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
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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..
Now if they'd only create a native Lotus Notes client port, then I'd be really happy.
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?
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
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.
...
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