Slashdot Mirror
States Filing Alternate Remedy Proposal for MS Anti-Trust Case
cbull writes: "News.com reports that 9 states and the District of Columbia will be filing an alternate remedy proposal in the Microsoft case later today. This would close some of the loopholes, better define middleware, require Microsoft to continue Office development for Macintosh and to develop a version of Office for Linux, among other things." There's also a Cringely column about the case. Somehow the phrase "Microsoft Office for Linux" has gotten people all fired up. Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
Why would we force them to make a product for Linux? We know it won't be open source, how will this help the community, a community built on ideals which Microsoft doesn't share.
For this article...
l
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/like/like20011206.htm
How to Download YouTube Videos
go here
This could have some real teeth in it and is not riddled with the loopholes that plague the M$/DoJ crafted settlement
YES!! Gawd, don't be such a dumbass. Corporate buyers (remember them? the ones who buy millions of PCs a year?) have STANDARDIZED on Microsoft Office for all their documents. Availability of Office for Linux would very substantially accelerate deployment of Linux desktops in business locations, which is precisely why Micros~1 hasn't done it! Forcing them to develop it would be a damn good idea.
StarOffice and OpenOffice are simply not there at the moment. But I have at least one client who would switch *today* if there was a verstion of MS Office that just worked right. And several others who would follow them. So while I don't yes it would help the desktop market a lot. Of course the other thing I wish we had was a *good* terminal server client for Linux...
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Apparently they are also suggesting that Microsoft should
open source Internet Explorer.
It would be nice to have IE on Linux. I wonder what kind of
issues this would raise w.r.t. Windows Media and ActiveX...
I'll agree that as a monopoly MS should have to play fair in the OS field (allowing competing products and such), but it strikes me as downright wrong to make MS develop Linux versions of a product.
Not that I think it would matter since Open/Star Office would own them in that area anyway, as most Linux users are not the sort of people that like to pay hundreds of dollars for a closed source which probably wouldn't work very well anyway. (remember MS doesn't have the advantage in controlling the system from the ground up).
Start using "Office for Linux" and you buy into the sinister upgrade cycle. Your computer will never be fast enough for the latest version of Office.
I'd rather have Microsoft be forced to completely specify the Microsoft file formats for Office applications.
That way, Star Office, KOffice, Gnumeric, and the rest can get the import filters 100% correct.
That's really where Microsoft's monopoly is - many businesses would happily switch to Linux if they could be 100% sure that they could still reliably read and edit the thousands of documents they have already created.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Yes!
Staroffice may be okay, Wordperfect acceptable, and VIM popular, but until a 100% office replacement exists, most places are going to continue to snub Linux as an alternative on the desktop.
Besides, I like Office. MS may have had mega-crappy OS's, but Office always worked right.
.sig: Now legally binding!
but what would be nice was FILE TYPE standards for say 5 years. Give someone else a chance to break into the market. With 5 years lead time a big enough customer base would develop to make M$ think twice about arbitrarily changing it and forcing upgrade, there-by losing LOTS of customers.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Interesting.
I suppose the judges' next call will be that DeCSS should really be available on Windows, and be able to decrypt the latest WMF too.
Rather than force Microsoft to develop bloated software for linux, which will probably only work with a single distribution anyway, why not force them to open their file formats? Projects like OpenOffice and AppleWorks could then really compete. MS wouldn't have quite the same stranglehold that they currently enjoy with opened file formats. This would include, of course, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and interchange capabilities with Outlook. I suppose you could add Access into that, but it's such worthless crap anyway, why bother?
And make them open every aspect of the file formats, not just make them compatible. My understanding is that the way things currently are, most non-MS Office Suites can still read MOST MS office files, but not ALL MS Office files, which keeps a lot of shops from converting. Especially those that rely on specialized macros and whatnot.
My other computer is your Windows box
What we really want is M$ to open their Office file formats so other programs can read and write MS files with ease. Fully publishing their OS API's would help a lot also. These two things available as a free download to anyone that wants them would go a long way to helping out.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Office for Linux, Yeah I think its called open office. Look at what microsoft did to java, now imagine the incompatiblites and compromises the MS install would be to the kernal. I like the shipping java with XP deal though, however WTF is a special master? Sounds like the DOJ likes playing S&M with MS XP.
"Get them before they get....
Off course, you need MS Office for Linux. You need it as much as you need an HTML browser.
Not so long ago, our HR department asked for a copy of my resume. Boycotting Micro$oft as usual, I sent it in PDF and PS format... They couldn't read it of course and had no idea what to do with my files.
My resume had been created through StarOffice, but I was not going to tell them to download StarOffice when they were not even able to visit Adobe's web site and download Acrobat Reader. I eventually sent them a RTF version and all worked well. But I can't start to imagine them sending me a RTF version of any document they create. Without a doubt, they (and others) will always send me native Word document, inconsciously assuming that MS Office is oblivious. That's why I/we need MS Office for Linux.
is that Microsoft would have to sell, by auction, a minimum of three licenses to enable third parties to produce versions for other operating systems "such as Linux."
It does not mean that Microsoft has to produce a Linux version. Nor does it mean that the third parties have to produce a Linux version. What it means is that at least three companies will have the right to produce a version of Office for whatever other environment they want to.
Office for Linux wouldn't be for the hardcore anti-Microsoft /. reading "GUIs are for losers" old-school Linux geek, it would be for the people who want an alternative to Windows that runs on the same hardware and can still run Office. These are the people who aren't running Linux but would be inclined to switch if Office were available for it. Not all Linux enhancements (I use the term loosely) are designed to appeal to current users...
Nevermind... the addresses can be found here:
E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Mail:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax or e-mail are suggested...
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
Here's an interesting article on Reason on antitrust workings through the ages. It gives me sort of a different perspective on MS's antitrust woes.
I think the solution to the MS problem is to regulate their real problem behavior. Don't let them do illegal things. Don't let them sign crazy exclusive deals. Don't let them control (down to a single icon) exactly what's installed on a machine.
Making MS release Office for Linux is a step down the wrong road. And what do you do when it's crappy? Force them to make it better?
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
What would be really nice would be if they could force M$ to release their file type definitions (or *cough* adopt some open standard). This would allow existing office/productivity software (e.g. Abiword, GNUmbers) to easily interoperate with Word, Excel, et al.
This would let me work with clients who are M$ based much easier than I do now.
Howard Dean for president
2. Dont run suid
3. Run Tripwire before installing, since theres no way you are gonna get to compile it yourself, and no way you're gonna get to untar the binary distributions.
4. chroot(1) if you feel really paranoid.
I think this would be a good thing, since I could leave MS (the operating system) forever, and at the same time, it would be a fairly humbling punishment for MS, forcing Linux into their own shop, and forcing them to devote resources to it.
For that matter, as someone who is (primarily) a Mac user, I don't even want it for Mac, though I can see how it has some business value (convincing PHB's that the Mac is a "real" computer, etc.) Cringely is right -- the settlement is a sham, and even with the states' proposed changes, it's still pretty toothless. The real problem, unfortunately, is that there is no conduct remedy that will do a damned bit of good. Breakup is the only solution ...
... and since that's not going to happen, my next preferred remedy would be one something like the one Steve Jobs is asking for: a big cash fine (not a "donation" to schools designed to ensure that future generations of developers will use all Microsoft all the time). But the proposed $1 billion is nothing, pocket change for Bill Gates. Make it $10 billion per year for ten years, and you're maybe talking about real money.
Where should the money go? Although my first impulse is to say "to Microsoft's competitors and/or to free software," I don't think that's quite right in the long run, because it puts the government in the position of deciding who's worthy. Better, I think, would be to parcel the money out for public math and comp. sci. education according to some simple, objective formula (primary/secondary schools get money based on the number of students in the district, colleges get it based on the current size of their math and CS departments, say.)
Is this ideal? No, because Microsoft will still be there, as one company. But it will seriously limit their ability to crush innovation in the industry for a decade (by which time things will no doubt have changed in all kinds of ways) and produce a generation of well-educated computer scientists, and hopefully be politically acceptable to all sides.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
...at a time.
If MS makes a Linux version of Office, getting linux on the desktop become easier. As we gain momentum in the battle, the ability to create a competitive Office product become easier.
I would be even happier if the had to make all the Office component open source for 10 years, but this will help just as well.
They clearly understand how MS is using Office to become entrenched in the work place, then leverage that into forced upgrades.
now if they would do the same thing for Direct X, MS would Have to start putting out quality products which would allow market forces to decide where the money goes.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Damn straight, they'll distribute their own version of linux to work with Linux MS Office.
$700 for the package!
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm
Submitting Comments
Before you submit comments about the settlement, the Department of Justice recommends that you review the documents related to the settlement.
You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail.
Note: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.
E-mail
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax
1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Mail
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Think savings of $300 or more PER PC with hundreds or thousands PC's. Not chump change is it? Because the thing is that Office, NOT WINDOWS, is the environment of the typical office drone. As long as the apps stay the same who cares what the OS is.
/sigh
Thanks a lot though. I'll be fantisizing about never seeing WinNT/9x/ME at work all weekend long now...
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
As someone elsewhere said, what we need is the details of the format so that other software can use it. I'd much rather have Star/OpenOffice be able to use MS format documents than have to use Office to work on them. Especially if Explorer for Solaris is any indication of their ability to write software for other platforms...
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
More than anything, I'd like to see an alternative/stable desktop OS. Running a popular, fat, bloated application on Linux that people love (for better or worse) and are familiar with would help Linux desktop adoption immensely.
plus star office could use msffice document perfectly, suits would still not trust there legacy documents to it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Personally, I am happy using Gnumeric and Abiword, but I do not do particularly heavy-duty work (some might argue that Office is also unsuitable for such work) . And regardless of how capable open-source programs are, corporations are generally conservative in adopting new software; by using Office, they avoid the problems with file type conversions and the occasional missing capability.
Last summer, I was supervising the installation of GNU/Linux in a previously all-Windows shop (a certain simulation software they used required Linux). To the people who ran the simulations they ended up giving two computers, one for Windows and one for Linux. This was not the original nor the ideal plan, but Outlook is necessary to interface with MS Exchange mail servers (particularly calendars and address books), and MS Office is necessary to share files effectively with other Office users. While office alternatives on Linux are certainly viable and I personally would not need MS Office for Linux, management policies and practical realities make it a necessity for Linux to gain further inroads at corporations.
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Id rather see exchange transport opened up, and a linux client for exchange. This is the only piece missing in open office suite.
BTW, I wouldnt mind seeing directx opened up also, so more games could be ported to linux.
if the Linux version of Office would be as good as the Windows / Macintosh version.
/. thinking I'm going soft).
I have a sneaking suspicion that it would not be. Then again, I've always been more fond of Office for MacOS than Office for Windows. I know plenty of users who claim that Office for Mac is pretty darned good. I'm inclined to say that MS Software for the Mac is pretty good overall. Even Outlook Express for Mac is liveable.
That being said, MS is bad. M-kay? Long live vi / emacs and LaTeX (don't want
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Unfortunately, the Open Source Movement has shot itself in the foot by providing lots of alternative office solutions with non-interchangable file formats. One of the most well documented formats seems to be Open Office's new XML-based one. If Open Source Advocates agreed on a single format, then Microsoft could either be forced to use this format, or to provide filters. Without such an agreement, the only thing that can be asked for are 100% specifications of all Office formats, now and in the future -- this will be harder to verify since there would be no open source reference implementation.
One of the biggest threats to open source is open source itself. The fragmentation of different solutions makes migration hard or impossible.
I think these lawyers are smoking crack... the newest "solution" is to have m$ extend its reach to other popular platforms? Great! I don't get it... nor do I find the idea of "Office for Linux" pleasant to think about.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
I heard that when they ported IE to Solaris that it required all sorts of crazy Win support stuff. I don't know about you but I'm not going to put an AUTOEXEC.BAT file on my Linux box.
Companies don't really care about the desktop OS. To the business, the desktop OS is background noise, like the brand of the light bulbs in the ceiling. You might notice the difference, but it's not the basis for a business decision (an exaggeration, but more true than not). IT wants to manage support costs by using the same OS on every desktop (ideally), but the choice of which OS is based on technical nits and training issues. If you don't have to pay the yearly MS toll, you can buy a lot of training.
On the other hand, your office suite is critical. If your business exchanges information with other businesses -- and virtually all big companies do -- then potential compatibility problems are a real issue. You look unprofessional if you have to tell a partner or client that you can't open their spreadsheet because you can't afford to run "real" Excel.
Office for Linux could really shift the balance. The bad news is that as long as MS-the-OS-company is the same as MS-the-office-suite-company, Office for Linux will be an empty threat. You can bet that it will be crippled in performance, pricing, and/or reliability so that companies can't consider it seriously.
The States' heart is in the right place. They deserve credit for that.
Office for Linux would be interesting. Of course, it wouldn't be open. Likely, Microsoft would pick one distribution on which it will officially support Office for Linux (RedHat?). With RH's crazy compiler, the binaries wouldn't be very portable, either. So, instead of porting Office to Linux, why don't they open the details about how the files are constructed?
Microsoft could be forced to not only open the details for Office documents, but why not Windows Media documents too? They could open details about protocols for Back Office, MSN Messenger, etc. Basically, make the files their software creates, and the protocols their software uses, open. This could make the life of writing new, better, open software that is compatible with the files/protocols more feature complete.
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
In one hand this is a good idea. It would make their OS dominance go bye-bye if people actually had a choice of platforms to run the office suite.
On the other hand, do we really want to create new libraries proprietary to M$ under Linux that would allow the RandomCrashTime(), ScrewUpTheFormat() and CloseProgramIfNotSavedIn15Minutes() calls?
And I'm sure they would require us to reboot after every save of the documents.
---
If I had a funny sig, it would be here...
I agree. ABSOLUETELY.
I want to use linux as my desktop OS at work. Right now I can't. Having MSOffice available on linux would eliminate some of the reasons.
Having it would ease the migration for both home users who aren't power users but are willing to try something different and for corporate IT departments who want CYA, risk mitigation, and change in small doses.
OS wise open source is ready to replace MS. There is lots of good development occuring in the Office apps sector, but right now it's not uniformly ready. Even if it was, I shouldn't have to tie changing my spreadsheet to changing my word processor to changing my presentation software to changing my corporate email app. With MS Office on Linux, larger numbers of people would be able to try out individual office apps without converting wholesale.
It's good that 9 of them are filing against MS but what about the other 41? Are they for or against MS? If they are Pro-MS then 9 states is just a joke.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
then never mind, thanks for help!
while your at it, would you mind pointing me to the full win32 api? those wine developers seem to be too stupid to do a search.
oh, and how about SMB? those idiots at samba sure are having a hard time getting it right, it's right there on MSDN right?
oh, and darn it those Tom fools who can't figure out Exchange - could you help them out too?
thanks a lot, we're pretty naive not being professional programers you know
There is only one really good/important reason to want it.
Expand the number of potential desktop users of Linux.
If MS Office is available, that is one less "hurdle" for Linux to overcome to become a widely accepted standard (in terms of the general uninformed public).
The goal should be to have at least three choices without hindering anyones compatability:
1. Linux
2. Mac
3. Windows
Seriously, MS isn't all shit and vomit. I've used MS Office for Mac for 15 years now (currently using 98) and I am still very happy with it! Since it's not "integrated" with the OS the virus problems are much less common, and it still works quite well (once you turn Dancing Banana Junior 9000 off). Why not make it available for Linux? It might actually make a few people happy, and you certainly don't have to use it if you don't want to.
sulli
RTFJ.
A limited port is probably preferable, more than the just the file formats, but less than VB-scriptable (so to speak). Desktop acceptance of Linux is the goal here. Not the full integration of Office with the system, but the ability to share the space.
This is utter uninformed BS. As Alan Cox pointed out, I could write a TCP stack exclusively from the RFC's and it would never be able to make a connection on today's internet. The same goes, moreso, for these file format specifications. I've looked at them, I'm a programmer, and I can tell you with absolute assurance there is no way those documents alone can give anyone enough information to properly decode the format. There are a million mysteries in just how word manipulates the format, much less OLE object formats and other counter-intuitive Windows behavior.
Other posts have it right. Let's kill Office's stranglehold by killing it's file format. This could happend by making an indisputable format standard for documents. I don't care if it's XML based like the StarOffice format and SVG, but that's surely a good idea. Get the UN, ISO, W3C, and the IEEE to rubber stamp it and get on with an era of computing without risk of getting your data trapped in a proprietary format. Make Microsoft use it, and it could happen. That way, people can still use Office to share informaton if they like and the rest of us can communicate back with them in any way we choose.
I believe "Office for Linux" has the potential to break the MS desktop OS monopoly,
I believe "Office for Linux" has the potential to break the Linux desktop.
Remember that many major security holes are in MS apps, not just the OS. Also remember that you'll be inviting VB macros, spyware, etc onto your desktop. Finally, remember that MS will have negative incentive to produce a reliable, stable product for Linux - and they don't do that good a job of that for their own OS.
Inviting MS software onto your desktop is like inviting a vampire into your home. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time...
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
That's not a good idea [having MS developing Linux software]. Let's open the file format fro MS office to help beneficiate other products like Star Office or better Open Office and forbid the beast to change and hide things under to break the competition.
No flame here but... I heard from some people that when a top product marketing guy at Microsoft was asked to justify for the fact that IE didn't support Java in its browser under MacOS X very well (an understatement as it was buggy as hell. The support was turned on officially months after IE and OS X shipped and today, it's still broken for many applets), his reply was that Microsoft had assigned "CLASS C" engineers to do the task. Can you imagine what the level of the programmers assigned to developing Office on Linux would be and what the quality delivered would look like? And who do you think would benefit from the end result? It's like asking the German army during WWII to fight Nazism. Who's the moron who came up with this idea again?
PPA
-- I feel better now. Thanks for asking.
Microsoft's monopoly is propped up by incompatible file formats and protocols. Take away their ability to make incompatible files/protocols, and suddenly their monopoly power vanishes. *That* is what will stimulate competition as everyone would be able to compete on a level playing field. There are two problems with this approach though: first, what are the odds that government officials have any clue? OK, that was a rhetorical question. Next, how do you ensure that Microsoft released all the specs and that they don't make suble incompatible changes in the future? That's a tricky one, and Microsoft can always plead ignorance (they attempted to pull that off at the trial).
Now what effects will the release of MS Office for Linux have? It seems like a good idea: since most businesses are standardized on MS Office, it will speed the adoption of Linux on the desktop. (This, BTW, seems to be the only major obstacle). So, in the short run it's a good thing... except for one little problem: does anyone doubt that the Linux version of MS Office, if it is ever released, would be so crippled as to make it virtually useless? Or that Microsoft would find some other way to tie their customers to Windows? Microsoft could easily say "we coplied with the ruling" while blaming everything on Linux. So much for that.
Now what are the long term effects of this? If the scenario I described above plays out, then none whatsoever: MS Office for Linux will die a horrible death and we are back to square one. But now suppose MS Office for Linux is a success. Then corporations accelerate the adoption of Linux on the desktop; sooner or later, Linux becomes a viable choice for home PCs too and OEMs start bundling it, etc. Great! The windows monopoly is broken... but the office monopoly is perpetuated. And who know what other effects this may have. I suppose one monopoly is better than two, but it is nowhere near the ideal state.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Heck, I don't even want Office for Windows! I use alternate products from Corel and Lotus.
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
Nope. I really don't want it for Windows. Wouldn't this make the problem worse?
MS makes OfficeNix[tm] then it crashes millions of servers everywhere. Then it's linux's fault. Wouldn't that help to broaden their powers anyways? Help them convert people?
I just installed Star Office for Windows, and I love it.
Why not solve everyone's problem and develop a Windows Layer for Linux? Basically WINE but once loaded you could run anything windoze, DirectX games, office, etc. This would keep their code secret and let everyone run Red Alert 2 [my fav] while using a REAL OS.
Plus, they could still charge 100 bucks a pop!
Get your Unix fortune now!
Remember that many major security holes are in MS apps, not just the OS. Also remember that you'll be inviting VB macros, spyware, etc onto your desktop. Finally, remember that MS will have negative incentive to produce a reliable, stable product for Linux - and they don't do that good a job of that for their own OS.
That's a bogus argument.
First of all, nobody is going to force you to use Office on Linux if you don't want to, so having an extra option can't hurt you. Even if your CIO might insist you use MS Office, the alternative there is him forcing you to use it on Windows, so don't complain).
Second, once people are on Linux, MS Office will have to compete on it's own quality against the open source office apps, which a year from now will be pretty damn good. If MS Office on linux is buggy or unstable, then the migration to a completely MS free environment is much more likely.
Office file formats are a good start, but what really is needed are descriptions for integrating mail clients with exchange, and all undocumented microsoft protocols and formats. How about an Open Source Integration Document, listing how support for all microsoft products can integrated into open source software? Now that would be competition!
Except that MS isn't going to develop Office for Linux, the source code and code for all the underlying OS calls is going to be auctioned off to three seperate companies, who will then do the porting.
I think the States have really nailed this one on the head, they realized that MS has no incentive to make this project actually work, so why bother to make them do it? Turn it over to someone who does, and then, just to make sure it gets done correctly, throw parallel processing at it by allowing three different companies the right to do it.
Read the filing, the States have their heads squared on straight enough to see most of the loopholes in the DOJ agreement. File formats get left out, but bundling, phasing out old versions of Windows just to get people to upgrade, embrace-and-extend, closed API's, tying, OEM preference, they all get hit. It's a very good read.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
Maybe you don't know better, it depends on what you compare it with. I have to use Office every day at work (for years now) and I keep hating it. Compared to LaTeX and/or Framemaker my productivity is much less.
Creating structured documents with Word (including versioning, diffs between documents etc) is a hell compared to some other solutions.
You can bet that it will be crippled in performance, pricing, and/or reliability so that companies can't consider it seriously.
What's even more, I can imagine Microshaft using some old GUI toolkit that no one uses like whater that crap RealPlayer is based on, and then blaming their inability to us a real toolkit like QT or GTK on Linux's supposed backwardness in GUIs. I mean, think about it. If your manager uses these horrible widgets in Office LX, or whatever it'd be called, do you think that he's going to stop to think: Wait a sec... these widgets suck because M$ sucks, not because there aren't pretty widgets available for Linux. If M$ writes any software for Linux, especially under these conditions, I guarantee that they'll try to make Linux look bad. "Now if you'd just use Windows XP, you'd be able to theme your whole interface."
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
I don't think the comments to the DOJ necessarily needs to be internally consistent. Let me suggest that Slashdot on behalf of its readers submit the highest ranked proposals. Do it using the same format that is being done when questions to interesting people is being solicited. That way at least the major concerns of this community is on record.
Help fight continental drift.
I don't know why so many people get hung up over the MS Office Linux compatiblity. Frankly, the word processor, as a concept, is archaic and slowly on its way out. The spreadsheet is still useful because of its interactivity and power to visualize data. Presentation programs are only good for large scale meetings / lectures, and a waste otherwise. Open Source should be about creating NEW solutions, not repeating what has worked in the past. It's the old inefficient companies, gummed up with worn out management, that insist on keeping with the status quo. People aren't taking advantage of Open Source software for what it excels most at: flexibility and easy innovation. Today's typical office computer environment consists of a bunch of desktops running an Office suite, a mailbox-oriented communications suite, and a handful of clunky database apps to fit sundry needs. Each desktop is a seperate environment with it's own local storage and configuration. A server sits in the back room to pass around documents and coordinate messanging services. This philosophy of design is decrepit, inefficient, costly, and often frustrating, both for users and admins. It's time for some fresh thinking and Open Source is the wide open door. Imagine, instead, an office where every desktop may be used by any user and never needs specific software installation or maintenance. Yes, it's the network-centric model of powerful servers and thinner, diskless clients. But the technology exists to do it the right way this time--cheaply, easily, and effectively. Take that as a base and branch. Once this base is set, the possibilities are endless. A mostly paperless office. A powerful, highly-tuned intrannet system that lets employees truly manage all available data smoothly. Abstracted tasks and many times the automation in use today. Every company is a little different. But that's a good thing. It means there's a huge market for Open Source consulting and in-house programming services.
I heard that when they ported IE to Solaris that it required all sorts of crazy Win support stuff. I don't know about you but I'm not going to put an AUTOEXEC.BAT file on my Linux box.
Not ture. I have IE running on my Solaris box. Nothing windows related on it. There is no autoexec.bat file, or anyhing else that looks like it belongs in windows.
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
I suggest we rub Bill Gates in butter and give him a spanking.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
- Serve up MS Office to X-based thin clients, without the need for Terminal Server licensing and/or Citrix licensing, both which consume huge amounts of money.
- Users of MS Office for Linux are using Linux!!! Office on Linux is one step away from Microsoft.
- Finally, and I think this is important
... people would use it, and as a result it would force Microsoft to realize that Linux has desktop potential. Even if they wanted to kill the product later on, they wouldn't be able to do it easily, because the bean counters would say "Hey, this product is selling very well, why stop it?"
Remember, with no platform advantage, Microsoft has to play fair in the Linux world. Let them come. Let them play on the level playing field. The sooner this happens, the sooner the world can abandon Windows.Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
It's not all it takes. It's actually a lot less.
All that we need is a requirement on MS that they publish details of their file formats, so that competing office products don't have to reverse-engineer the files.
With 100% file-format compatibility, suddenly other office packages (regardless of platform) look a lot better, and MS has to compete on features alone.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Um, d00d, Microsoft is a monopoly. Not only that, but they abused their monopoly power, which is illegal. This is a legal fact. It was declared a fact by a judge, and upheld as a fact by an appeals court. The only higher authority is the Supreme Court, and if they get involved, I'm sure they'll agree as well.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Kind of? KIND OF?! FrontPage is phenomenally awful, and the cause of the majority of bad design out there on the Web.
It's just amazingly bad. DreamWeaver is the only WYSIWYG tool I've used that actually saves time over hand-coding, while still producing usable HTML. Which is probably why it costs more, but oh well. :)
On your other points...
Outlook is bad: security holes aplenty. For my money, the best Win32 emailer is Forte's Agent, a fantastic program (and one of the few reasons why I still keep my Win95 box around). But I'd rather use even Pegasus than Outlook.
We're agreed on Word; I like Excel too.
However, on Access - gah, what an awful, hideous, bloated, confusing mess. It's just fantastically disorganized and radically unintuitive. I now know much more about Access than I did six months ago, and while I agree it's a very flexible tool, it's gotta be the biggest example of the dark side of creeping featurism in commercial software today.
In a way, I'm almost relieved that my Mac can't run it. :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Try LyX and you'll never touch Word again.
I agree with the original poster, only Excel has any value. With Linux I find I don't need Excel as Gnumeric is a great basic spreadsheet and I just use one of the many programming languages if I need more power. The problem with Excel is that too many see it as a platform for building applications (that suck) when they should have just used a real language to begin with.
Star Office sucks too. All Office suites suck. Small seperate apps that do a single job well is the only way to go.
When it comes to document sharing if you can't say it with plain old text then you obviously don't have much to say.
Why does everyone forget about Corel WordPerfect Office?
Because it doesn't have 100% file compatibility with MS Office.
There are good reasons why I own some 17 or 18 legal copies of WP, and ONE of Word.
And the main one is stated just above here, right?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
.... make a Linux version, and give it away. The catch is, CLIPPY THE EVIL PAPER CLIP FROM HELL can't be turned off.
To remove this paperclip, please send $998 to Bill Gates, Microsoft Corp, c/o PayPal
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're wrong.
I don't care what the stupid judge said -- Microsoft is not a monopoly. It does not have exclusive ownership of means of production or distribution channels or anything else, like AT&T or Standard Oil before them did. There are other companies out there that make OSes and office applications and internet browsers, which means there IS competition, and where's competition there's no monopoly.
There's this thing that's been talked about quite a bit since the first Microsoft case. It's called network effects. Basically it means that the value of something increases with the number of people who own and/or use that thing. Take the FAX machine as the classic example. Say you built one in your garage before anyone had ever thought of it. Great, you have a FAX machine. First one on your block to have one. What are you gonna do with it? Not much unless other people have them as well.
Software works in a similar way. If I have MS Office, and so does everyone I work with, then I can exchange files with them and we can communicate. Now, What if I go out and buy some other office suite that isn't compatible (and when it comes to MS Office, nothing is 100% compatible), all my co-workers and collegues suddenly can't open the files I send them, nor can I open the files they send me. I become a pariah, get fired, wife leaves me, takes the dog with her, and I end up scrounging for food in the dumpsters outside of Burger King. You see why this is a tough situation? Unless you can get a majority of users to switch virtually all at once, you can't ever switch to an alternative, no matter how appealing it is. You simply can't afford to lose access to your existing documents, and you can't afford to not be able to exhange documents with others.
Now, this is why Microsoft is a monopoly. Not because there are absolutely no alternatives. It's because there are very high barriers to entry in the OS market. It's not just that Windows has 90% of the market, it's that 90% of software written by practically any company is written for Windows. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. It doesn't matter whether they got where they are because they made a good product or not. The rules exist to protect the public from getting screwed. When a company gets to the point where it is utterly dominant in a market, and especially when there are huge barriers to entry in that market, it is considered a monopoly.
That, alone, is not a bad thing really. The problem is that once you become a monopoly, you have to play by a different set of rules to ensure that you don't use your power to harm consumers. Microsoft broke those rules bigtime. Many times over, knowing full well that they were doing it. They have alternately lied about it, joked about it, and claimed that they will continue to do it, regardless of what happens. Face it. We don't have unfettered capitalism in this country (or any other that I'm aware of). You can bet that Microsoft doesn't want unfettered capitalism either. We have laws that govern our commerce. Microsoft broke those laws, plain and simple. They were warned repeatedly. They did it willfully. They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic settlement they'll get.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
But what the states are asking for is lame. Come-on, I'm from Utah, Utah is only thinking of Novell and WordPerfect, Cali is only worried about Sun, and Oracle. I think the states have the right intentions, but they are asking for the wrong things for the wrong reasons.
First off Java for Windows? I've never had so much fun watching the windows sun fight over the last few years. First Sun makes Java, then Windows supports it, then MS extends it in a stupid way to support COM, then Sun bitches and says its platform dependant and take away their logo (Its just the logo Sun can bitch about, I mean anyone can make a piece of windows software that can do anything, but if you want the Windows logo on your box you have to do it MS's way, same thing with Java). So MS says they will take the logo off the box. Sun still bitches, so MS stops making Java. Then Sun starts making stupid platform dependant API's for Java themselves (same thing they got upset at MS for doing. The API I'm talking about there is the first gen of the 3d api). So let me get this straight, if MS makes a new Java API, they are just trying to ruin it, but if Sun does the same thing they are just adding features? Then Sun says they don't want MS to do any Java. MS says fine and sticks to just supporting one old version. Then Sun says then need an updated SDK. MS finally says, you know what we just will not even include Java period, too much hassle. Now Sun is bitching because Java is not included in Windows. Man this shit is funny. Now 9 States want to force the government to include Java. Guys its just a stupid download, my hell. MS may be likened to an greedy, sneaky asshole, but Sun is like a 4 year old kid who doesn't know what he wants.
Lets talk about the donation to the schools. I can see how Apple wants to bitch about it come on, half of their money comes from Schools, so if MS gives stuff to them for free, then why would then spend money on Apple? Apple will lose a nice percentage in sales.
Now lets talk about a stripped down version of Windows. This is lame too. I've hated all of the strong arm crap MS did (and still does), but I've always supported their rights to includes features they wanted. Does anyone remember the lantastic days? MS had windows 3.0 and DOS out, no networking support. Lantastic finds a nice niche market selling networking addons. Then MS includes it in windows for workgroups. Now Lantastic wonders who the hell is going to buy their product if its build into windows. Good question, but networking should be in the OS. Now days we have the same damn thing going on, every feature MS puts in will question some 3rd party product. That's not going to change. Should a basic explorer come with the OS? I think so? Hell every Linux distro I've ever installed has included at least on browser, sometimes even more than one.
As far as I can tell, all of these deal issues are meant to benefit other companies in other states. Nothing here is meant for the consumer. You can't tell me that the anti trust vision of everyone having to go to the store and buy 10 different products just to run a basic computer is in the consumers best interest. You can't tell me that schools getting free hardware and software is not in the consumers best interest. This case is no longer about consumers, it's about other businesses and their own self-interests. Could you image the press MS would get if it spent time trying to convince the government to make changes to Java? Or to Linux? Just so MS could be benefited.
.. to continue developing Office for Macs ? I don't see how they could legally enforce this. "M$ is required by law to allocate $FOO person-hours of time for Mac development". I don't know the details, but it's easy to say that M$ would produce a mediocre product just to keep the DoJ off their back. "Look Uncle, we took Wordpad and made a prettier icon, renamed it MacWord.exe, and sold it for 199$. Now fuck off."
-Billco, Fnarg.com
First off there is no point in a half baked office clone. If you want that you can use Star Office for free. For Office for Linux to add value you have to do the job properly.
So you have to port the code so the product works well. The easiest way to do that is to simply port the parts of the Windows stack that Office calls. So you will end up with Office for Windows on Linux, and not really office for Linux.
There might be a market for such a product. If it existed the chances are that Microsoft would aleady be looking to exploit it. No other company could produce the code for less or market it as effectively.
If Microsoft went out and did Office for Linux voluntarily all the anti-MSFT crowd would be squeaking 'monopoly'. Strategically their office monoploy is much more important than their desktop monopoly.
Even with Office, Linux would still be unable to run many important productivity tools, Civ3 for example.
Office for Linux would probably require a particular distribution to run well. Configuration would be harder than for Windows simply because of the variation between systems. I don't think that anyone wants to suggest a Microsoft distribution.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I think there are alot of people who are refusing to buy XP because of the all the bundled stuff. If you can get a "lite" version these people are free to buy it. No need to mess with Linux. I wonder if the guys behind this are doing this because they want a "lite" version of XP.
I think all of you are overestimating how difficult it would be to "overthrow" MS Office. I mean StarOffice or OpenOffice are great because they have a price even MS can't undercut. You don't need "perfect" import/export, you need just good enough import to receive MS Office documents. Don't work well with MS Office replace it.
But I can't use StarOffice or OpenOffice, because there is no Mac version. Sun canceled their port to Mac OS X and OpenOffice doesn't have a version available for Mac OS X.
Look! It's a time warp from 1999, back when these arguments seemed plausible!
This is ridiculous. I am surprised that so many slashdot readers agree with the idea of a court FORCING a software company to develop a program.
... ok I stop here, you see the point.
All software developers who read slashdot, how would you react if you were FORCED to make your program do something, even if you are guilty somewhere ?
And even if it was to be done, why only linux ? Why not for AIX, Amoeba, AtheOS, BeOS,
As much as I hate m$, I would never stand for that idea.
The motivation is right anyway : if I have to use office, I have to use windows or mac. This situation is anti-competitive for the OSes that do not run office. But instead of FORCING m$ to MAKE office for linux, I think the solution is FORCING m$ to OPEN the windows APIs or I don't know what so that ANY m$ program can run on linux with a proper API translator or something.
the same way you can run linux on an INTEL or AMD cpu with an IBM or QUANTUM hard-drive, you should be able to run a windows program on ANY os (provided of course that the os developers have coded an interface or something, which can be a terrible task).
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
The bottomline in this country is that capital has completely captured the regulatory authority of government, and through its media ownership drastically undermined the legitimacy of government oversight with a Long March of corporate subsidized pro-elite ideology - now 20 years old at least. MS therefore can be guilty as hell and yet there is insufficient political will to enforce the laws regulating behavior of monopolies. The people have been told to disengage from these matters and for the most part they have. The legislators have been told not to bite the hand that feeds them and they have pulled out their own molars to avoid giving offense. Two judges so far have pretty much wrecked their careers trying to deal with MS like they would a normal defendant so the writing is on the wall for any future judge. They see the clout of the defendant, and like the Republican T. P. Jackson, they can see the ideological slant of the Court of Appeals above them: if MS can be let go on a technicality and they can be screwed in the process, that is what the Court of Appeals will do.
Under a crony capitalism style of government, which we see perfected under Bush II meaningful regulation of monopolies is impossible. (Heck, cartels of energy firms are convened behind closed doors to draft administration "energy policy" and the Vice President goes so far as to openly defy an order from Congress to reveal who was present at these meetings!) At least you can't look for sincere effort from the Feds to obtain a restoration of free and fair markets, or anything like justice. The Dems largely lack the spine to piss off corporate benefactors although the party nominally supports antitrust regulation. It takes them too long to work up the determination to do something about flagrantly abusive monopolies. And trustbusting is just not a value that remotely squares with mainstream GOP politics anymore. It's not like they are hiding that fact either: as a presidential candidate, Bush declared his sympathies were completely with Microsoft on the day they were first "convicted" and his antitrust division chief, Charles James, publicly extolled the consumer benefits of the MS monopoly during the trial. Let's face this honestly and frankly: there can be no doubt about the ideological riptide that Justice must swim against now and for the next 3 years at least. There should also be no surprise that things have come to this sorry pass. The role of big money in elections has so far overshadowed mere votes that even a party committed to antitrust regulation can only manage to do a half assed job of it.
So if there is a block of states litigating for something that somewhat reflects the fact that MS lost the antitrust case and was indeed judged to be a monopoly, illegally shielding its core market from competition and illegally leveraging that core monopoly to pursue monopolistic dominance in related markets, then you have to get behind whatever the states came up with as their alternative settlement proposal. This is the last hope folks, whether we think it's "ideal" or "flawed". There are simply no more options on your side and criticism is a luxury you can no longer afford. You can choose to let yourself be carried out by the riptide, or throw your strength in with those who are rowing back to shore, though at a slant.
Judging whether MS Office for Linux is desirable you have to weigh it against the aboslutely certain alternative. There's no mystery about what that is anymore. The alternative is nothing. Under the Bush Asscroft regime and the settlement they agreed to with MS, there will be NOTHING in the court ordered remedies that even touches on the heart of the problem, which is the entwined OS and applications monopoly. So your choice is really between what these 9 states have proposed, hoping they can get it all, and on the other hand, a crony capitalism settlement, a legal forfeit, that amounts to a Federal imprimatur of approval upon the Microsoft Windows monopoly and essentially a GOVERNMENT GRANT of MONOPOLY, rather than any kind of remedy or punishment.
Office for Linux (plus the required inclusion of Sun's JRE in Windows) is better than that submission and by a breathtakingly huge margin.
(Just so no one says I am assuming too much, I know that a requirement that MS Office be ported to 3 other non-MS operating systems doesn't necessarily mean that Linux will be one of those.)
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
To round it off, why not make it bilateral? No possibility of Microsoft bringing any kind of suit for any reason for five years, no possibility of anybody suing Microsoft for any reason for five years.
If you complained about this it would imply that you thought Microsoft could be sued in the first place, and that they are not effectively above the law through ability to manipulate the system.
But if you figure that Microsoft can do _anything_ and get away with it through abusing the legal system, you conclude things like: the only reason they're not stealing Linux is because they don't want it, they are already taking action to seize still further power and control in the world, and they already take no consideration of legalities in doing so, except as a weapon.
This would be one hell of an interesting trial balloon. It'd be very revealing to see whether they'd take the 'un-sue-able' aspect as an opportunity, or freak out and refuse to deal on such terms. It would reveal the extent to which they abuse the legal system as a weapon but are themselves exempt from it.
Though I've seen plenty of "I'm a Mac user and I love Office" posts here, I've never met such a person. There were plenty of Mac users at the University I used to work for. The Apple people made a good deal with the bookstore and many people became users. All of the poor devils felt pressured to put M$ junk on their machines in the mid 90s. It was an unmittigated dissater for them. The next few years, with Apple under that Pepsi looser, were just awful for them. The Mac OSs saw a serries of changes of their own, but the combination of that with M$ junk on top, shudder. MS workd became word 6 then Office which became Office 97 and there were lots of format changes that were not reflected in the Mac versions. Patches and "upgrades" had a tendency to wreck their victims. Those that tried got burt really bad.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I'd settle for a set of Office Previewer programs, so I can read and print the Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. formats. I don't think that's too much to ask...
Microsoft already realizes that Linux has desktop potential; in fact, they have recognized it as the number one threat to their dominance.
Microsoft publishes Office for Mac in large part because they aren't worried about the Mac's viability as a platform that is a potential threat to their monopoly. In the Mac world, Microsoft does have to play fair (more or less); the result is a superb product, which is a Good Thing. However, Microsoft probably makes as much or close to as much on every Mac sold as on every Windows machine sold because of Office sales. In this sense, Microsoft has a monopoly even on the Mac.
Does forcing them to produce Office for *nix really solve anything? It may harm their monopoly in the OS market, but it will simply extend their dominance in the office suite market, which is where the real money is anyway.
The only real solution is to force Microsoft to open their file format, as has been pointed out ad nauseum. However, the most imporant format to open is media formats. Microsoft's current goal is to establish a monopoly in the media player market, which carries the scary possibility that Microsoft will control our access to media outlets, including both entertainment and news. If they are forced to use open protocols and file formats (e.g. MP3), they might be prevented from establishing a monopoly in the one area where they don't already have one.
Office for Linux will never happen, here's a few of the reasons why:
1. Why Linux? Why not also BSD, AUX, Be, etc?
2. Which Linux? x86 obviously, but what about PPC? If I port Linux to the X-Box, does M$ have to support that platform as well?
If you want to see what an "Office for Linux" would look like, just remember what Office for Mac looked like back when M$ considered Apple to be it's biggest competitor.
As M$ is so fond of pointing out, you can't separate the application from the OS in the windows world. That's why most IT departments don't consider the Macintosh as a viable business platform: not because the apps aren't there, but because it's not Windows:
If a spreadsheet includes VB macros, it won't be usable by Macintosh users.
If a document uses Windows-only fonts, you know there'll be complaints from Mac users about an unreadable document.
Do you really want to be in front of a client presenting someone else's Powerpoint package and just hoping that there weren't and incompatibilities hiding in there to make you look like a fool?
And what rational business would choose to support an application on two (or more) different platforms when they could choose one instead; especially if one of them is directly profitable to them, and the other might just put them out of business?
The only reason M$ would release something called "Office for " would be for strategic advantage of their Windows product by proving the other platform isn't viable, or to maintain the illusion that they haven't got an absolute monopoly.
Network Effects: That's what Judge Jackson understood, that's why he was so pissed that he wanted to get the word out, and that's why he demanded that M$ be broken up. Until the network effects (including API's, File formats, application/os layering, and distribution channels) are all addressed, and a level playing field established, there cannot be an effective remedy.
A new kind of meat designed to appeal to vegetarians.
Office, and its claim of 'ease of use'...
Ok, I have some issues with the claim to MS Office suite ease of use.
I work at a university in the Midwest. I support 40 people directly, among other things (support takes about 35% of my time).
My users are decent. They are good enough that they require very little support. Once a month I lead a training sessions or two (each three hours long) and I teach them new things. They catch on quickly. There comes a point where the problem isn't the intelligence level of the user, it's the software.
I've developed an opinion about MS. I've programmed in VC++, VB, used MFC and ATL. I've done extraordinary things with ADO, and made large systems that use COM. I've used MS-SQL, and I know Win95, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 like the back of my hand (WinME? Not much experience yet, but good luck on getting WinME personal to log onto a domain). I'm also well versed in Office95 to Office 2000.
In other words, I've used MS products to solve real world problems. I've supported MS users. I've also admined novell and MS servers, and more recently, I've been getting deep in Unix based systems (although, in the case of Unix, my average users don't use it, I use it to get info for them (think Informix and card access systems for security and POS systems)).
In my experience, I've noticed one thing about MS. There are two layers to MS software (and development environments)- the tasks that the software (or SDK) was very specifically designed to do and every thing else...
Think Visual Basic. VB gives you access to many events. Open form, load form, preview key... but try to go the next step... try to capture an event that isn't in the VB set, and welcome to the world of Win32 events. Don't get me wrong, you can do it. I've done it. Window moves and resizes (think popup text-tips. I wrote a COM control that popped up text-tips right under a custom active-x control that allowed entry of metric values with a specific range, significant digits, and resolution. The popup gave feedback to the entered value.) I don't know how many times I crashed VB debugging this solution, but I got it, and it shipped.
Another point... using COM, ATL, MFC... f-ing A, I worked my ass off to get that stuff to work right. Specifically loading dynamic ActiveX controls that each controlled a specific type of hardware. The COM spec., the ActiveX spec., Trying to find some damn good info about any MS tech and using beyond the simple stuff. It is a challenge.
Don't get me started on Access. Powerful to a point, and cripple for anything beyond the basics.
Some my users are good. And MS is good for somethings. But I call bullshit on ease of use outside a very narrow range of uses. Mail merge? Use of an ODBC data source? An Access DB that does something with more than 3 tables? Is multi user? Web access? Security?
MS usability is a layer of façade over a layer of crap.
I have yet to see something moderately complicated EASY on a MS product.
I have strong faith that SOMEONE will make it easy, and I doubt it will be MS. They will still be concerned with marketing and profits while someone else will make it easy. Use Napster as a lesson. A thousand people have thought of it, but it only take one to write it.
On the other hand, MS gets much better with each iteration. The next OS will be killer. It will be full of fluff. It will offer no choices, because everything will be preloaded, but it WILL WORK. And users will user that which is loaded.
There is hope in there, but I leave it as an exercise to the student to find it.
Mean while, Monday, I will go back to work, do some work on MS, Oracle, ColdFusion, Unix, Perl, etc... but my life will be dominated by those users using MS.
Most people aren't aware of this, but you can run the current WP Office in M$Office mode, whereupon it looks and writes documents exactly like M$O. I haven't actually tested it, but the compatibility with M$O is supposed to be VERY good.
Well, WP2002 came out before OfficeXP, so if M$ changed their file format *again*, naturally WP2002 won't yet have filters for it. Conversely WP's document format is compatible among ALL versions from 6.1 (DOS or WIN) thru the present.
BTW I paid for most of my WP copies (the first was borroware, a few were trash-rescues -- gods know why I need WP4.2 for some ancient UNIX, other than as a collector's curiosity :) but the sole copy of Word was a freebie (gift from a client who was a M$ employee), and tho it was my first GUI word processor, it was never well-liked -- it was too limiting even compared to WP5.1 for DOS!!
As to M$O being "stagnant" -- LOL, that is so right! Here's a laffer for ya -- Word97 *finally* does watermarks -- via the same kludge we used with WP5.0 DOS in 1988!!
OTOH, as of Office97, the venerable Word/Excel leave-a-file-open-and-trash-it bug (a legacy of DOS4.x) has been upgraded to trashing the entire FAT -- beyond recovery.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Remember the Middle Ages? That was when you could ask people in three different towns what a yard was, and you'd get three different answers. If MS want's to change the format every 2 years to allow new features, that's their business. However, if they won't share the specs with people, then computer technology will remain in the Dark Ages.
That's a bogus argument.
At least it's an argument, not a lame put-down.
Second, once people are on Linux, MS Office will have to compete on it's own quality against the open source office apps,
When people's first impression of Linux is an intentionally crappy MS app (even crappier than on Windows), they'll stay away in droves.
ALso, if MS apps are available on Linux, does the development of native, free apps continue? All MS has to do is pre-announce it, then never deliver or deliver crap, to do real harm. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't done it already - probably afraid to lgitimize the enemy that much. I'm against this almost as much as I'm against WINE. At least with this, it's MS wasting their time - with WINE, we've got real talent chasing the MS API moving target - which they'll never catch because MS will conceal or lie - when they could be working on native apps.
But I still go back to my main point - if you use MS apps on Linux, you're still using MS apps. You're still voting for MS with dollars. You're still endorsing MS 'extended' protocols and closed file formats. It's just slightly less so than using MS apps on windows.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Well, considerring that MS wouldn't be the one to do the converting, would in fact have to open its source code to three other players in an auction (I bet on IBM & Sun, and maybe Apple as well).
There goes the "they will make it suck" arguement.
But who here thinks that what those companies will do is take WINE, fix all the problems that it currently have with Office (and it doesn't have that many) and just compile it with winelib ?
It should be a much shorter work than to convert Office to Linux.
Also, Wine is a much smaller application than Office, so porting it to other dist/unixes (and no, that isn't always as easy as recompile) should be much easier.
The advantage to the community is that we would get a much improved WINE, I don't know about you, but IMHO, if WINE can manage to run Office well, then there won't be much left to improve in it.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am saving up money and plan to buy a dual processor G4 mac with macosX( if mol supports it)and OfficeXP as well as adobe photoshop with Debian. To top everything off apple is finally getting good java support from sun so I can even run IE and java applets. Sweet.
Now if only I could afford the $2,400 21 inch apple lcd monitor.
http://saveie6.com/
-Legion
It is. Capitalism assumes competition. If there is no real competition, then capitalism just doesn't work out.
True enough, but you can't mandate competition where there is none. Sometimes one solution is just better, and our IP laws help to make sure that there will be only one provider, or at least one provider will be the most efficient, for a period of 20 years where patents are involved. A monopoly can offer benefits to consumers. Efficiency, lower cost due to volume, and compatibility, and depending on the market there could be others. The problems really only arise when a monopoly abuses its position to prevent others from introducing new ways of doing things, or by charging consumers more for their product because they have no competition. When there are significant barriers to entry, these problems can be magnified.
One problem is that there is no such set of rules. Monopolies tend to have a lot of money and employ a lot of smart people trying to figure out how to work around the rules and still achieve their goals (read: harm consumers). In all cases I know of, they succeeded
The rules exist, they just aren't enforced very often or very well. Microsoft is a perfect illustration of this. The rules probably need updating and tweaking so that they actually have teeth, and a lot fewer loopholes. Microsoft, even after being convicted, will get off with hardly a scratch. This is the second time they've been prosecuted too.
You make some good points, but I think that given our system of regulated capitalism, monopolies are the goal of most companies. I don't think that it's necessarily bad that one company comes out on top, I just think that it ends up being bad for consumers because our government doesn't enforce the law properly to keep such companies from abusing their position.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Sun Microsystems buys one of the three licenses for Office. They put out a version of Office for Linux. However, they also use the expertise that they get from being able legally to examine the source to improve their Star Office compatibility to 100%.
Impossible, you say? There are three licences. I can't think of too many companies that would be interested and have the cash to put up. Sun, IBM, and somebody else. Microsoft is already producting Office for the Macintosh, and it's good. (The Mac development group at Microsoft has a strong maverick culture.)
I think that Sun might just do this out of spite and to shake up Microsoft.
The major advantage to this, however, would be that Microsoft wouldn't be able to rely on its decade-old catch-up techniques for its most popular products. They wouldn't be able to keep the better API calls secret any more.
Not true. I have IE running on my Solaris box. Nothing windows related on it. There is no autoexec.bat file, or anyhing else that looks like it belongs in windows.
I heard that Microsoft basically implemented the entire Win32 API on top of Solaris, then linked IE (using Win32 calls) to that API implementation to make a workable but inefficient binary. I don't know if this is true, but it doesn't seem unlikely. You wouldn't necessarily be able to tell, since it could all be linked into the single executable from a static library...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay