Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Porting Applications To Linux (Really!)
Erbo writes "We've heard the rumors before, more times than we can count, but this time WinInfo claims they're true: Microsoft is working with Mainsoft in Israel and a small French development team to port their apps to Linux, and possibly other Unices. No estimates on availability, of course. Their strategy seems to be to use an "Office for Linux" as a bridge to Windows, similar to Mac Office."
Defending their 'freedom to innovate' for so long, it's nice to see they're actually doing something innovative.
It'd be nice to have a modern cross-Win/Mac/Unix office software package (and emacs doesn't count).
I'm looking forward to see what atrocities they try to implement in X11 just to get suchandsuch widget performing in exactly the way they want.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
I have been playing around with wine and the latest releases work VERY well with office. Running word, you cannot tell you're not sitting on a windows box. Excel also works great with a few minor cosmetic problems. Powerpoint still needs a bit of work, but its getting REALLY close.
If wine becomes 100% effective for Office, then there may ben no real reason to hold out for a port, which probably won't occur anytime in the near future anyways.
BTW, this was tested with office 97, not 2k. I haven't tried it with 2k yet.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
If this report is true, then I think this strategy could really backfire on Microsoft. It's more likely that people will use this as an exit point from Windows to Linux. After all, there's probably quite a few potential Linux users who would switch in a heartbeat, but hesitate because the Office suite on Windows is more productive and more polished. Now, with the option of running Word, Excel, or Outlook on Linux, that objection goes away. (And that's my honest opinion, really: their Office suite is probably the best one out there, but the Windows operating system has plenty of architectural flaws.)
At least it looks like they're operating and planning as two separate companies now. Maybe they think they're going to lose the DOJ case.
good , maybe when i send you a word doc you can open it
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
If it's true, this is a very smart move on Microsoft's part. They've left Linux to its own devices for some time now, and the lack of an office suite has been one of the biggest shortcomings of linux as an office desktop.
But now that viable linux Office suites are coming into their own, and the lack of one won't hold linux back much longer, they can jump in with MSFT Office and claim a big marketshare of office suite installations on Linux.
Hell, if they port DCOM and a bunch of apps that use it, then they can run with the 'it works better on Windows' strategy that they have used with Apple.
Plus, when you've got a few billion in cash, it's not a bad idea to have a few products in your back pocket waiting for hte right time to release.
SteveAre you sure their job is to port MS apps? The way I read it, they're basically re-developing WINE, only with non-disclosure agreements... not specifically porting Office/IE/etc.
Wow, that would seem to be WINE's goal as well.
Anyone else read this interpretation?
At this very moment, a SkiDoo dealer is packing up for his new position as VP of Marketing to Hell.
At this very moment, pigs are growing wings.
At this very moment... Ah, who cares. I don't want that damned paperclip on my Linux box.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
MS doesn't want what little there is of a Linux desktop market share.
Sure, Linux kicks ass on the server side. But aside from loving geeks who devote all their CPU and HD space to Linux, do you know a lot of people who actually think, 'Well, I'd get Windows, but Linux is so much *better* for desktop applications'?
Well, do you?
Linux is still catching up on Windows on the GUI and desktop side. Just look at the Holy Grail of Linux-related GUIs: 'We'll make it as nice-looking as MS'. As long as Linux is running after MS and Windows, they'll never be a threat.
Seriously, who would MS try to convince, here? If people are using Linux as a desktop, then there's something else aside from convenience and wide-ranging applications that they're interested in. Stability? Perhaps. But everybody else still figures stability is a small price to pay for prettiness, especially if autosave is on.
Sorry. MS isn't porting anything to Linux because, let's face it, on the desktop side it's so little of a threat it's laughable.
This is one of Microsoft's classic plays. When they see something that they think might threaten them, they either make an announcement or "leak" information regarding some great new MS Vaporware that's coming up. The idea is to "freeze" the marketplace, and get customers to avoid buying or adopting the competing technology until MS has its own crappy version in "barely usable" mode.
This is clearly a response to the Gnome Foundation announcements. The future of non-Microsoft desktops suddenly got a whole lot brighter this week. Microsoft must do everything it can to steer people away from this up-and-coming technology. If they can get people to say to themselves "I'll just wait for MS Office to arrive before I try Linux" then they've succeeded.
Still, even if it's true, I can't see how it'd be very good if they're using MainWin (basically the equivalent of WineLib) to do the port. While the entire Gnome Foundation initiative is centering around CORBA and the Bonobo framework, a ported MS Office will still be using a ported DCOM. Furthermore, it'll look and feel like a Windows app, right around the same time that Linux apps are starting to take on a more unified look and feel. It'll only talk to itself. In other words, MS Office will feel as isolationist and foreign in the future standardized Gnome desktop as the current version of StarOffice feels in the current Linux desktop. Who wants that? More importantly, who wants that and at a cost of $500?
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Well, I love the admission that the article makes. I mean, my last time programming was assembly language on an Amiga 1000. But even with my woefully outdated programming skills, it's painfully obvious that M$ apps have had an interface to the OS advantage over everyone else.
Why should Windows source code be required to port Office (let alone write it)? Corel certainly didn't get Windows source code to write WordPerfect 8.
But the process is even more complex than it sounds, since most Microsoft applications--especially those in the Office suite--use a number of proprietary interfaces, and each application requires specific workarounds.
Mainsoft has access to the Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 source code, a necessity for the work it is doing.
(If M$ wasn't using their market dominance unfairly, wouldn't porting Office require only Office source code, not Windows source code?)
If this article is true, it's just a far more blatant piece of proof that Microsoft is corrupt, and really has to be broken into an OS division, distinct and different from their internet and applications businesses.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
When has there ever been something not true on the internet? Come on, if you can't believe everything on Slashdot, what the hell can you believe?
-B
For those who don't recognise that reference- first of all, furrfu- second of all, this is the real leverage that comes with having Office on a platform. Given the expectation that 'oh, Office is on platform X, therefore legitimising it', Microsoft can and does use this as a weapon. For example, they literally told Apple to kill off Quicktime or they'd kill Office for MacOS- the quote comes from an exchange like 'We think it would be better if Quicktime, uh, wasn't.' 'Let's get this straight, are you asking us to knife Quicktime for you- to knife our baby?' 'Yes, we're talking about knifing the baby'.
Should MS apps be established on Linux it'd be like that only instead of dealing with a single point of development and control, MS would be dealing with little groups and individuals, threatening them that if they didn't stop work on their projects, MS would kill Office for Linux (and presumably blame said developer). This degree of blackmail might not work on RMS types but there is a level where it is frightening. Basically it's a sort of extortion, and the point is to engender a climate of fear and obedience. Some of us (mac people into development) have been able to watch this sort of thing going on in the real world for longer than you linux people have... and yes it seems to be illegal, the antitrust case nailed them for JUST this sort of behavior. Now we've got to see if that sticks, or if they get to ignore that as well.
At any rate- there is no benefit from having Office available for your platform. None. There's no significant compatibility between versions, ports are never in synch, it takes large amounts of motivation for them to produce software even half good (i.e. IE for mac) and even if they do they take pains to use it to cut off your other options and change the 'territory' right out from under you so your choices are dead.
The people screaming 'nooooo!' are, ironically, a lot closer to the mark than the people screaming 'yay' here. You've got to look at the business practices that inevitably go along with this sort of 'beachhead'. These guys kill markets- that is their whole schtick. Why would you want them coming over and killing your market too, even if your market is largely mindshare instead of commercial? All it will do is kill your choices without giving you the supposed benefits you think you'd be getting. And that's because, as was repeatedly found by the judge in the antitrust case, they really make a special EFFORT to kill your choices and kill your market- we're not talking about 'network effects', we're talking 'knife the baby'. An MS guy actually accepted those words, mid-negotiation, as descriptive of what they were trying to do. How can that be right? How can that be a market?
Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents.
Where did you get this idea? Virtually all software I have used in unix-like systems can be installed in home directories just fine. If it's autoconf/automaked, then ./configure --prefix=/home/user. RPM also provides relocation, and I assume Debian has a way, too.
With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)
5 meg standard? We're talking desktop systems here. If an entire organisation is using it, then individual users won't have to install it themselves. Home users probably won't be using quotas.
What I think the OP was trying to say was that it would require root privs to run, i.e. it would have to be installed suid root. Isn't this the case with their Frontpage extentions for unix? There is absolutely no need for either to be suid root, assuming good design. However, MS aren't exactly consistent when it comes to good design :)
It problably went something like "Oh SHIT! We're REALLY going to get broken up!"
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You know how people joke that MS-linux isn't far off? Well, is it? Consider this..,
MS makes a Linux distro. They make a closed-source, propriotary DE that supports most of the Win32 API. They include support for DirectX, COM, and OLE. Now, all these changes require major changes to the kernel. While these changes are GPL'ed, MS has now effectivly forked the kernel.
People start writing apps for this new MS/Linux. Because these apps rely on the modified kernel, and propriotary DE, they will not run on regular Linux.
Everybody switches to this new distro, because it has more apps and better technology.
MS has won, despite the GPL.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
The conspiracy-theorist in me believes Micros~1 is trying to steal thunder from LinuxWorld Expo without actually making the announcement themselves. However, such a move doesn't surprise me. Bill Gates has never demonstrated loyalty to anything other than making a buck. If he thinks he can make money selling Office to Linux users, he'll do it without the slightest hesitation.
Those who remember the port of IE to Solaris, however, know that Micros~1 will not adapt their apps to the host OS, but will instead try to graft on enough of Windoze's "architecture" to make it work, just barely.
For example, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for LinuxOffice to require a Windoze-style registry, needed to support per-user preferences. This despite the fact that .*rc files have been around forever. Also, expect a butt-load of COM/DCOM components to get installed requiring root privileges (though the need for these prvileges will never be adequately explained).
But I suspect the biggest delays will come from trying to implement Micros~1's demands for copy protection and to prevent "unauthorized" use of "their" software. So, assuming they work out how to translate NT's methods of "license" administration, expect to be required to install a "license" manager that's completely incompatible with any other "license" managers you may have (and may even interact badly with them). Oh, and the CD key will have 96 digits :-).
In short, this is FUD of the highest order, even higher than normal, since it doesn't come directly from Micros~1, thereby giving them plausible deniability. Even if it's true, I wouldn't expect anything to ship for at least a year and, like the initial release of all Micros~1 products, will probably work quite poorly. Thus, even if you're working on an office suite, this story may effectively be ignored.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
PaperClip meet my good old friend xkill
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
Ok Mr. Troll I'll bite...
NT itself is stable
If NT itself allows applications, after they have crashed, to leave leaked memory or leve the system in a strange state or leave the system in a slowed state then it is not a stable OS. It may not fall/crash but it is not stable. Kinda like a ship in a storm, your footing is not stable but, hopefully, the ship won't sink. You may be flung overboard but, hopefully, the ship won't sink!
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
So from what I can gather, these are the geniuses that brought us Unix IE. Yup. Just look at the explosion of IE users on Unix. If they do just as good a job on Office, then MS better watch out or their OS market will disappear overnight!
My favourite part is how they say their software isn't a Windows emulator. They just build every single DLL that you'll ever need into a Unix library. And probably a registry too, for good measure.
And you thought administrating Windows was bad enough on a Windows box...
--
It's already ported :) have you checked the xscreensaver collection?
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
This post has some merit. Unix people pay heed. I know plenty of people that have high uptimes with NT. Think about it, do you run XWindows on you high availability Web Server, Office Applications, games. No. Ill testify to the fact that the majority of BSODs can be directed linked to bad 3rd party drivers. When properly administered NT can be be stable. I know its hard to admit to, but please try. I dont run NT on my servers for diffret reasons. I have a strong belief that mission critical servers should not run GUIs... period. There is no point for a serious machine, one that you stake you business on, to have a GUI. UNIX is also very easy to customize. REmote administration on NT blows. developing mantainance code in NT is pain (PErl vs. Win32/MFC). The artitecture for UNIX is open, as opposes to windows which pretty much ties you into an all window solution. My $0.02 -Nathan
Break out the snowblower, Satan! There's a blizzard a'comin!
No, the piont of running Linux isn't to "get away" from MS. If you're doing that, then your stupid. The point is to use a better product. Right now, MS Office is that better product. Very few people complained that WordPerfect for Linux was less than perfect due to LibWine, so why should they complain if MSs product has an OS layer around it? It can't possibly be more bloated than, say, star office, which has it's own DESKTOP!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Porting DCOM to UNIX is one thing, but Office is another beast entirely. Microsoft nearly destroyed their market for Mac applications when they tried to offer a weak port of the Windows version of Office -- people simply started refusing to upgrade. These days, the two have pretty much completely different code -- you can't really port the Windows version of Office to any other OS, because they're joined at the hip with DLL-Hell, private system calls, etc.
I think (one of) the other thing(s) M$ is trying to accomplish with this move is to shore up the lifespan of their proprietary data formats. The targets are coorporations who have licensed Office. One of the main things that seems to slow the move off of Windoze at a corporate level is the tremendous investment in M$ Office and legacy data that is already in the Office formats.
The Office data formats are, after all, the key to keeping their current captive customer base captive. The office applications themselves simply aren't good enough on their own to do that. A *nix Office suite is a way to keep those formats alive, which is important to M$, since if the formats are dropped in favor or, say, an open standard, then there is really no incentive for corporate customers to stay with M$.
M$, I believe, fears that as work goes forward to make format conversions easier, it will be more cost effective for a corp to invest in data conversion and move off of the Windoze platform than it will be to keep putting up with (paying for) the spew of M$ corp.
Other office suite software vendors are targetting the office data formats and application functionality. If one of those outfits gets there (usable in a corp environment) first, M$ would be left with their collective asses uncovered. So, for M$ to produce a Linux Office suite is also a CYA strategy...
Heh. Disingenuous is M$'s middle name. Their contempt for users -- and everybody else, for that matter -- is huge. They really, really don't expect anyone to figure it out, and when someone does, they apply spin. I don't think you misunderstand.Also, note that this effort is going to be incorporated into the spin machine. 'See, we develop apps for Linux, too!' It's a good PR move for M$, since they will co-opt a certain percentage of *nix advocates with this move. Since Linux advocates in particular seem to be the most vocal and persuasive of the M$ detractors (often because they are former M$ users, I think), anything M$ can do to cut down on their number is a plus.
All in all, it's about Leverage.
"The Internet is made of cats."
I was at SUN when they announced "porting office applications to the "javaStation" (SUN's NC) back in '96.
Then of course they don't do it and everybody thinks there must be a problem with the JavaStations (which there was the OS sucked).
Now they are going to try and do the same thing with Linux... tell everyone... we are porting to Linux when they are Scared of linux because linux is going to eat the mid server market of win2000.
Then they will come out saying "It doesn't work" and spread FUD around it. I hope star office is as good as they claim, and I know MS can't diss the os like they dissed the javastation.
marc
Then no thanks. I tried IE for Solaris about a year ago. Any piece of software that seg faults because you hit the "compose" button is not for me. I'll stick with Gnumeri, AbiWord, pine, and vi thank you.
Joseph W. Breu
Microsoft doesn't invest in advertising unless they *know* they're going to get a 7% ROI. I would be willing to bet that their standards for software development are much higher.
... one that's really untapped by any major software house. Prime Real Estate.
Ok, so they port applications to *x. It's just a business strategy. It's a new market space for them to grow into
And the bottom line, for the current CEO, is that if it pays off, the stock holders will be happy. Also, it'll probably help their anti-trust appeal because they'll be able to show that they're not only in the business of OSs, but also in providing valuable applications to the entire user community.
"Did you know: You can get all your office work done faster, with more multimedia excitement and internet connectivity with the new Windows Milennium Edition! Order today!"
"Tip of the Day: In order to enable the remaining 95% of functionality, click here to install Windows over /dev/hda1! Windows Milennium Edition works hard and plays hard!"
Wah!
as strategic as this may sound, porting the MSOffice in its CURRENT form as you and I know it to Linux is totally contradictory to their plan to try and take over the world with .net, effectively being the one mammoth server for ALL productivity /office apps making each and every one of us nothing more than a SUBSCRIBER to Word or Powerpoint sucking down the precious functionality from .net like a glorified dumb terminal, constantly paying MS for the privledge of using their precious Office.
Porting an installable, standalone MSOffice to Linux doesn't help them get there so I would suggest you're crazy if you think this will ever see the light of day.
Now, they may VERY well be porting some sort of ".net client" stuff to Linux. I'd expect that.
I definitely can see this as being true.
/. before, but I thought I'd refresh everyone's memory.
.doc and .xls formats into the market. Right now people are trying to compete with Wordperfect and StarOffice, but I am willing to bet that if Office made it to *NIX, that would spell the death knell for WP and SO (and who knows, maybe Corel along with them). Suddenly the few alternatives you have to office are gone. Not to mention that one of SO's big selling points is its supposed "MSOffice compatibility"... why would you bother if you could just run MSOffice natively?
For those that don't know (you certainly wouldn't from the article), Mainsoft produces a toolkit (MainWin) which implements the WinNT/2k kernel and MFC on various flavours of *NIX, including Solaris and Linux. This enables one to take a Win32/MFC program that was developed on windows and (in theory) have it work on *NIX just by linking to their MainWin libraries. The toolkit has been discussed some here on
I/we use the toolkit here at work (a MAJOR hardware company) to port our dev tools to *NIX, and we've had quite a positive experience with it. Sure there are problems here and there, but for the most part they're due to our windoze developers making assumptions based on the program being run in a win32 environment (things like endianess issues, or the fact that windows uses backslashes for dir separators rather than slashes). It has enabled us to port a product consisting of over 300,000 lines of code without having to rewrite the whole thing. I don't imagine Mainsoft would be having as hard a time porting Office as people are making out, not only because the toolkit is good IMHO, but because in my dealings with them they have seemed like a very sharp bunch of people.
"Now," you say, "why would Microsoft want to port Office to Linux? Isn't Linux their enemy?"
1) Further entrenching the
2) Doing this port will lend MUCH credibility in the public eye to MainWin. If they are lucky, then people will start organizing their multi-platform development strategies around it right from the get-go, and thus Microsoft will "lock them into" using the MFC development model. Right now people tend to use Mainwin to port apps they already have on Windows to *NIX... perhaps if MainWin got enough prestige people would decide right from the start that if they are doing a cross-platform app that they will do it in MFC and use MainWin to do the porting.
Do NOT underestimate this... Mainsoft (and through them, Microsoft) makes some serious bucks off of licensing/royalties for products that use MainWin, as their code is actually linked into yours. If you just make your app on windows and compile with Dev Studio, you pay no royalties, but with a MainWin ported app you are shipping with compiled libs that implement MFC and the NT kernel... that means $$ for Mainsoft and Microsoft.
It especially means $$ if people start deciding that they would like to forge off into the Linux arena because using MainWin is so much more attractive than doing a native port from the ground up. Companies that before were never even considering doing ports to *NIX might start thinking about it if this MSOffice port goes off well because they will say to themselves "shit, we hardly have to do anything ourselves to do this," even though that's not quite necessarily true.
This is very good for Linux in a way too... it means that you will be able to get much more of your favourite apps on your favourite OS.
Mechanik
It's a pitty it also works the other way around, use an Office for Linux as a Bridge from Windows. There is no one way sign on this bridge!
here
MSFT has an established business porting its applications to Solaris and HP/UX. This does not mean they will port to Linux.
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I also wonder how many people will actually use Office on Linux... if someone was willing to pay the Microsoft tax and buy Office, wouldn't they be just as likely to buy Windows as well?
<p>
Well, this started me thinking - I use Linux because it's one more step into Unix; I've been using GNU and Cygnus utils long before Linux was around. I just like the paradigm.<p>
But I also REALLY like Word for Windows. WfW 97 is my favorite, and I can whip out a document in less time than it takes most people to read it. All the keycombos are hard coded into my fingertips, and I have dozens of style sheets and macros that eat perl and/or PHP-generated data.<p>
As an administrator, I loved Exchange+Outlook. My users dug it, building custom objects that they'd mail out, stuff like that. And of course, you need Excel and Word to really get the power of Outlook.
<p>
But Linux -- now Linux I've had running as a server (before that, AIX or Solaris). I like the desktop, but miss Word. And I don't see anything like Outlook+Exchange out there, which of course requires...
<P>
WAIT A SECOND!!! Why are they porting desktop Apps? Why not Linux Apps? Linux has a greater marketshare in the server arena, anyway, and Exchange or IIS for Linux would probably ship more units at a greater profit than Office.
<p>
Unless... they don't consider the Linux desktop viable, and just want to make a show to the DOJ (of course, you have to run WinNT BackOffice to support the software on those Linux desktop boxes).
<p>
Very interesting... Office is less useful without BackOffice, and BackOffice needs NT. Office keeps people in MS, and then once they go above just a few users in an office, they start racking up reasons to move to Windows. *Especially* if Microsoft.NET turns out to be way watered down (like most MS final releases) and is just a tighter, nicer BackOffice.
<p>
No, I'm not paranoid, and I'm just happy that I can sed in a bash shell, not pro-Linux or pro-Microsoft, but IF a decision like this has been made at MS, it's after MUCH discussion, and both server and desktop apps were discussed, and you know DAMN well that MS thought long and hard about the long and short term consequences of every action.
<p>
--<br>
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Microsoft would be stupid not to have a project like this going on somewhere, but that doesn't mean that it'll ever see the light of day.
Porting office to Linux is a huge project, and Microsoft has to be prepared for the contigency that Linux *does* take off in a market that Office addresses - if not the desktop, then perhaps in some embedded/appliance apps (imagine a dedicated Office appliance a la word processors).
Given the lead time on such a project, they don't want to have to wait a couple of years if they decide to exploit such a market - so they have to do the dev work now.
This doesn't mean anything other than Microsoft is hedging its bets.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
"Microsoft Israel" (where they put together their clone of IBM's MQSeries, which is a pretty successful product) may be doing "a port," but that is a far cry from Putting Boxes On Store Shelves.
It may be that Microsoft is leaking this stuff so as to diminish peoples' committments to the "more nearly native" alternatives of StarOffice, ApplixWare, WordPerfect, and such.
People that decide to wait for whatever Microsoft might release are obviously not buying what the other guys have today. This is how IBM marketed the IBM 360 back in the 1960s, to the great detriment of many other computer manufacturers.
IBM finally did release OS 360 and related hardware, albeit late, expensive, bloated, and buggy.
The parallels should be obvious :-).
Furthermore, the DCOM comments really are important; "modern" MS-Office software depends heavily on COM and COM+ components, which means that the first step to getting MS Office running on Linux would indeed be the port of COM/DCOM/COM+.
And we don't know if this "announcement" represents a product that will actually become available, or whether it is a "vaprous" experiment, intended to use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to discourage sales of the competing products...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
What proof is there that this is more than a rumor? the only source is an annonymous Israeli developer... Does he even work for Mainsoft?
Well, this is good for the OS, and gives office users access to a stable os, but if MS Office comes out on Linux, we can kiss any of the other office apps like WordPerfect and Star Office goodby. Honestly, how many people will choose to use something that is "compatible", when the can use the real thing?
Like no-one is going to pirate these apps, and I bet MS wouldn't care untill they have the market, and then they bring the hammer down. (Rings true of netscape, does it not?)
This is news, that's for sure. We are still to find out if it's good or bad.
In Dante Alegheri's (sp?) Inferno, the center four regions of hell -- reserved for the worst kind of sinners -- are made up of a gigantic frozen ice plain.
The sinners are frozen into the ice, completely unable to move or respond to external stimuli...
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Anyway, all I want is IE5 (doesn't even need to be 5.5 -- 5.01 is fine) for Linux.
As a web application developer using HTML/CSS/XHTML/ECMAScript/XML/XSLT/XSD I cannot make it without IE5.01+. (Yes, I grab the nightly builds of Mozilla but remain unmoved).
IE 5 for Linux!
Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Seriously though, it might not be too bad. For instance, the corporation I work for's e-mail standard is Outlook/Exchange which I'd like to be able to run on Linux (my primary desktop). I haven't found a suitable Outlook clone yet so I can get my mail easily. Incidentally, I tried the fetchmail thing, they don't have NTLM enabled and won't turn it on.
Not to mention how many times I've recieved e-mail documents containg Word or Powerpoint presentations that StarOffice couldn't convert very nicely.
I don't know about it being a bridge over to Windows, however, some good could come out of it. You'd think they would start by helping out the wine project, but then again, thats not M$'s style. They'll probably take the wine code and make it proprietary.
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
- The Hedge Hypothesis: If M$ is forced to split into M$Windows and M$Apps, this gives the "apps" part of the company a leg up in breaking into a new market.
- The Appeals Hypothesis: Office for Linux could give M$ a new argument to use in the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court: "see, we make Office for these other two operating systems, and we sell decent amounts of them, so we're not really a monopoly." Mac Office alone might not cut it, but Mac Office combined with Linux Office may tip the scales.
- The Standard M$ Hypothesis: Shut down StarOffice, WordPerfect Office, the Gnome Foundation and their backers, etc...what do you bet that M$ gives out a "crippleware" version of Linux Office free?
- The Poison-The-Well Hypothesis: Once you get Linux users (maybe recently switched from Windows) to embrace Office, use this as a lever to move them (back) to Windows. How? Proprietary file formats, faster upgrades available for Windows, etc., etc.
- The FUD-Factor Hypothesis: If Linux Office turns out to be buggy, slow, etc., M$ can turn around and tell developers, "see? Linux really is hard to develop for, you should really develop for Windows instead."
- The If-You-Can't-Beat-'Em-Join-'Em Hypothesis: This is actually a stepping stone towards a Microsoft Linux distro, which will be a replacement for one or more existing M$ operating systems. (Farfetched, I know, but...)
I'm sure you can think of other possibilities.Eric
--
Be who you are...and be it in style!
> Microsoft is working ... to port their apps to Linux
And in the anti-virus industry, there was MUCH rejoicing...
- Tim
I'll bet you almost anything that a MS installation would chmod 06711 most of the files and make sure root is the owner.
Buggy code will take down your system and corrupt the fs on the way.
Hi!
Do you really think this isn't a direct response to the "GNOME foundation" announcement? I mean, come on people!
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
The article says they are having a rough time of it, even with the Windows source code. Maybe the strategy will be to flood the market with poorly written Linux applications. People will say stuff like "Office runs bad on Linux, Linux sucks".
I have to admire Bill Gates as the PT Barnum of computing. He intends to use Linux as a gateway to get people interested in Windows. Maybe his Linux desktop will have a link on it that says "This Way To The Egress".
Sure Linux is stable, sure it's free and all that junk. But where's the *showmanship*?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is probably a pre-emptive action based on the assumption that the company will be split by the justice department. It won't particularly hurt the OS company, but will definitely help the Apps company.
The Applications company will want to have access to *all* markets. They see the writing on the wall with all the new and improved desktop initiatives in the Unix world, and figure that there is going to be some erosion of market share for the Windows desktop.
They probably are also trageting us geeks who have to do a lot of document shuffling for work. We'll be able to have our cake, and read Word documents too. They figure IS managers will say "Hey, it's guaranteed to be compatible, since it's Office."
Still, it'll be hard to compete with free. Star Office is pretty good!
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
This makes sense, it really does. Look at the following, and I think you'll see where I am coming from.
1. PR. The whole monopoly thing is starting to get to them. They face formal scrutiny in the US, Europe and India. If they do this, they can look and say "but we really do have competition". "We did a port at X number of millions of dollars to take advantage of this competitive market".
2. They are a business, something that a lot of people seem to forget. If they can make money on this up and coming OS (now that it is starting to break out of geekdom), why not? People seem to forget that they also make Office (and other products) for the Mac.
3. StarOffice. People use and buy Office (which is far more profitable for them than their OS's), because it is the defacto standard. Aside from a few die-hard types, it is accepted worldwide (except for China - different standard). StarOffice is being given away for free, and MS doesn't want people to get in the "habit" of using something else. Remember they considered Sun's intro into the browser market seriously enough to spend half a billion dollars (US DOJ figure) to combat it.
4. They need to show the world that they can play nice. MS settled the lawsuit with Mac based on a cash investment (non voting stock) and a willingness to make MS Office 98. Without MS Office 98 (pre iMac), it is was widely considered that Apple would have gone belly up. MS had more to risk by Apple going belly up than Apple did. Take Apple out of the picture at that time, and their would be no perceivable possible competition (Linux was not nearly as popular than, keep in mind.)
5. Market penetration. There are *nix shops that don't use MS. Once you port to Linux, it isn't that great of a leap to port to *nix. MS wants these markets, and this is a way to gain a foothold there. Regardless of what you think about the company, this would sell like crazy.
6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses. Once people start to see some of the "features" that work with Office, they will want access to the rest of the features. It's the "collection" syndrome, people can't stand to know something is available, and they don't have it. Enough users start to demand features that would work with say, MS Exchange 2000, and management just might listen.
7. They are losing some customers to Linux. A lot of these people despise the MS OS's, but like the office suite. If they can see a familiar face in their new unfamiliar OS, many people would jump at the chance. I think that a significant number of the people who are former windows users would say that office is the 1 thing they miss most.
8. If they are building MSLinux (which they certainly could), this would be a way to get people to switch to "their" flavor of Linux. Make the desktop similiar to Windows, maintain the "look and feel" that someone who has used Windows knows, and they could easily become bigger than Redhat. They maintain their standards and control, and the masses would flock. Before you bash this statement, look at the first fundamental rule of marketing. Brand recognition is what counts. It is well established that the masses will flock to a brand that they know. Remember this would not be ported for the geeks that use Linux, this would be ported for the masses.
Then, start to make it suck and fall well behind the Windows version, forcing more and more users to switch over as they lose support. Finally, discontinue it altogether, leaving Linux users with nothing at all (when now they have alternatives), and crush all possibility of Linux reaching the desktop any time soon.
For that matter, I'm truly surprised that there's no MS Linux distribution, which they would push and market heavily until Red Hat, Corel, and others went out of business, all other distros were ignored, and they were the only game in town (or at least had gathered like 97%+ of the market share). Then, again, just dump the damn thing. Kill it off, and leave everyone sucking wind. While it may not kill Linux off altogether, it would set the effort back a decade or so, and give MS Winblows the opportunity to actually grow into a stable OS that works sometimes, and cement an even greater share of the market.
Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre