Slashdot Mirror
IBM Wants to Port Office to Linux
shfted! writes "OSNews reports: As part of its initiative to put Linux on the desktop, IBM Corp. wants to migrate Microsoft Corp.'s Office suite to Linux. Microsoft said it's not involved and suggests that IBM might do it by emulation."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yet more evidence of the fact that Microsoft's days are numbered. The reasons for various organizations staying with them are steadily being taken away, one by one. I'd like to see one of those counters like they have for various social events counting off the number of organizations that have decided to go with open source as an alternative to MS.
Alas, this is only a good thing. Microsoft isn't wholly evil, they have just become something along those lines due to their position in the marketplace. Some competition capable of putting the fear of God into them will do nothing but improve things for everyone.
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
perhaps because getting != got
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I hope they DON'T go the "emulation" route - i.e. WINE
While WINE is a nice attempt to make a Win32 compatability layer, it is just too flakey to be used in a day-to-day business sense. IBM has used WINE before for providing Linux apps - HomePage Builder comes to mind immediately - and it was NEVER stable. Display problems, startup flakeness, and just general unstableness made the product truely painful to use.
If they want to do it right - and impress people at the same time, they should make a NATIVE APP
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
If Microsoft is not involved and is not providing any source code or detailed internal specs, the only reason IBM could provide a superior office suite to that offered by OpenOffice.org is a simple resourcing issue. IBM has a great deal of money and programming expertise to throw at such an effort. With this in mind, why wouldn't IBM simply become a greater contributor to the OpenOffice.org effort?
What could IBM achieve on it's own that they could not achieve in colaboration with OpenOffice.org? This whole effort seems rather strange and somewhat poorly thought out.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Because the only software that will be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office.
The only problem is that 90% of the office users Think that they need MS Office to be productive. About 2% of those users actually use any of the 'features' or even much more than Word. Most people don't know how to set up a macro or even what a macro is or does. THe only thing that is keeping 100% interoperability from happening is the fact that Visual Basic is proprietary and can not be ported to linux at all. now if someone could develope a wrapper that would have the speed and functionality to be able to use Windows macros then Open Office would stand a chance.
Dinosaurs are large.
And they don't collaborate with other animals because they are smaller.
That's why they don't exist anymore.
Oh, how many posts are now being composed in how many minds that state that IBM has now betrayed the FOSS Movement by not acknowledging the greatness of OpenOffice? How dare they!?
Come on, people, calm down. If IBM is doing this, they're acknowledging what everyone without ideological blinders admits: until OpenOffice can write a file that's 100% compatible with its Office equivalent, it won't make any headway. MS is too entrenched at this point. I can hear those same people as above screaming about Linux, but it's also a different battleground being fought in the office suite theater than in the desktop OS one. It's a hearts, minds, and heads battle rather than an economic one (which is the only argument that has been proven effective on non-tech types when it comes to converting systems to Linux). We've all heard the stories about the intransigent secretaries. That's where the fight will take place, and it's going to be a much harder battle that needs a much more polished product.
I'm hoping that IBM realizes that it owns Lotus and uses that particular brand for this effort. It still has some cachet in corporate circles.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
Because Sun (behind openoffice) and IBM don't like each other. Also because Microsoft and IBM are huge commercial partners and also because PHB trully believe they need Microsoft Office.
If MS office runs on linux, there'll be nothing else closing the road for linux on the corporate desktop.
John Dvorak is roughly equivalent to a Slashdot troll in both accuracy of his analyses and his attempts to produce controversy.
May we never see th
I'm sure the name recognition is what makes it so popular also. For instance, Mac users look forward to Microsoft announcing a new version of Office for Mac, because otherwise they might have a hard time getting new people on board. Yes, Office for Mac already exists, so why get in a tizzy? Well, it might look like support will be dropped. MS Office has always been a huge factor, regardless how great OpenOffice, GNOME Office, KOffice, WordPerfect, and others are.
If this program isn't available, they won't touch your platform. I know it's sort of dumb, but it is true.
I positively agree. If IBM wants to put effort in Office products, they should contribute to Open Office, instead helping MS porting their product.
It is ways more clever to help making an MS compatible free office suit alternative but to subsidize a monopoly.
Now since openoffice is already pretty far developed, a vote for supporting this product at least, koffice could need some more support either. MS does not need any support at all.
If IBM want to put effort in windows emulation, they should support wine. I'd definitely love to run tomb raider on my linux box.
I have to say that MS getting work done for them is a little unsettling. However, the problem is not A Decent Office Suite For Linux. We have at least a usable one, OpenOffice, though it isn't utopian.
The problem is A Decent Office Suite For Linux That Can Interoperate Flawlessly With Microsoft Office. There's a lot of content out there in Office format, and having darn near perfect support for the format is important for any adopters.
May we never see th
But it still doesnt make sense, if openoffice is OPEN(Im not sure if gnu open) and it seems openOffice seems to be pretty standards based than why would it matter if IBM and Sun don't like each other?
btw, what is a PHB?
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Ah, but not even Microsoft Office is 100% compatible with Microsoft Office!
i would view it as contaminating the linux operating system with MS's foreign programming techniques and bugs
And this, my friends, is the attitude that keeps Linux off the desktop.
There's a word for it: elitism.
You must REALLY hate WINE.
Having said that, it would be nice if a huge company like IBM would get behind a project like OO or KOffice, but the economics of the situation make that look like a very remote possibility. Unforrunately, we have to live in corporate reality when dealing with corporations, no matter how angelic they may seem (this year, anyway).
It would be great if the Microsoft Office team was given the go ahead to develop a version of Microsoft Office for any commercially succesful platform. I'd like to see the Microsoft Office for Mac OS X team use the UNIX knowledge to develop a supported version of Microsoft Office for Linux.
If they (IBM) are indeed so dedicated to Linux, maybe they should make Lotus Notes native client for Linux first? I think this (MS Office on Linux) is just another cheap popularity stunt.
Note that the article is saying that IBM wants to migrate Office to Linux. Not "give away for free". We'd still be paying monopolistic prices for it.
Velox Versutus Vigilans
Then IBM should use the money to improve Access Database support in OO.o - or someone has to do it. This current proposal is simply enlarging the DRM control of MS.
Right now we can tell our governments not to use MS Word doc format because it's only available to certain systems. If IBM port MS Office, governments will find it harder to understand the issues involved.
The Enemy isn't MS, it's unfree software. IBM's proposal is not a contribution.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Stefan Pettersson, technical manager for IBM's Lotus division in Sweden, said that there will be a Java client of Lotus Notes some time during the second half of 2004. This means that the first "native" Notes client to run under Linux will soon be available.
How exactly is that "native? I'm sorry, but a java version is only native to that weird Sun java cpu that never made it out of production... it's nothing more than emulation for a machine that doesn't actually exist.
The more software that can run on Linux, no matter the pedigree, implementation or emulation, the better.
What keeps you from foisting a Linux Desktop on the secretary isn't her ability to figure out the interface. Hell, my mom handles BlueCurve on a RedHat box like no one's business. The secretary needs an Office suite that opens Office docs and spreadsheets.
I love OpenOffice. I am writing my dissertation with it. But until OOrg can really open and manage Office file formats (including Macros in spreadsheets) then it will just be ours, not theirs.
Because the only software that will be 100% compatible with Microsoft Office is Microsoft Office.
Are you sure? Even between diferent versions of MS Office I usualy have some compatibility problems.
the ONLY reason to port MSOffice instead of just use openoffice is because you have already written office macros or extensions in VB and don't wanna rewrite em. other than that, its a total waste of time, since OO.o is more stable anyway. i CAN see the attraction in this for some businesses, because they dont wanna re-do their stuff, but what we REALLY want, is a open source port of VB, and then integrate it into OO.o
-ted
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
In small businesses, many internal databases are in fact simple, single-user databases. Does OpenOffice.org come with a tool for building and accessing such databases that beginners can learn as easily as they manage to learn Microsoft Access?
Mabye IBM ( & others ) thinks Open Office is to S--L--O--W, big, unweildy etc etc.
It could be a good thing for OO as it might convince them to clean up their code( get the lead out ).
Steve
OS/2 was too late, too expensive, by IBM and didn't offer any significant advantage.
So compared to OS/2, Linux has very good cards.
To go back on-topic: Emulation is a big advantage because it offers a way to do a smooth upgrade. According to your logic all software on Windows would be DOS-software because Windows offers DOS-emulation. Of course that's nonsense, without DOS-emulation, Windows wouldn't have been accepted by the masses so fast, without Windows-emulation, Linux won't be accepted by the masses very fast.
We need Win32 emulation, the sooner, the better.
As if OOo isn't bloated. It runs at about half the speed Office does on my computer. Besides that, what you view as bloat is FUNCTIONALITY to someone else. 90% of people will only use 10% of Office's capabilities, but those 90% will all use a different 10%.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Right now we can tell our governments not to use MS Word doc format because it's only available to certain systems. If IBM port MS Office, governments will find it harder to understand the issues involved.
The argument shouldn't be that isn't not available, it should be that it's not right for a government to require you to give money to Microsoft in order to read official documents.
and IBM really has Ofice for linux, it will make a huge impact on windows sales. Most of the reason Microsoft is able to sell it's other products is because of office. Once office is liberated from windows, most everything else will become irrelevant. Microsoft's decline from leader to just a player will accelerate. contrary to what some believe, they will be around a long time. But their role will change and their fortunes will diminish. Even if Bill and Steve don't know much about technology, they know their business.
> Why use Microsoft Office when Open Office is
> getting so good?
Because there are many, many people that prefer to pay for Office than learn Openoffice.org. I don't understand why, but I saw it with my eyes.
Other people probably don't switch because they are concerned about 100% compatibility.
We should not underestimate the advantages for GNU/linux if MSOffice were ported. This would remove the main obstacle that prevents people from leaving Windows.
Microsoft knows that, and will not support such a move until Office revenues don't overweight Windows revenues.
In business, its all about money. (More on this later).
Can MS-Office be ported to Linux technically? I would say yes, because they were able to make a Mac OS X port, which has BSD-Unix underpinnings. Pretty much anything than can be done on BSD can be done on Linux. So no great feat of technology would be involved on getting MS-Office ported to Linux.
Now lets talk about why MS would or would not want to do this. If enough of a market existed (read: Corporate customers clamoring for a native Linux port), MS might have an opportunity to retain those customers (and maybe get a few new customers) and make some money doing it. So there is an opportunity for them there in the office suite market. The danger is this: MS-Office & MS-Windows are mutually supporting monopolies in the corporate world. . As long as Office effectively requires Windows, every corporate desktop sold with Office almost guarantees an accompanying windows license. So double the revenue for M$. A native Linux version of MS-Office would undermine Windows. Once Windows is undermined, then Office itself might be jeopardized because they are mutually supporting.
A native Linux port of MS-Office is just too much of a threat to the MS monopoly structure. MS knows this, so such a port will never see the light of day.
But it's actually a lightbulb instead of a paperclip.
I personally think any tool that allows uneducated users to build their own database is like selling a length of rope with noose-tying instructions.
Most of the "simple, single-user databases" I have seen have been horrid monsters in serious need of redesign. I would rest easier at night if Access died a quick and painless death before I have to deal with another 1-table database with columns labeled "Field1" through "Field34."
While many things like basic web design and word processing are well-suited for software enabling a user to eliminate the paid computer help, databases are often the life blood of an organization, and handing this task off to idiot-enabling wizardware is a very bad practice.
Of course, all of this is IMHO. In case you're wondering, I do NOT design databases for a living.
Even though a FREE alternative is available, you're still bitching about MS making money! What's wrong with you? Is it not OK to make money these days? Are only Indians allowed to make money on programming?
I agree with your first statement, but what happens when a small business grows into a medium-sized or big business. Access isn't capable of scaling with the company, whereas other solutions are. Access is simple to get to grips with, but I think the extra investment of learning about a more complicated system can often be worth it.
Decode these
Doesnt CrossOver Office already do this? codeweavers.com
Why are you assuming that it would be any simpler to port the Mac port of Office? It's not a Unix app, it's a MaxOS X app, and there is no reason to assume it uses standard Unix API's for anything.
So the choice of a small business person is:
1) No database, just dont track any important information.
2) Use Access and make a kludge that works, although any real DBA would have a heart attack at the design.
3) Hire a DBA and pay thousands (or tens of thousands) for an over engineered database.
2 doesnt look so bad anymore.
Visual Basic is proprietary and can not be ported to linux at all
You say it as if it were a bad thing..
Has IBM never heard of Crossover Office? Part of my job requires me to use Excel every day. I tried using the OOO spreadsheet program, but the formulas I was using in the spreadsheet (nothing beyond addition and division) weren't moving back and forth properly, and our customers use Excel.
I have a shortcut to Excel on my Gnome toolbar. It's that simple.
Now then, don't be so hasty assigning Access to the garbage. I make some nice coin fixing he issues involved in kludged solutions. Remember: one person's 4th normalized form is another's multi-workbook Excel spreadsheet.
Now if they'd only create a native Lotus Notes client port, then I'd be really happy.
While I understand your sentiment, the entire PC "revolution" is based on giving too much power to the user.
I'm sure 20-30 years ago the world was filled with technical brahmins who thought computing power belonged under the care of the knowledgable few with access to the the company or university mainframe.
God forbid users actually have any sort of data processing capabilities on their desk, or much less their homes, they'll just mess things up! Not that those are REAL computers anyway...
How many people here taught themselves most of what they know about computers by screwing around on their own and breaking stuff?
Red Hat doesn't produce every version of Linux and cannot control other distros. MS does, and has, produced every single version of MS Office and is solely responsibile for incompatabilities between versions.
But IBM has an awful lot of eggs in the Java basket - Eclipse, this Java port of Lotus Notes mentioned in the article. Maybe IBM are hoping Sun will fold, and they'll be able to grab Java for themselves from the wreckage - but that would be a rather strange strategy. A strong Sun would make more sense for IBM in the medium term, since it would mean another company paying for Java support, development, and marketing.
On virtually any other point about Microsoft I would likely agree with you, but on this one, you're wrong.
I have already replied to this point.
There is a lot more involved in dealing with govt. than simply consuming documents. Sure, if you live in an authoritarian state when they dictate and the people have no voice, then yes, the reader would suffice. In a representative nation though, communication has to be a two-way street.
Sure, for simple messages you can send plain text or some other format (and hope that they know how to read it). What about something that gets passed back and forth between govt. officials/workers and people on the outside for review/comment/editing? This happens more often than you might think.
Oh don't be such an arrogant condescending snob. My dad is one of those uneducated people. He has used Access on a couple of occasions to do some pretty simple things like manage member information for some society he helps run. Sure it's an ugly implementation, but so what? He enjoyed himself figuring it out and learning, and getting the feeling of accomplishment it brought him. Furthermore, his implementation /works/ and suits his needs just fine. So why are we to judge him for not using a solution and and implementing in a way that we've been *trained* to do, and what we're experienced in doing for a living?
And there is every reason to assume it doesn't. The binaries aren't even in Mach-O format. The whole thing is Carbon. And even if it were Cocoa, you'd couldn't port it without finishing GNUstep first. When are people going to understand this and stop saying "but OS X is UNIX so you can just port it"?
irb(main):001:0>
What if I'm not running *any* of the above?
C|N>K
That should be "Microsoft was building Windows 3.0 at the same time". Windows was around a long time before OS/2.
"Microsoft pulled out of OS/2 & pushed Windows thus shafting IBM"
Of course, had IBM wanted to make OS/2 the winner they could have out-promoted it with their much larger war chest. Apparently, it wasn't that important to them.
We can't blame Microsoft for things we do, too. That is not helpful.
... "The reason we don't collaborate with Sun is that they're too small," ...
<sarcasm>Yeah, Sun is not a player.</sarcasm> How big do you have to be for IBM to collaborate with you?
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
One thing that I have been wondering for forever is why IBM has never open sourced Lotus Smartsuite and ported it to Linux. It is a nice little office suite and in my opinion far superior to OpenOffice.
I don't understand the people who are saying open office is so great. I use the latest version (which has been the latest version for a while) and I don't see anything particularly interesting. Maybe in 2.0?
I think ciaran_o_riordan has the right take on this. When proprietary software is running (say, by emulation) there is little desire to pursue software freedom.
This is partially because of the ethics the open source movement teaches--practical ends are the goal, not software freedom. When an open source program won't do the job, that movement gives one no reason to reject proprietary alternatives. Ironically, that means the open source movement's philosophy can sometimes advocate for software that is not open source. Once the desire or need for a program is sated, very little interest exists to write an open source replacement.
The free software movement, by contrast, does not have this built-in problem in its philosophy. Non-free software is rejected because (as the name says) it doesn't have the freedoms of free software--put briefly, the freedoms to share and modify the software.
It's not surprising to me that IBM would champion this. The open source movement was started to speak to business desires and it's doing an excellent job of that, even if it means giving up software freedom to achieve that end. Open source software can be a genuine contribution to our community when its advocates work on free software. I'm grateful that many open source advocates do this (IBM, for example, has contributed work to the Linux kernal under the GPL). But this is not always the case.
Digital Citizen
Why use Microsoft Office when Open Office is getting so good?
Because, while it may be getting good, it isn't quite good enough. While I would personally like to dump Office, the fact is if I did, it would seriously inhibit my ability to interoperate with other Office users in my workplace.
Yes, I know that OO has implemented compatability with most of Office's features. Most doesn't cut it, because someone is always going to be creating a document that uses one of the obscure features that's not implemented, and having to switch back and forth between office suites to accomodate this isn't worth the time and aggrevation just so I can have bragging rights to using OO.
Anyway, one step at a time. Anything which helps Linux gain parity with Windows on the desktop is a good thing. Once that victory is achieved, then worry about commoditizing office suites. When you consider how long it's taken for Linux to achieve even the desktop penetration it's achieved now, it becomes apparent how silly it is to expect the whole world to convert to open source only solutions over night. The chances of OO and other open source solutions gaining ground are vastly improved if Linux gets it's foot in the door first. Promoting applications that just aren't satisfactory for their purpose at the expense of promoting solutions which make Linux a viable alternative is self-defeating.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
I have yet to see a company that bets its' business solely on an Access data base hacked in an accountants' spare time. However, I *have* already seen enough cases where a company pulled exactly that stunt for handling very important data. Nothing that would drive the company out of business in case of a failure, but that could cost some serious money and bad reputation.
For the most people, a data base is a data base - regardless of whether it was clicked-together by a co-workers kid nephew, or if it was designed and implemented by a professional.
Nothing against screwing around and breaking things at your own home computer, risking your own data bases. That's how I started, too. Betting your company's money on such approach is something completely different, though.
:-)
Nobody would come to an idea to let the neighbours' kid perform an appendicitis surgery only because he seems to be so tallented with knifes.
Look, you can't go back and CHANGE YOUR POINT after I responded to it, and then beat me up because my response doesn't cover the altered version of what you said. You said that people had to buy software to read documents in Microsoft formats, and I said "no, there are free readers." You can't just wave a shiny object around and say "Butbutbut you can't WRITE those formats, then!"
If there is interactive work, then the people on the outside can communicate with their contacts in the government, right? And if they don't have Word, and don't want to buy it, they can ask files to be sent in RTF. Admittedly not an ideal situation, but then again I was responding to your post stating there was no free way to read Office documents, not to write them.
But there's lots of other arguments you can make like that...supposing the the government wanted to send you a file, edit it, and send it back...but you didn't have a computer at all? You'd have to buy your own computer! And internet service! The government also, in most states, requires you to have auto insurance...but it's not free!
In any case, there IS OpenOffice, which in most cases CAN read and write Office documents. Typically I find that the extent of government document interaction is me downloading something in PDF, printing it out, and sending it in...but if the President wants to bounce a Word document back and forth with you and make some national policy, then OpenOffice might do what you need.
...
Ok, so you are saying because you don't like microsoft Access is useless for something like - oh say keeping track of 20-30 suppliers address, phone numbers, and contact points, and then tracking notes of the phone calls you have placed to them?
You make a major assumption with this argument - that no one that uses Access takes the time to learn the product - a MAJOR assumption.
I prefer MySql myself, but I know access well, and I know SQL well also, does it make me less competent because I have yet one more tool in my bag?
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
4) Pay the minimal amount that Filemaker Pro costs and sleep easy at night.
That was classic intercourse!
That's wrong, Wine is a compatability layer for Windows programs. Programs that only run on 2K or XP are harder to emulate because by definition they use more functionality than your average app which restricts itself to only features available in Win98, but there's no fundamental reason why they can't be run too - and in fact they are run all the time.
Look, you can't go back and CHANGE YOUR POINT after I responded to it
Check the timestamps, this was brought up and replied to before you responded to it. The time window was only about 6 minutes though, so maybe you were already composing the reponse and didn't see that post. Sorry -- didn't mean to come across as jumping on you about it.
You can't just wave a shiny object around and say "Butbutbut you can't WRITE those formats, then!"
That was not my intention. Yes, I made a mistake. I should have said "use" instead of "read", and realized it almost immediately after posting. Thought about posting a quick follow up, but since I knew people would point out the readers even if I did, I figured it would be just as well to respond to one of them.
If there is interactive work, then the people on the outside can communicate with their contacts in the government, right? And if they don't have Word, and don't want to buy it, they can ask files to be sent in RTF.
This is probably more of an education issue than anything. Most of the people who work in government that I know would say, "What's RTF? Why can't you just use Word like everyone else?" (paraphrasing). Even then, the last time I tried to use Word filters to export to anything else the result was pretty awful. That was with Word 2000; I don't know if it's impoved any since then.
But there's lots of other arguments you can make like that...supposing the the government wanted to send you a file, edit it, and send it back...but you didn't have a computer at all? You'd have to buy your own computer! And internet service! The government also, in most states, requires you to have auto insurance...but it's not free!
The debate over whether electronic communication excludes the poor is an entirely different discussion. The situation here is akin to them requiring you to have a Dell computer, or Allstate insurance. The requirements may not be free (as in $), but you still some choice.
In any case, there IS OpenOffice, which in most cases CAN read and write Office documents.
It can read the current generation of Office documents, for the most part. The biggest problems I've encountered in it are with documents which were saved with the "protection" option enabled to make part of it read-only. There seem to be quite a few of those out there. OpenOffice can't read them at all. Irony is that this misfeature is trivial to remove for anyone who has MSWord/Excel.
The big picture, however, is that MS has the pieces in place to eventually stop this. Their new XML format is covered by patents, making it feasible for them to sue anybody who attempts to reverse engineer it or use it in a competing product. When Word 2008 or whatever drops support for saving to old formats, OO.o may not be a viable option anymore.
Typically I find that the extent of government document interaction is me downloading something in PDF
Some of the departments with more public exposure have gone PDF for forms and such. PDF is a little better than the MS formats as far as read-only data goes. They do make the specification available to the public, but restrict its distribution. So if Adobe one day decides to clamp down on the format and yank the specs, you're pretty much out of luck. I doubt they'll do that, but the possibility does exist.
Taking the license agreement at face value, I can't even quote the section that tells me I can't reproduce it. I suspect a short quote would still be covered under fair user, however.
In any case, I should point out that I have no problem with MS products in the business sector (other than technical problems). If the free market wants to use it, then let them. That's what freedom is supposed to be about. I'm just against governments letting themselves inadvertently become pawns of companies pushing proprietary formats.
Sure thing. Now... where do I find a cut-rate DBA if I only have 25 employees? 10 employees? 5 employees? What if I have 100 employees, all of whom earn close to minimum wage, and hiring a DBA would be enough of an expense that it might make the difference between staying in business and closing up shop? What if I don't have any employees, because I'm putting together a DB for personal use (logging scores for the bowling team, keeping track of info about my gardening efforts, etc.)
There's a reason that Access exists, and a reason that it serves a decent niche market. It lets someone aside from a professional DBA put together a database, and have a good chance of it working. There are a lot of little apps out there that are based on access, require some bit of knowledge and/or experience to set up, and simply don't require the type of maintenance that calls for a DBA.
I've got one FoxPro app I put together over 10 years ago that's still in use, handling a few dozen additions/edits a month. There's not a whole lot of flash and glitter, but it does the job. This is the target market for Access and related applications, simple DB-based application generation. I suspect that there are far more Access-based applications quietly working in the background than people want to admit.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
If I were a normal company with a product and some company came along and offered to port my application to other platforms for free, I would most likely jump at the idea. However, if you had a monopoly on the desktop OS market and willing to use illegal tactics to guard your share, how would you behave?
MS may have stated in the past that the reason they don't port Office to Linux is that there is 'no demand'. Now with the Linux desktop share challenging the Mac share, thos arguments are being diluted. If IBM were to offer to port it for free, gee... seems like a great deal for any company... unless you are trying ot illegally maintain your monopoly of course.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Hey, it beats filemaker.
No, this is not a troll. Last comment I made that trashed filemaker got modded troll, and it was...sort of.
You see, I LEARNED databases on Filemaker. But that doesn't blind me to the truth--it stinks, as does Access.
They both have a use, and are about equal in my book. But for real database work, the answer is neither--use ANY SQL database and you will be much better off.
That said the open source tools I've seen for SQL databases stink for the most part. When I see one that is as easy to use (usability folks!) as Access or Filemaker, then I will be happy.
For you power DBA's out there, let me tell you something that should frighten you. If you design the GUI well enough, then the vast majority of ppl should be able to use it at a comfortable level, leaving you to do the tough stuff--figuring out why data is bjorked, etc. The design though is not a tough concept--and a well designed gui could encourage good design (not that bad designs won't happen, but you can encourage good design).
Just a few thoughts.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
One could make the analogy that this is a similar situation if the government charged an entrance fee to public buildings.
this is kinda true. one of the things i inherently don't like about using tools like access is that they tend to lead to either building the gui to suit the data structure (which is how techies do it) or building the data structure to suit the gui (which is most non-techies do it). the best applications are based on db architects designing databases to suit the data and application designers building interfaces to suit the users. any oterh way will produce kludge somewhere.
Great - they wasted millions on OS/2 and Windows emulation with Microsoft swapping and changing API's, now they want to try Office.
it would be extremely cost ineffective to switch to OO because it is free but pay a consultant $2k for a couple of weeks work
If you have more than about five Microsoft Office licenses, paying a consultant to translate your scripts may in fact prove less expensive than paying Microsoft for the next version.
Not that I really think MS would ever touch linux with a ten foot pole, but....
a) MS always keeps things hush hush. So their denial doesn't really mean that much.
b) It makes sense they would want to snatch up the office arena of linux before open office gets any better. If they can have people using MS Office on Linux, the likely hood of people using open office becomes lower. This is very bad. There will still be a certain crowd still using it because it's open source, but there will be a crowd who switches over. This means less people using it, reporting bugs, trying to make it better, etc. etc.
I really wouldn't necessarly rule out Office on linux simply for the fact there's office on the Mac. The difference though is Mac's and Windows have two different core audiences. On the other hand, Windows and Linux do have overlapping users far greater than that of Mac/Windows.
Oh, and btw, a bit OT, but... why isn't there high level scripting language support (perl, python, ruby, etc. etc.) for open office? (or if there is someone please point me toward it!). OO would be the perfect canidate for it. Mozilla has XUL, gaim has perl/c. It would definatly put OO ahead of the pack.
Don't forget that this is the same Microsoft who cooperated with the same IBM over OS/2: The Next MS-DOS, then walked away in favor of its own Windows NT: The Next VMS, bashing the OS/2 it once supported as the bastard child of a dinosaur company.
.mdb files.
IBM may be slow to catch on to a lot of things, but I believe their OS/2 wounds are still not healed enough yet that they trust the "Micro"computer-"Soft"ware behemoth farther than they can throw it.
IBM-supported Linux systems might be made to run Microsoft Office with IBM's blessing, but only as a small spite to MS. IBM might be philosophically able to bless such a configuration (MS-Office on Linux), but Microsoft never could. Microsoft Windows will rest in peace next to Microsoft Bob, before you ever see Microsoft Office for any OS Microsoft hasn't invested in.
A true spite would be an OOo install option to be completely MS-compatible, including load/save defaults.
On something of a sidenote, using the integrated database front-end allows more possibilities than embedded (and inadequate) Access
Why not just pour the effort into openoffice? Using MS Office will just be a licensing mess later down the line. I'm sure MS will love to have parts of its codebase used in Linux so they can cause trouble like SCO is right now. Uptill now, Linux has been going much cleaner than BSD and has had few issues in the court, and noone could touch it legally.
openoffice can open Word Excel etc docs just fine, and if its streamlined further, optimised, ported everywhere etc, its already better than MS Office with about the same interface.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
So what? MS is under no obligation to continue providing free readers.
But once a reader is released under an Open Source license, the GPL in particular but this is true of most of them, the source is always available for modifying to use on different platforms or updating for new formats.
And one shouldn't be required to pay MS to submit or create documents in publicly acceptable formats, either.
There are reasons Linux hasn't seen mass desktop acceptance, configuration and application base among them. "Attitude" doesn't keep an OS of the desktop.
No thanks
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
Databases are like programming, you can make it easier for non-techies to make crap, but you can never make it easier for non-techies to produce a quality DB. You can only marginally improve the level of crap produced.
Some things just require a deeper understanding of math like concepts than a lot of the population isn't willing to have. DB design is one of those.
I live in a giant bucket.
IBM doesn't seem to be dedicated to "free" distros in particular. I expect that SuSE will look attractive to them at this point, but I have no idea how they make their decisions.
This is a popular misconception.
Count the number of non-free packages available from Debian.
Now count the number of non-free packages in Fedora.
In case anyone missed the transition there, we are comparing "available from" to "in". If the comparison was apples to apples, we'd have to say that Debian as no non-free packages in it, since main is the official distribution, and they have always been careful to keep main separate from non-free and contrib. FWIW, past comments here by Bruce Perens make it look like non-free may not even be "available from" them in the future. They obviously realize that they leave themselves open to characterizations like yours simply by making the other stuff available via debian.org.
"Of course, all of this is IMHO. In case you're wondering, I do NOT design databases for a living."
Well, I do design databases for a living and I can see your point. I don't completely agree with it however.
A person designing a relational database can get over their heads quite quickly. Normalizing tables correctly will make or break a database.
What I have found however is that people who have very basic needs (One table) can use Access to meet their needs. When their needs grow to a point where they can't handle it (More than one or two tables) they call me in.
Also Access comes with wizards that will create common databases. Asset tracking etc. And though the final product may not be tailored to them, it will usually be more than adequate.
I have Staroffice at home and it came with a database. I haven't had any time to play with that part of it so I don't really know how it compares with Access but Linux could defiantly use tools that will allow average users track rudimentary data without calling in a C++ guru.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well, that's simply not true. Access is absolutely useful for databases that require 1 to 5 simultaneous users, which happens to be the profile for a pretty sizable number of databases that get created in the real world. And MSFT makes it almost trivially easy to migrate Access databases to its flagship database product if and when you need that kind of power.
Consider that the alternative to using Access is a million silos of information stored in spreadsheets on desktops across your company (or the installation and administration of a real database system like SQL Server, Oracle or MySQL) and you begin to realize that a file-sharing database is a huge step up from the alternative.