MS Office for OSX? Why not for Unix as Well?

technode asks: "Apple has released OSX, which appears to be an amalgam of NetBSD, and NexTStep, and other stuff. There is, or will be, undoubtedly, a 'native mode' office suite for OSX. If there is an Office suite for OSX, then why not for other Unixes? To do it once requires solving the basic problem of mapping Office onto the Unix/X-windows API. Once you have that piece, it seems like the only thing preventing a Linux MS Office Suite is MS desire to preserve their OS market share. Technically, this begins to seem a little bit like using one's market share in the applications business to protect one's market share in the OS business, which would, on the face of it, seem to be an anti-trust no-no. What gives?" Most people don't seem to understand that "native-mode" OSX isn't necessarily Unix compatible. Macs have had their own GUI toolbox for a long time, and I would assume that if Office does show for OSX, that it would be an easy port to other Unicies. This doesn't even go into the horrendous track record with regards to security that Microsoft has garnered, especially over the past few years. Does Unix really need Office at this point? Update: 12/29 1pm EDT by C :The wording above is incorrect. To clarify: an OS X version of Office would not be an easy port to Unix. Sorry for the miswording, there.

Comments

Apple and MS collude to block it

[blakestah]

Apple and MS would like nothing less than making ANY viable desktop tool available for free Unices. They both use patented streaming media protocols to block the development of streaming media viewers for free Unices. And Office is not going to be available anytime soon.

Right now free Unices have a tiny fraction of the desktop market. And Apple and Microsoft have NO interest in making it easier for anyone to switch. If it were not for the browser war, Office for Mac would be already gone, and its viability as a desktop platform would be gone as well.

These decisions have little to do with how easy it would be to port Office. Let's face it, Microsoft probably already has Office for Linux ready to ship. They BANK a billion dollars a month, so they can certainly afford the development effort required, and it would be good conservative strategy to have it ready should it be needed someday. But unless the trial settlement changes dramatically, that day is no time soon. Right now, anyone who deals with other people who use Word (which is to say almost everyone) needs to have access to a copy of Word. Until that changes, Microsoft will not port Office anywhere else. That it exists for Mac is a result of the 'kill netscape' deal made between Mac and Microsoft.

That Viral GPL

[suwain_2]

While this is certainly not the only reason, I think that part of it is that Microsoft has to keep up it's "The GPL is evil and should be outlawed!" pose. I'm not saying that I would expect Word to become OpenSource, but that they have to hold the (incorrect) viewpoint that Linux is used solely by script kiddies and misguided webmasters who don't know what they're doing. If they suddenly port one of their most popular products to this, they'd sorta be contradicting themselves.

While Word for Linux wouldn't be a bad thing for the Linux community, I don't think it's the hottest thing needed. There's a slew of word processing programs for Linux, several of which can handle .doc pretty well. Sure, John Q. Public might be more likely to use Linux if he could use Word itself... But I digress.

Re:Microsoft vs. Unix security

[gewalker]

Could not agree more in the large, however there a few big differences.

1) Most windows are of 9X variety, where there is no such thing as a root user, thus any exploit, thus any trojan code automatically can do anything it wants to the system. This is repeated on NT where you have to be admin to do lots of things, so many people grant admin to the desktop user (especially developers) -- This is compounded by the fact that NT servers often run as a privileged account. IIS does this so it can do a runas user -- also a prime example of stupid feature to integrate IIS with operating system.

2) Default installs on windows are notoriously over featured a.k.a. insecure

3) There is no chroot command. If you have to have a server running with special privilege, at least the chroot limits the target area for damage available to exploits

4) There are a lot more complexity on Windows. Windows is probably 100 times more complex than Unix in terms of shear numbers of API's, addons, etc. This almost guarantees there will be a signicantly larger number of security holes

5) Windows does not provide the tools that make it reasonably easy to secure it and keep it that way.

X Windows is not X Windows!!!

[SimHacker]

But if you want to annoy X fanatics, call it X Windows on purpose.

-Don