with support for third-party activex components and other add-ons- too much would have to be ported). I wouldn't be surprised, however, to see some sort of subset of Office get ported- at least document viewers for all types of office formats, and some of the base functionality that is required by 90% of users. This allows them to keep comptetition such as Corel from gaining inroads due to their support for Linux.
M$ is probably looking at it this way: If Linux remains a OS that has a minority market share, then they can sell Office for it and make $600/copy, gather good publicity, and cry cross-platform support. And if Linux becomes a dominant desktop OS, they will sell a ton and make even more billions. I remember at one time it was said that Microsoft made more for each Mac sold than Apple did... This was because of MS Office! Either way, you look at it MS will come out ahead. Of course, know Microsoft's arrogance, I suspect they will end up dropping it before it reaches public beta.
Will work for
I'm sure somewhere in the archives of history you could find a Mac user saying nearly the same thing as this when Microsoft started producing Macintosh software.
Microsoft's uninstaller, even as far back as Office 97, will warn you of situations where it might want to delete a DLL, but other applications use it. So whoever uninstalled the app was a total moron for telling the uninstaller to go and delete the DLLs anyway.
MS Linux will be released for free (which they will argue is how all Linux distro's are released). However, they will price Office and Backoffice stuff so that they make up the lost Windows revenues.
MS Linux will also support several "Windows" technologies through a plus/addon pack which will be marketed seperatly from MS Linux (though avail by default with OEM distros). This product will not be released under GPL (similiar to what Slade has done to QuakeLives).
If you are paraniod ask the guys at Netscape.
They don't make money, at least as much, off windows, they make it off office.
I'd seriously consider office under linux.
I'd seriously rethink my views of Microsoft
I'd seriously think it would be a truely great thing for both linux, and consumers.
if (when?) Microsoft does make that leap, everyone will benefit. Even microsoft. At least in my perspective.
A straight up Microsoft port of Office would probably be unrealistic. A more realistic Linux strategy would go something like this.
Windows everywhere - Linux for Windows
---------------------------------------
First off, get the Windows GUI and Direct X running on top of Linux. It's probably easier to do this than to port MS applications to Linux piecemeal. They would release a Linux distribution with an open source kernal, plus whatever modifications they needed to make, with those modifications needed for open source. I would think MsgWaitForMultipleObjects and its ilk would have to go in the kernal, open source, and the GUI is a binary. If they kept the GUI close source and the kernal open source, they still might be able to protect their driver hegemony and perhaps actually strengthen it. They should probably include an IIS. Few apache users would switch, but it would protect IIS from further Apache inroads.
A Microsoft Linux would immediately weaken Red Hat, SuSE, and other Linux distributions. Only the Microsoft Linux would be compatible with the Windows applications, or at least Microsoft could claim that. If the distribution was available for free download and charged for support, ALA Red Hat, then Microsoft would still make a lot of money, could still claim that they were giving Windows away, without really losing any money on the deal.
Tools for Linux
---------------
Right off the bat there is no reason that a next generation version of SQL Server could not run on Linux. This would attack Oracle on a platform that many feel is better than Solaris, and further weaken arch-enemy Sun. Linux may hurt Windows, but it hurts Solaris even more.
A Visual C++ port to Linux would make some things simpler, but no Unix person in his or her right mind would accept MFC. In fact, few Windows people in their right minds accept MFC. Still, Visual C++ is pricey and would do little to detract from those people who are comfortable with GCC, but still, a lot of people like an IDE and while no one can say that Visual C++ is the best everyone can at least admit that the IDE/debugger combination is popular. Still, with Linux Visual C++, Microsoft could then have carte blanche to extend the language in ways that they cannot with Java.
Finally, a VB port to Linux has real potential to be a Java killer. With Windows running "everywhere", the portability argument of Java would be a lot less relevant. If the next version of VB actually delivers on the promises that Microsoft has made, then VB would be a credible cross platform environment and an ideal way for Microsoft to quietly put the long awaited skewer through MFC.
FoxPro is nice, but at this stage irrelevant, and few Windows people actually like InterDev.
Office for Linux.
----------------
With that foundation, MS could then assess whether or not Office for Linux makes sense. The brand differences in Windows proper and Linux proper would probably drive the OS market. If Microsoft gave up Windows 2000 altogether, and stuck to their Linux distribution, they would immediately circumvent the whole DOJ issue from the get go, on paper, while in reality doing little to change the overall situation. At this point, with a pretty good database running on Linux, with their own Linux distribution, the Microsoft Windows monopoly would be enhanced and supplanted by the Microsoft Linux monopoly. If Office found its way to Linux, it would be on Microsoft Linux, and the world would be fundamentally the same except that Windows would have a better shell.
This is my sig.
Let's say Microsoft does indeed release Office for Linux. You think they're going to stop there? Most likely they'll require it to be used with their own window manager, which will be an extremely accurate clone of the Windows desktop. Then they'll release visual progamming tools for Linux that work only with their own window manager, prompting users to take notice. With the advent of IE for Linux, as well as perhaps better plug and play support, easier installation of hardware, etc. they'll slowly but surely eat away at Linux until it's indirectly one of their own products, and anything else would just be too much of a pain in the ass to use for the spoiled masses.
Great, now Microsoft can ruin Linux for me as well. Just when I'd gotten used to not crashing my machine every hour. Bastards. Sharkey
http://www.badassmofo.com
This will "scratch the itch" of consumer demand just enough to keep Corel or others from developing real Office competitors, but never really bring a the same level of functionality to Linux that the competing Microsoft OS would offer."
It might be enough, however, to enable a gradual shift of employees and files to Linux. As things stand now, a business would either have to switch cold turkey or install dual boot machines. For most end users this is far from ideal. Lesser features would result in grumbling and complaining, but if a switch could be made eventually over to FREE software, it would work. Plus the avoidance of Windows licensing costs and upgrade cycles is a nontrivial benefit. Personally, while I think that Office for Linux would speed the adoption of Linux in certain business environments, I would much rather KOffice and Abiword and Gnumeric continue to develop into powerful appliations. If Microsoft continues on its current path, its licensing costs and crazy terms should begin driving companies away at just about the time the free alternatives reach really usable stages. Abiword has a ways to go, Gnumeric is apparently further along but there is still work to do, and KOffice, while even now very interesting and capable of more than any other Open Source office project, has probably at least another year or more of heavy development before it reaches its prime. I eagerly await the first fully stable releases of KOffice, and while I suspect Abiword will be less capable than KWord, it seems reasonably lightweight and has a clean feel to it which is missing from many other word processors. These tools, once they reach 1.0 stages, will be extremely viable alternatives for word processing and other office tasks. For myself, I doubt I would ever buy Office for Linux, unless a family member insisted on it and I couldn't convince them to try the new tools. I can do most of what I want to do with free tools even now (StarOffice and Lyx) and the development of these exciting new possibilities is enough to convince me it is worth the wait.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Concessions from who? Linux isn't controlled by any one individual or company. Who would Microsoft make a deal with? The key components are almost all GPL anyway, so if anyone were dumb enough to do something like that a new project would spring up and take the GPL code and develop it in a different (probably better) direction. Let Microsoft try it. I'm in the mood for a good laugh. They'll never stop open source and never control it. It was designed that way.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
At the Linux Expo in New York this year a friend and I stopped by the MainSoft both. One of their guys was telling me that they have access to the windows NT source and with it they wrote a program that will let you compile your windows program to *nix. They even said M$ used it themself to write the IE port for Solaris. So if you think IE for Solaris is slow, Office will probably be also. (I never tried it myself). The software looks like it might be good for small programs, but I bet it runs big ones (like M$ Office) like crap. Here is a link to a link to there website; http://www.mainsoft.com
They misunderestimated me. -- George W. Bush
Not whether or not MS will port office...it's whether or not we'll be able to switch from the paperclip to Tux!
"Going to church makes you no more a christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car." --Loosely paraphrased, Ga
if you don't run it. keep in mind that they haven't announced a port yet, and even if they do you still have to option of not using it. Use StarOffice and
"Going to church makes you no more a christian than sleeping in your garage makes you a car." --Loosely paraphrased, Ga
And they have a demo of that mission-critical app FreeCell for us Linux zealots to have a look at.
Linux has a few Office systems already, all with MS compatibility. What is really wanted is stuff like Quicken which, AFAIK, don't have a direct equivalent. I'll reserve judgement however, until MS Office appears, and if they've done a good job. I'm not holding my breath. I saw some benchmarks between Office on Windows and on the Mac, and the Mac version was far slower. I doubt this was an accident.
Office is a seriously big cash cow to MS. Once it is obvious that the sum of money available through sales > sum of money to port, then we'll see Office.
Hell we'd see Office on the Palm Pilot if MS thought it'd be a money spinner.
Thats the nature of big business
...Upgrade now to Schrodingers Dog...
Actually, Office and Windows are both huge cash cows for Microsoft. For an inside perspective on Microsoft read this: Inside the Leviathan
Here's a quote:
"Financial analysts have long recognized that Microsoft's profit really comes from two sources. One is operating systems (Windows, in all its varieties), and the other is the Office suite of programs. Everything else -- Flight Simulator, Slate, MSNBC, mice and keyboards -- is financially meaningless."
As this article states, MS doesn't really care about the individual desktop, but rather the large volume customers. When computer distributors, such as Dell, look for a standard office suite to include with their Windows AND Linux computers, MS will be in a better position since the can support both platforms. When a large Fortune 500 customer is looking for an office suite, MS will be in a better position because they support Windows, Mac and now Linux.
If Linux starts to make large gains in the desktop market, you can bet that Microsoft will be there with their own distribution as well. Why not start hedging their bets with Office now. Of course, I would also expect that their dist would have proprietary additions and that MS apps would work better or have additional features with MS Linux.
Although I tend to be skeptical that this rumor is true, I can think of one other possible reason why Microsoft would be working towards a Linux port of Office.
They have accepted that the government is going to split them into 3 seperate companies, so why should the MS Office Division care about the OS's future market share.
perhaps, in the classic MS formula, they are 'hedging their bets'
Well, the way I see it, I don't have a problem with porting Office to Linux. I moved to Linux to get a way from the M$ crap, and I realy havn't looked back. I wouldn't touch "Office for Linux" even if my life depended on it! I'm pretty happy with Applixware and it satisfies my needs. That's my few cents worth.
I'm not afraid of the dark. Far from it. Just.... only when the lights are off!
If a Linux version of Microsoft Office can run macros from the Windows version, then it is automatically a better product than Staroffice - from a business perspective.
A lot of companies are heavy users of macros, especially in Excel, and without compatibility they're going to stick with Office. Also anyone using Linux and dealing with people using the Windows version of office might want it too.
A Linux version of Office is a good hedge against the growing popularity of Linux. Especially if Microsoft is split up...
"Information wants to be paid"
First they ignore us,
Then they laugh at us,
Then they fear us,
Then we win.
;P
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
Of course, the door was shut tight, and there was no visible light coming from inside. So, for all I know, it could have been a broom closet.
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
Microsoft has no interest in changing for the ever-evolving technology market, they'll try to make the technology market evolve around them.
I've got news for you: many if not most IT people have already switched to Linux on their desktop! That shouldn't be surprising since you just don't happily go back to your work desk or home and use a Windows machine after working on primarily Windows problems day-in and day-out (that's like working at a Chinese noodle house for 8 years like my wife and going home and eating the same stuff). That's why I personally use Macs and x86 Linux everywhere I can for my own use, and most of my IT counterparts are similar in using some form of *NIX as their primary OS.
But, then again, no *real* "IS or IT type" actually uses Office on a daily basis anyway (vi, BBEdit, or something similar is most common) regardless of which OS they use. The only time we do use it is for the same reason we have the Windows PC behind us collecting dust -- to test something we're giving to a normal office worker.
Seriously, if Microsoft thinks that we're going to use Office more if they port it to Linux when I use BBEdit more than Office on the Mac, then it's no wonder they're on the way out as a computer "superpower"...
Also, WHO uses IE on *NIX??? I've seen it, but absolutely everyone I know who uses Linux uses Netscape or "something else".
...diversification. When you buy a mutual fund, you don't throw all your money into a tech sector funds; you'll lose your ass if there's a downturn on NASDAQ.
If you're Microsoft, you seek market proliferation. If there's a trend toward Linux, you write code for Linux boxes, just as they have done for Mac users all these years. Don't kid yourself into thinking that a CIO, who has ALREADY been talked into trying out Linux, won't jump at the chance to comfort himself with some big-name "reliability." Thus, Microsoft writes Office for the penguins.
Oh, and you anti-libertarians (you KNOW who you are...talking out of your ass) out there. Go find out what the Libertarian party is all about. Freedom of speech, small government, and protection of individual rights...if you don't support at least some of the LP's views, I question your support of this site...and you're definitely NOT a geek like me.
MMWhat'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
what im really waiting for is corel to port the rest of their sweat of software to linx or bsd. at my last job excell couldnt handle the models we were feeding it while quattro pro handled it with ease
Someone had installed Office 97 on our NT server, so when it was un-installed it deleted all the MAPI needed dll's, in result that Exchange Server stoped working :) Fun thing is.. Re-install it wouldn't re-install the dll's.
- Typo Dane
The less you know, the more you make.
Last year (also with CeBit going on) the same rumour was going around - guess what? No M$ Office.
I personally think this is the only good software ever written by M$ (actually only Access in combination with a database server...).
But M$ would make the step for the home user to switch to Linux just a bit too small. I don't think M$ is that stupid.
Don't forget, the only thing where Micro$oft is good at is marketing, and those guys can't afford to admit that linux is a big player on the desktop market.
When they release an Office for Linux - they would destroy years of marketing and internal planning look at the halloween documents).
It just doesn't make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Unless ofcourse they make it so buggy and unstable that they can claim Linux is an unstable system and use it as a marketing tool...
In a World without fences - who needs Gates??
So Microsoft may be looking to get into Linux eh? All I can say is "It's about time!" Having the kind of financial muscle that Microsoft have funding open source development can only be a good thing. People hate Microsoft for a number of reasons, but I think the two main ones are: 1. The software is unstable. 2. Monopolistic Megalomania. Open Source removes both of these. Those of us who have read (and believe in) Eric Raymond's essay "The Magic Cauldron" ( http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr ) believe that the old way of selling software as secret bits is on it's way out, and that software companies will be making their money by giving away open source software, and then offering an incentive to send in a registration fee. Red Hat are already making a lot of money by letting anyone copy their Linux distribution, but only offering support, and exclusive ftp access to registered paid-up users. If Microsoft are to survive this upheaval then they are going to have to move with the times and restructure their business model. If they have seen the light and are changing from a manufacturing company to a service company and joining the Open Source revolution then (even though I have spat much anti-Microsoft bile in the past) I say "Welcome aboard!" Also, if Microsoft join Open Source then perhaps many other software vendors will as well. It may even encourage hardware vendors to open up their drivers, or at least write Linux drivers. Phil Ward.
However, if the DoJ breaks up Micro$oft into separate application and OS companies, or if the DoJ forces them to open source the OS or distribute it for free, than MSOffice for Linux DOES make good economic sense. In other words, this product will never see the light of day without some government intervention.
I'll begin by saying I don't have an opinion on the validity of this rumor, or the likelyhood, or any of that.
What I'm somewhat annoyed with is the tendancy of big applications of this sort to not use decent toolkits. WordPerfect 7, 8, Corel Office 2000, StarOffice, they all use toolkits that contribute a *lot* to how slow and bloated they are. MS would be no different. Hell, they'd probably go to the trouble of writing their own toolkit. After all, that's what Corel is effectively doing with their Office suite. Rather than port Corel Office to Unix platforms/toolkits, they're porting it to their own branch of Wine. The result that I saw in the first beta was an extremely unattractive program. But of course, this was just the first beta.
This is a ZDNet article, not a CNet article. CNet generally commands a lot more respect, at least here. Then again, to be technical it is a ZDNet UK article and their UK division is much less of a fud-factory, from what I hear (note: I'm not saying this article is or is not fud, just that ZDNet likes to publish fud). Anyway, I just thought the attribution needs to be corrected.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
What if they did? Sure i would use it, iff i could get rid of all the crap that they would port with it, i.e. all the sudden we all need the micorsoft sound engine for linux to hear the paperclip talk, microsoft x windows to run office at all because ms is concerned about being able to integrate all of its applications, and of course as ive seen someone speculate before the a microsoft kernel with all kinds of extra ms goodies added in. This would be bad. im all for progress, but jesus christ. why are we all so anxious to get linux where everyone is using it? Say we get everything so everything runs nice and my grandmother can use bitchx, what then? Then everything gets boring and useless and we have to start all over again. Why arent we making it so WE can use it? Applications for linux should be designed with highly competent people who dont care about useless bells and whistles in mind. not morons. This is one step away from AOL being ported to linux, and does ANYONE want that? yes, i am an elitist, and yes this is offtopic. i dont believe in karma.
This might be their contingency planning in case Linux really takes off. Then they could still try to keep their 'Office' monopoly in spite of the fact.
Maybe these rumors all true. 34 developers is probably very little for M$. To make an usable port of their Office, it would have to be better than their ports of IE to Solaris and HP/UX, as well as also consuming an large amount of resources.
I thought the whole point of Carbon was that it was a modified version of the MacOS Classic API; would that not mean that an OS X port to Carbon would involve doing little UNIX-ish code, if any?
Presumably you mean "to other Unices that support the Carbon APIs"; the only such UNIX I know if is, err, umm, MacOS X....
If they didn't use Carbon, they'd presumably use Cocoa, in which case it might involve doing some more UNIX-ish code, but would also presumably involve doing a lot of Cocoa code that wouldn't Just Port to a UNIX/X system.
Such as MainWin for Linux (although I see no sign that MainWin implements the DirectX APIs)?
They used MainWin for both IE4 and IE5.
Mainsoft have MainWin for Linux in "limited beta release".
Mainsoft - the folks whose MainWin product was used for the IE4 and IE5 ports to UNIX - already have MainWin for Linux in "limited beta release". It implements an API that is "tightly controlled" by Microsoft, namely the, err, umm, Win32 API and various Microsoft APIs atop it.
That is pretty cynical - people around these parts do tend to want to correlate every move Microsoft makes as having something to do with the antitrust trial.
:)
See, people think they're conniving, backstabbing, predatory bastards. I agree, I just think that they're smarter than other people think. Most gigantic companies are like slobbering wolves, they'll do anything for a scrap of profit, no matter how demeaning or dangerous to themselves or others. What makes Microsoft so bad is that they're not like that. Companies that are stupid and go for profit regardless of long term consequences get squashed. By Microsoft. Microsoft is more of the patient wolf, still hungry for profit, still posessed only by the need for profit, (what are companies for, particularly publically traded ones) but they're smart enough to take short term hits in order to guarantee long term profit. They're smart enough to injure their opponent and then let them bleed to death rather than waste energy and possibly get injured themselves by ending the fight quickly.
Microsoft's gleaming white teeth swoop in out of nowhere to clamp down on the unsuspecting jugulars of nubile companies. They rip, tear, eviscerate, and slash their way to the heart of the company's business, impaling the very soul and spirit of the hapless competitor upon the iron halberd of market dominance.
What the hell am I talking about? I shouldn't post while under the influence of metaphors...
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Agreed, when you look at it from the whole company's stand point, bad idea, if you look at it from the MS Office group / MS Application group however, it looks a lot more sensible...but don't worry, some one from higher up will beat that idea 6 feet into the ground :)
Sgt Pepper
Lame Sig Shamelessly Ripped from
Fortune:
You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
MS will do whatever those big corporations say they need. Keep this in mind, always. Corporations demanded a way to validate someone's knowledge of MS products - they created certifications. They needed an easy way to connect hundreds of offices - along came W2K and it's directory services along with Outlook 2000 and it's global directory access. Corporations needed reliable, robust, high performance servers. Whups - Sun got that one. But W2K aims to even up the score. See how it works?
Believe me - there is no port.
GTK is GPL (not LGPL) right? So that means thay can't use that. I guess they could go Motif but most Linux users these days wouldn't fall for it. What they should use is Qt, probably, as it has a favorable license for them and is already installed on a decent base of computers.
What was the Solaris IE port written in? Did they rewrite the entire GUI widget set?
my 2 cents.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Today Microsoft announced its new brand of Office for Linux. "It is The Killer App" said Bill Gates on the gigantic worlwide multimedia announcement. "This time we will show the Linux community that we are not so Windows sided"
Office 2001 is an highly complex system for all possible uses, home or office, on camping or in the Bermudas. It has minimum requirements Merced-dual 256Mb RAM 2Gb free space. To installit users are required to install the new Linux kernel "Full Embedding"(TM) from Microsoft. It carries all needed drivers in static form: IE7, ActiveX, JanitorS, Wizards, OLE/COM/DOM/SOM/BOM/POM/BANG, XML/HTML/DHTML/VRML/UML and CSS/VSS/XSS. It also contains special drivers, distributed as modules, for support of documents in Excel2000 and Excel97, Word2000, WordPerfect 5 and TXT. But the great innovation is the integration of Windows GUI inside the kernel. Prices are expected to run from $200 to $2000 (Professional Edition).
Some people have questioned how Open Source is this product. According to Microsoft sources it will be distributed under a new EULA. According to it, source code will be distributed in steganographic form inside the user's manual, in form of spaces. This will allow Microsoft to avoid several patenting issues with the code. Anyone can take a look at it.
Folks,
I personally think that porting over Microsoft Office to Linux is not such a good idea.
There's a good reason for this: most of Office 2000's functionality is total ridiculous overkill for the vast majority of home computer users out there. Unless you have extremely formatted and specialized files and have to exchange them in HTML/XML format in an office LAN environment, most people won't use most of the functionality of Office 2000.
A better choice would be for Microsoft to write a "from scratch" version of Microsoft Works 2000 designed specifically for the KDE interface. Having used MS Works 2000, it's actually a surprisingly good program for home users and has lots of very good features to simplify things like generating reports, formatting documents and the much-dreaded printing of envelopes and labels.
I think Microsoft might actually enjoy success with a Linux version of Works 2000, since must users don't want a program that is overloaded to the tilt with every conceivable bell and whistle in terms of features.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Let's forget all the political rhetoric about Windows and Linux for a while.
:)
Let's remember that the ultimate responsibility of Microsoft is to INCREASE SHAREHOLDER VALUE.
Lately, they haven't been doing so well: the stock is off 20ish% from a high of 119 late last December, and off 18% from a high of 109 earlier this month.
We've all noticed that when companies mention "The L word" (as my former boss used to call it), stock value increases.
Also remember that Office is the core of Microsoft's profit. They make their money from Office (and investments), not so much of it on Windows. Thus, making Office more available would be a good idea from a profitability standpoint.
In other words:
a) From a PR and shareholder standpoint, announcing Office for Linux would be a good idea;
b) From a profitability standpoint, it would be a good idea.
Thus, I think it's inevitable. It may also be that they can't stomach Sun's market share in StarOffice.
_Deirdre
So they want to come into our turf and compete with open source office projects? OK *fine*, not only will it exponentially increase Linux's market share over Linux, nothing would do more to stimulate us to out-office them in every way.
:-) But do be careful, some of the fish swimming in here have lots of little, sharp teeth.
Come on in, Bill the water's fine
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
You're looking too far ahead... by the time OS/2 came, it was too late for IBM...
Why'd they license their OS from Microsoft rather than just buy microsoft? ever wonder that?
Well, if they did that, then they would have been in the position of selling both hardware and the software of the IBM PC. That was EXACTLY why they were in anti-trust trouble in the first place, albiet in the mainframe market. IBM wanted none of that, and didn't really see what was happening when they decided to license their OS from Microsoft and use of the shelf parts rather than build a proprietary box.
If IBM hadn't been in the midst of turmoil, they'ed have just bought Microsoft directly and ended the PC revolution as we now know it.
No, I wouldn't use IE on Linux even if it were available. Actually, I use Netscape instead of IE when I am forced to use Windows (only at work, I don't use it at home or for any of my freelance work). You are right that some of the main reasons I wouldn't support Microsoft's browser is that I think there needs to be real competition to keep Microsoft from hijacking the market.
I'd like to see an Open Source browser that was as good or better than any of the commercial offerings, however, I still don't want to see only one choice, even if it was Open Source -- competition is still good. I've got no problem with commercial browsers like Netscape and Opera existing -- if people want them as options that is fine. I only dislike IE because I just don't like the way a few things in it work, and because I highly disapprove of the way that Microsoft conducts business. By the same tokem I don't begrudge the existance of commercial *nixes (I've got three SparcStations at home and mostly use Solaris at work) even though I mainly use Linux at home.
I don't understand what Microsoft would have to gain by porting Office to Linux.
;-) - and a very cheap one.
Live insurance
Really, you should pose the question the other way around:
"What could Microsoft loose by not having Office on Linux available in time?"
See, what was their revenue in the last six month: $11.5 billion.
What would they loose if linux got 5% of the desktop market in a year and they couldn't deliver office for linux: approx. 5% of their revenue of selling office
What does that mean in numbers (I can only guess here and I estimate 1/5 of their revenue comes from office): $1.15 billion
OTOH, what do 40 developers cost a year: let's say 40x200,000$ = 8,000,000$.
So IMO they would be plain silly not to be able to quickly deliver office for their strongest rival OS when needed.
I just lost so much respect for LinuxCare. It is absolutely irresponsible for a top level executive to go around spreading completely unsubstantiated rumors. This, and their "call to Microsoft to open the Windows source code," as if anyone cared what LinuxCare thought. It's not even a decent stupid publicity press release, it just makes them look like a bunch of amateurs!
LinuxCare: I know you guys have a tremendous amount of Linux talent and a lot of understanding of the community in general. Please, please start acting like grown-ups so you can get the respect you deserve!
--JRZ
Has anyone actually looked at the numbers? Microsoft makes a boatload of money on the MSOffice product-- and a significant portion of that money comes from sales *on the macintosh platform*.
If Linux really does represent a significant desktop market-- and it is clear that if that hasn't already happened, it will inevitably happen-- then Microsoft is going to port office to the platform *because it is going to generate a boatload of revenue*.
Sure a lot of folks are going to make all kinds of noise about it not being OpenSource. So what? Is that really going to matter to people who are actually going to PAY for the software?
If Microsoft does go this route, I [and likely CodeFab] will quite likely BUY copies of Office for Linux? Why? Because we use it.
Why do we use these packages from the *evil empire*? Because--very much unlike their operating systems-- *they work*.
Deal. Linux is going Big Business. Success will do that to any grassroots product.
The article claims that one of the problems with Linux is the lack of an easy to use office suite. Well, there's Corel Office on the way, of which Word Perfect exists on shelves today. But, beta-released vapor is not the end of it. There's Star Office, Applix (does anyone remember when it was Asterix?) and whatever the AbiFolks are doing (haven't checked in quite some time). This, not to mention the GNOME effort (of which gnumeric is the only currently functional product that I know), KOffice (never used any of it) and a few misc. contenders.
So, perhaps the real problem is just that there are too many to choose from and choice confuses people who are used to windows....
And of course it would add to the credibility of Linux amongst those who currently take the view that "no-one got fired for buying Microsoft".
Remember, Microsoft Office is (IIRC) the leading office suite on the Macintosh, and Microsoft doesn't control that OS (yet(grin)).
Don't even think that Microsoft is considering making it Free (as in Beer or Speach).
As my conspiracy theory has it (and that's all I think it is), M$ didn't hire any group of developers. They're just spreading a rumor that they did; this has the advantage that it costs nothing.
But like I said, this is all purely speculative, based on no evidence at all (although I don't see any evidence to refute it, either). Frankly, I myself don't really believe anything about Office for Linux either way, until there is better evidence than rumors.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
... yeah, well could be they're getting a jump on Judge Jackson -- Office for Linux could be the first product of Microsoft's Applications Corp -- OR they are setting up to win the next appeal by saying "Look what we do! We offer our apps software for all platforms!"
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off."
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft reps are refuting this news as rumor. Check out the story here.
Bryan J. Casto
bryan.casto(a)gmail.com
This isn't to say I'm going to buy the product by any means. I work at a MS OEM and I can get anything they sell for free, so I might take it home when it comes out and play with it just long enough to get sick of it. Then I'll format the partition I installed it in and go back to Pico.
#include Halloween.doc
Are we forgetting history here?
Microsoft has everything to gain and little to lose by creating a version of one of their applications which will run under Linux:
- contingency against a federally mandated breakup,
- appearance that they are not an "Only on Windows" company,
- pre-announce to keep potential competition out of the market,
However, such a product will never ship while the applications people and the OS people work for the same shareholders.
They may drop hints about it in the trade press.
They may announce it, even officially.
They may hire people for the project.
They may produce an executable.
They may demo it at trade shows.
They may give out beta copies to influential people.
They may even schedule a release date.
but it will never ship.
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
Okay, how about this for a (not entirely thought-out) strategy for MS to take over Linux.
1) Microsoft releases a modified version of the Linux kernel where each system call requires an extra, useless, added parameter. (Let's call this MSLinux) Something like a copyright string so the OS knows who owns the copyright on the application making the system call.
- reduces performance of MSLinux vs Linux.
- breaks anything currently compiled for Linux.
2) These changes are made available to anyone who wants them, as required under GPL. Of course, nobody wants them. They patent the innovation, anyway.
3) Microsoft re-compiles all of their major Microsoft applications to do the MSLinux dance.
Result:
- You can have Linux , or you can have MSLinux. If you want Microsoft apps, though, you have to use MSLinux.
- If you want your application to do the MSLinux dance, you'll have to license the technology from Microsoft.
- "MSLinux-kernel.org announces the availability of the new MSLinux Kernel release: 2.5.27 As with previous releases, there are major kernel interface changes, and you'll probably have to re-write your applications again if you want them to run under this new release..."
Of course, slashdotters will just ignore MSLinux, but can you really ignore an 800 pound gorilla? And when your boss says "Sure you can have Linux, just as long as you can still run MS Office", which Linux are you going to choose?
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
I'm sitting here trying to think this out logically. Why would microsoft do this? This would do several things that I can think of:
Gives linux even more mainstream exposure;
Gives linux credability (at least from those who don't know any better, think of your non-techie boss, etc);
Helps linux in an area where it has been arguably hurting;
Gives businesses another reason to switch to the cheaper and more stable linux: Almost no time re-training office workers who have been working with ms office for years.
Anyone have any idea WHY microsoft would want to do this? I shouldn't even be replying to rumor stories, I guess I'm just bored at work...
It certainly does seem unlikely, but you never know. I've read most of the messages in this thread and thought about it for the last hour and really can't some up with any real solid reasons for them to do this.
I'm not even sure that I'll use it if it does get ported. I may be the only person in the world who doesn't use all of the applications in my office suite every day.
And most of the time I only need a word processor to type a simple letter or resume'.
Ignore Alien Orders
They may just be hedging their bets. If Linux were (heaven forbid) to really take off, they would have MS Office for Linux ready.
They probably figure that there will always be people who are going to use Linux, no matter what they do. This leads them to thinking... "well, if we can't get them to buy Windows, maybe we can get them to buy Office!"
-- Dr. Eldarion --
I won't buy into point 1, but will strongly
support 2 and 3. As a 6 year old ISP we've
seen microsoft break standards time and time
again. Either they are totally incompetant
or it is intentional.
Maybe I'm just a cyncial bastard, but sooner or
later they will release Word for linux. It will
be, like the Mac versions of their software, a
poor cousin. To get the real features, give up
and get Windows: how many people run Mac's now?
And don't forget, it will run SUID root. No more
laughing at melissa and word viruses. I can't
think of a better way to slam linux than to
release a crippled version of word.
These motives would seem sensible if Microsoft were openly discussing the idea of Office for Linux, but they're not. Instead, we're getting rumors. You don't go out and create vaporware, talk up a competitor, or gauge public reaction by quietly hiring a group of developers to work on a product. If you're going to do one of those things, you get the formidable Microsoft PR organization to talk about your upcoming Office for Linux port, or at least leak corporate memos about looking into applications for Linux. When they were talking about Media Player for Linux, they actually had a Microsoft manager get up and say that they were looking into it. This smells more like a feasibility study, possibly even a pilot project to see how easy it is to port existing applications to Open Source Operating Systems.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
How about this... Step 1. Release Office Linux. Give it the functionality of Office 98. Step 2. Upgrade it to Office 2000 functionality. To do this, you have to add a few key extensions. Step 3. Lock down the shell. Ok, we'll use MS's linux shell. Step 4. They've go ttheir hooks in Linux, and can now develop for it and affect the community while they finish up their consumer OS project. Step 5. abandon Linux totally for the next version of WinNT? Drag the customers along with? Who knows what MS is up to? Doesn't matter to me, I already use NT. I don't care what some MS marketing geek, some Open Source zealot, or some twerpy l33t script kiddie tells me - I'll use what works for me. But this is right up their alley...
It needs to be every bit as functional and easy to use as Office to the point of feature bloat (via plugins) that people expect in a modern office suite. It needs to be very efficiently coded. It needs to support the MS Office file formats almost perfectly for BACKWARDS compatibility. It needs to create a NEW ,open, flexible, industry standard document format (or wait.. why aren't we just using HTML and tarballing the attachments?!?)
A closed source, free-as-in-beer Office suite WILL NOT WORK either. I believe that StarOffice has proven that free, closed source software has quite a few limitations. This office suite I describe must be under a GPL license.
If the open source community can rally together enough resources to create a perfect replacement for MS Office (and perhaps a truly Open Source browser as well - I am a tad leary of Mozilla), we can completely eliminate Microsoft once and for all and finally get back to efficient technological progress in this industry.
In the places using Microsoft products where I've worked as a assistant net admin., MOST of the desktops only had Windows and Office installed. If these can be provided for free, what business in the right mind would actually buy Microsoft products? Currently, there is an incentive to go with Microsoft Windows / Office because there are no office suites for Linux of comparable quality and stability. But how much effort would it REALLY take to change that?
At this point, I see KOffice as the closest to what I am describing, except that: 1.) It's development is progressing too slowly 2.) It is nowhere near feature rich enough to replace Office 3.) It is tied to the KDE / Qt libraries, thus wasting memory if you do not prefer to use the KDE environment 4.) It relies upon non-standard native file formats rather than some sort of industry wide accepted standard. 5.) It does not support MS Office formats (which will be necessary as people make the transition to Linux and convert their 'old' documents).
I urge all open source developers to stand back and take a look at the whole scene. I truly believe that the future of Linux will depend solely on if the community can eliminate proprietary standards and file formats. Look at the DVD scandel and see how that applies to all software.
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
There are basically three ways to look at a port of Office for Linux: Technical, Financial, and Political.
;)).
First, Technical. MS has for quite some time ported it's more popular end user applications, like Office, Works, and IE, to MacOS. With the radical redesign of OSX, it would make sense from a technical standpoint to make an OSX-specific port (probably with Carbon, since that would take the least effort). Mac users would be tempted to try alternatives like Appleworks if MS didn't have an office product that didn't use the OS9 emulation mode (I'm not sure if the aqua widgets are used in emulation, anyone know?). Anyway, writing an OSX port would involve doing a lot of UN*X-ish code. This means that after the initial effort of doing an OSX version of Office, it would be a relatively small effort to do versions for other Unices, including Linux.
Next, the financial standpoint. Would it be profitable to do a Linux port? Well, Linux is growing far faster than any other OS on the planet, and already has over 10 million users. Of course, MS knows there are plenty of users out there, but are they potential office customers? Considering the animosity that many Linux users, myself included, have towards the empire, it may be difficult to get people to make the switch from StarOffice, Applixware, or whatever else they're using.
Which brings me to the final veiw, political. I know I'm not alone in saying that I believe wholeheartedly in Open Source. I also believe that partial source licenses, like the "Community Source" license Sun uses, aren't enough, but they're better than nothing. Even so, I will be using StarOffice until the KDE or GNOME office suites become more mature. The political landscape looks like this now: Linux has 2 "free beer" office suites with partially open-source. They are both extremely full-featured and usable, possibly even more so than MS Office. There's one more closed source office on the way (Corel), and 2 GPL'ed ones in the pipe. Functionally, StarOffice and Applixware can both hold their own against Office, and politics shift the balance in favor of former.
In my opinion, the Linux community does not want or need office. What I'd like to see is a port of all the Win32 APIs and DirectX to Linux. This would signal the start of a massive reverse engineering project that would end with WINE outperforming windows on all it's own apps (but don't tell MS
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
The benefits to MS are just to obvious. Remember their resources in terms of programmers are _immense_ - they hire thousands of temp workers, chew them up in a couple years and spit them out. According to people I know at MS the number of projects that never see daylight are obscene.
So whats the benefit? Profit? Maybe. Making sure that they have a port in case they need it? Possibly. Providing for a check on Linux? Certainly.
If MS were to release a 1.0 port of MS Office for Linux it would instantly destroy much of Corel's projected Linux income, freeze many other development projects and basically monkeywrench the entire nascent office app industry for free software. But I would be _very_ suprised if they stopped there.
I suspect that they are preparing as a commercial product a UNIX porting layer (similar to Wine) which will allow Office and other MS products to run. The API will be tightly controlled. In conjunction with such a product they could/might produce an MS branded Linux distro which would be available for free. These products would be initially all free (as almost all MS version 1.0 products are) and promoted and distributed to business and consumers and basically called the way to experiment with Linux and still get MS software.
If the market took off MS would then control the API, have a product (MS Linux Enhancements) that most people would purchase on top of their favorite distro so that they could still run MS apps. They would have done just what Apple has done - move to an open source kernel and supporting utilities while controlling the top layer, API and applications.
There are any number of holes in this theory - but it makes a lot of sense in light of MS's past history, their aquisitions and their enormous research budget.
+--------------------- You idiot! I told you we were facing the wrong way!
I've got an old version of Word that was ported to UNIX (in my case, an ATT7300) from back in the late '80s. Now I feel old. I also attended a microsoft product showoff where they gave a presentation on the upcoming generality of the ms platform. They knew that windows wouldn't fill every niche and it was something of a trend then, ala DW370 that would run on an IBM mainframe or a PC seamlessly (if you could figure out all of the key mappings and didn't mind that it was almost impossible to transfer files between the two systems). P.S. Word wasn't usable, but then again, not much was on the UNIX PC.
Read this: Fear And Trembling In Silicon Valley
Do you still want Microsoft and their Office to CONTROL EVERY COMPUTER PLATFORM IN EXISTENCE??
There's evidence to suggest that they control the Mac. How can anybody want them to get equivalent leverage (and ability to decree the killing of competing technology) on Linux? For God's sake, Linux is about the only place left that they don't get to say, "Kill that. We don't like it. Or we'll kill Office for your platform/withhold Windows/lock you out of the market/etc". And people want to hand them that power?
I was just reading this arti cle over at O'Reilly.Linux.com.
ESR says that he has "inside information" from MS about a port of MS Office to Linux. Hmmmmm.... the plot thickens.
Here's the quote: "Raymond: That is not something I feel like I have a good answer to. I am fairly sure that there is already, however, a Linux-portable Office. I have some intelligence from inside Microsoft that strongly suggests that, and it also makes sense for that to exist already if the people at Microsoft are smart enough to see that there's a wreck coming in their operating systems business -- and I think they are that smart."
kuro5hin.org
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
The wv library has working word import capacity right now
The basics of import are completed, i.e. word 95 and word 97 and word 2000 fastsave and fullsave support. Fastsave has always been the bugbear of word importation import, wv is on one level complete. It only requires some minor modifications here and there to complete its work, as abiword gains more features to equal word, then wv can be used to map the word features to the abi ones.
Koffice could also use wv for its word import, I wrote it as a library which should be reasonable easy to use from inside any word processor, the code to use it from inside abiword is pretty straightforward. I'd reccommend a look at it, wv has wvHtml as a standalone app to convert word docs to stylesheet enabled html which (if netscape wasn't so crap as using the data) would give almost identical html layout to the original doc layout
Its not perfect, but its as good in many aspects (or even better in some) as the commercial offerings
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Microsoft is a big corporation and they can afford to blow money working on projects that are more contingency plans that won't see the light of day. Office for Linux is merely an option, and managers are quite possibly seeing how difficult it is to do the port and how well it runs. Not to mention that it might be DOJ fodder.
Microsoft won't do an Office for Linux port until they are seeing steady erosion of the desktop market for Linux. I think Microsoft porting their server software to Linux is a far more likely scenario right now. If Windows 2000 continues to show lackluster performance, that possibility will keep going up. Especially if Linux somehow takes a higher percentage of the server market than Windows, and that could well be within a couple of years.
Of course that would effectively shoot themselves out of the server market, so they're not going to do that until they're ready to surrender. But that is a distinct possibility. Every generation of NT took more and more money to develop and forcing more and more gruesome licensing schemes to compensate and companies are starting to get into this idea of Linux in their servers. Even the popular press says that Linux is great as a server solution, even magazines that get lots of Microsoft funding.
Something to remember is that Microsoft has killed a lot of projects in the past. Bob is the most infamous example but there are other Microsoft projects that also have died. If a piece of software doesn't justify the investment, it dies. If Windows 200X projected sales doesn't make up for the investment in resources, then they'll look for a way to cut their losses. Customers who leave Windows 2000 for Linux are not likely to come back for Windows 200X and the licensing schemes that will be needed to make a profit off of that.
A more sane approach for Microsoft in that scenario is to conceed the server market and port their server software to it, their Active Directory solution et al. Lets Microsoft hop on the Linux bandwagon and take advantage of all the hype. They might try to take over the Linux standard, but I don't think they're going to manage it. There are too many other Linux vendors and if Microsoft comes up with their own standard, everyone will go off and make up their own. Remember MCA versus EISA?
Microsoft will hang onto the client side a lot longer. When that area starts eroding seriously, once again when it is no longer profitable for them to keep producing a new version of Windows, they'll hop on the Linux bandwagon for the desktop and produce a Office for Linux as well as porting all their other desktop application software. But that's four to five years away.
Around that time they'll start producing their own version of WINE for Linux with their claims of full Win32 comptability and make revenues off of legacy applications.
That assumes Microsoft as a single company. If applications and operating systems are broken up, all bets are off. That could be a very likely reason there's a project to do the port now. No one knows how its going to end up and the applications people don't want to be caught with their pants down when they are forced to compete on their own.
But that is just worst case planning here. I think we'll see Microsoft SAMBA long before we see Office for Linux.
It's a pretty well known fact that /most/ of MS's income is from their applications, specfically office, making them only compatible with windows helps keep a monoply status and hence more money...but...and this is a big BUT....someone at MicroSoft sees that Linux is a big up and comer, then perhaps porting to Linux would make good finacial sense, as Linux gains more speed, people would want to use what they're familar with...ie Office....it could actually be a /smart/ life-saving move for Microsoft...but really...do you think anyone there is that far thinking? Hell...next we're hear rumours that the port will be GPL'd :)
Sgt Pepper
Lame Sig Shamelessly Ripped from
Fortune:
If a man is not a liberal at 25, he has no heart.
If he's not a conservative by 45, he has no brain.
-------------
P eople always seem to think that since Office is available for the Mac, that means it will arrive for Linux. But most companies are standardized on x86 hardware, so they're not going to jump ship to the Mac platform because of Office. However, if office existed for Linux (and not Star Office... No matter what everyone thinks, it's not the same as having the real thing in the minds of many many people. I'm actually one of them) many IS or IT types would be VERY tempted to switch their desktops to Linux...
Office is the "killer app" that windows has and Linux isn't getting any time soon. Regardless as to how anyone tries to justify it, it just isn't worth it for microsoft to allow Office to arrive for Linux. Companies are standardized on Office. If office is only available for Windows, then they're standardized on Windows as well.
Microsoft has stated that their strategy is to make Windows the most compelling platform available... They have no vested intereste in Linux succeeding.
Remember IE? How no company's would use it because it'd lock them into windows? So Microsoft released IE4 for HP/UX, Solaris, and maybe another Unix... Company's then moved to IE... now where's IE4.5 let alone version 5 for any of those platforms
Why did the monkey fall out of the tree?
Because it was dead.
Why would MS port Office to Linux?
To make money. Just like the Mac port. For a while they were supposedly making more money on every Mac sold than on every PC sold.
Also, strategically, the Mac port never did anything to affect their OS dominance, and I don't think they really think Linux will be any more successful on the desktop (where office suites matter) than the Mac. Heck, there's every reason to think Linux is going to be less significant on the desktop than the Mac, which is much more mature and elegant from a typical office and home user standpoint. (Of course they may well be wrong -- free beer in cheap paper cups is hard to resist).
Finally, they can complete the humiliation of their rivals who see Linux as a safe haven from office suite competition.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
WINE's liscense is BSDish, meaning that the source doesn't have to accompany the binaries. So no, Microsoft would not have to release its modifications. And anyway, there's really no reason why they'd have to, since they wouldn't be releasing a modified copy of WINE -- they'd be releasing the binary version of Office that they compiled against a modified copy of WINE that they kept entirely in-house. Remember: Wine isn't just a compatibility layer that will let you run existing win32 binaries -- it's an actual port of the win32 api, meaning that if you have the source to the win32 program (as MS does with Office), then you can compile it against wine and release a truly native Linux program.
:)
As for all these "MS is porting Office to Linux" rumors, it's all old news, since slashdot reported on it 21 minutes from now, right?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
MS has committed to releasing Office for Mac OS X. I believe the initial versions are merely Carbonized, but in the future, assuming OS X survives, MS will have to replace it with a Cocoa-native port. That means Unix, and once that happens, how hard is it to make a Linux/BSD port?
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Get it here and cry.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
I don't understand what Microsoft would have to gain by porting Office to Linux. Seems to me they'd just be undermining themselves. Can anyone shed any light on this?
But I have to wonder; if this happens to be a rumor with a grain of truth behind it, perhaps it's an attempt by Microsoft to show that while the OS group may have misbehaved themselves, the MS Office division is committed to cross-platform support, and gee Ms. Reno, don't let a few bad appl... er, vultures in marketing and sales ruin our Technological Innovation (tm).
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Microsoft has done more recent ports of IE to Solaris than that. The newer versions are still very bloated and slow. You are basically right that they basically re-implemented the entire Windows API under Solaris, what they specifically did is use Mainsoft's MainWin product which is a Win32->UNIX porting layer, which basically re-implements all of the Windows stuff under UNIX and is actually based largely on Microsoft's code (under license).
Porting MS-Office wouldn't be that much larger a challenge than IE, given that they have done ports of both to MacOS. I'd guess they would just use MainWin again. However, I don't believe they will do it, for political reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do a port of IE to Linux, especially since I believe that Mainsoft has ported MainWin to Linux.
I think it is is inevitable that Microsoft are working on a port of Office for Linux... however, I think that this is something they will hold back from releasing so as not to assist Linux for the desktop. If Linux does increase significantly on desktop machines they will have to evaluate which is the worst threat to them: the threat to Windows or the threat to Office. When they gauge the time to be right and decide that ignoring Linux is working they will deliver Office in minimal time.
Alternatively, if Linux doesn't make headway on desktop machines the Linux port of Office will be binned.
Microsoft aren't stupid and I can imagine that there are a lot of people inside the company preparing battle plans to combat further Linux encroachment on what they regard as their territory.
What I *really* wonder about is if they are thinking about creating a Linux distro of their own, or indeed a Windows desktop for Linux with Windows GUI and APIs.
For Immediate Release
Today, Microsoft (MSFT) announced the release of MS Office 2007 for the popular Linux operating system.
"Linux has proven to be a very stable operating system, much more so than Windows NT," said Albert Hobrach, Microsoft representative. "We we able to reduce our development time by about 75% because we weren't constantly having to work around bugs in the OS. Expect to see more Microsoft products for Linux in the near future."
When asked to comment, Linus Torvalds said, "Microsoft? Who's that?" He then went back to working on Transmeta's latest secret project, code-named Friday. It is rumored to be an add-on to the Crusoe chip, but nobody knows any more. Torvalds would not comment on the Friday project.
Since the spectacular failure of Windows 2000, when computers world-wide exploded due to a programming mistake that later came to be known as the "W2K bug", Microsoft has been struggling to reestablish itself as a major player in the computer market. This announcement is projected to increase Microsoft sales of software by 100%. When asked to comment on this figure, programmer Andrew Welch said, "Twice nothin' is nothin'!"
In related news, farmers are concerned by increasing reports of winged pigs terrorizing the countryside. "Ya know how sometimes ya'll look up and a bird'll shit right in yer eye?", said agricultural worker Matthew Jones. "Well, ya don't want ta see what a pig'll do to ya. At least we should be grateful the cows ain't flyin' yet." Also, temperatures have been dropping rapidly in the infernal regions, and a major blizzard is expected sometime tonight. When asked to comment, Satan said only, "What the hell?" Reporter Dante Alighieri is on the scene.
Disclaimer: This is a work of parody for humorous purposes. Any resemblance to actual people or companies is entirely intentional.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Think about it - if they were going to port Microsoft applications to Linux, why wouldn't they start with Internet Explorer, which already has a Solaris port, and just type "make"? Sure, porting from Solaris to Linux could be more difficult than that, but not much, and the biggest difficulty would be the different endian architectures, something they'd have already figured out with the Windows -> Solaris/Sparc port.
Or for that matter, why not port Windows Media Player? They could reuse code from the Linux port of NetShow that got killed a while back.
Hell, while we're on the subject of Unix ports, why did they port IE to Solaris/Sparc and not Solaris/x86?
Simple. Microsoft isn't in business to let it's application development teams build up more competition for it's OS development teams. Solaris/Sparc runs on obscure hardware that NT can't? Fine, give them an IE port and hope that the accelerated death of Netscape will outweigh the few lost sales of NT/x86 workstations. But practically every copy of Solaris/x86 (and Linux) in use means one more Intel system that won't see NT installed, and so no ports for them.
It would be a retarded decision for Microsoft as a whole to spend resources on a project whose net outcome is to make their most dangerous competitor much more viable in a much wider market. In 4 years, when KOffice (and maybe Corel Office, if it ever ships) is kicking ass, then maybe Microsoft will port Office to try and keep marketshare. Even then I doubt it.
Why? Because Office is MS bread and butter in more ways than one. First, it is their principle revenue stream right now and probably will be for quite some time. Also, even though control of the Windows API is how Office became dominant and there is still a symbotic relationship between them, I think it is reasonable to believe Office Upgrades drive Windows upgrades more than vice versa. Hell, I'd argue that Windows upgrades are driven more by Office upgrades than any other factor (with other applications coming in second).
So, MS has two monopolies: OS and Office Suites. The OS monopoly is under attack from multiple directions: Server OSs, the Government, thin clients, computing appliances, freeware OSs. Also, the OS one is much less visible to the majority of end users (tell a secretary in your office she has a choice: move to a new OS, but keep her office suite or move to a new OS, but keep her office suite...see which she chooses). Right now, you aren't loosing yet on Office Suites, but a couple of the groups pinging you on OSs are gearing up for it. They are planning to using this OS diversity against you.
Even MS has limited resources. If moving a small amount of resources from the OS battle can protect you in the office suite battle without noticabily changing the odds in the OS battle, what do you do? You port Office to Linux to keep StarOffice and Corel Office from hitting you on the flank and maintain the stronger standard (Office file formats) that you have.
Hell, even if Windows looses this round of the OS battles to Linux or Mac or Be, this is a good plan. Office will last longer than Windows in that scenario, but provide an in for a Windows counter attack.
Just my $0.02
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
Why do such a thing? Well
But you know, everything in this whole thread has the whiff of conspiracy theories. Maybe space aliens have disguised themselves as M$ employees leaking bogus rumors, because, well uh, who the hell knows why those space aliens do what they do? Maybe the Microsofties have been the space aliens all along! We need David Duchovney to find out.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind