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."
Why use Microsoft Office when Open Office is getting so good?
eclecti.cc
Big Bleu cheese and WINE?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
Does this mean we'll finally get clippy?
WOOHOO!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm seriously questioning the validity of this article. It says an IBM spokesman said they got access to parts of Microsoft code. Something I believe is very unlikely given the IBM's purpose. And on the contrary Microsoft denies any involvement.
Not that I don't hope it would be true...
they certainly wouldn't need to do it by emulation should there be another source leak....*cough*
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
Will Microsoft try to sabotage this by "upgrading" Office in future versions to things that are difficult to "emulate" or include a clause in the EULA that says "You may not run this with a compatibility wrapper" or Linux or anything else? I could see this happening.
IBM tried to emulate Win16 application compatibility with its OS/2. As a result, nobody cared developing application of OS/2 as such. IMHO, emulation is a dead-end branch of development in this case.
For some reason (probably licensing issues with Sun) or compatibility with the rest of MS office document base, IBM does not want to develop OpenOffice or Corel WordPerfect Suit. I am just wondering - have they given up on their Lotus completely then?
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
It looks like you are trying to build your kernel, would you like me to help?
or crossover office
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
IBM sells Maiframes, but really, Mainframe only refers to the operating system, not the size of the computer. You can get "mainframes" that fit under your desk.
If they can port Office without help from Microsoft, maybe they could also implement compatibility with open standards.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
How about Crossover Office by CodeWeavers. You can run the full Office suite including Outlook and Access. It works VERY VERY well. Better than running on Windows actually.
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.
Yeah, this is great news and it only proves that IBM's in it for real. IBM is also creating a _desktop_ version of Linux - Blue Linux. It's not out yet, but PC Magazine's John Dvorak has already seen it.
HERE's the PC magazine article about it.
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?
I have to agree. WINE is cool, but not a solution for the general public. I don't think it ever will be, just by nature of the project.
Of course, if they do a native release, then they have several widget sets to choose from:
1) GTK/GNOME -- piss off the KDE adherents.
2) Qt/KDE -- piss off the GNOME adherents.
3) Proprietary a la OpenOffice -- piss off everyone and have graphical glitches and be slow.
May we never see th
Crossover Office has been great for me on my laptop. I work at a plant with 1000 Microsoft users and they can't write a five-word meeting notice without putting it in a Word document. For the sub-$60 license fee, it has been worth every penny. I keep Star Office going on my Sun and Ooffice on my desktop linux system, but more often than not, they can't properly open MS documents. Yes, it would be great if I could convince a billion dollar company to convert all its employees to Ooffice, and convince all our vendors and customers to convert, and convince all the technical organizations to use Ooffice presentation software at the conferences. But instead, I just paid the $60 and got back to work.
In the original swedish article it's written that Microsoft believes that IBM probably is working on a Terminal Emulation solution, not a emulation solution.
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
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).
I can't believe no one has pointed this out yet:
From the article:
"Microsoft said it's not involved and suggests that IBM might do it by emulation."
IBM:"..But we're working together with Microsoft, who have provided us with part of their code. We've worked together like that previously."
So Microsoft isn't working with IBM but IBM is working with Microsoft because MS has provided them with part of their code. Hmm does MS have split personalities or something?
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'....
Pointy haired boss, a reference to Dilbert. Its an acronym that really isn't catching on.
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
10 LET M$ = "Microsoft": REM Slashdot limits subject length, and Penny-Arcade authors have probably never coded in BASIC
To expand on what the others have mentioned: OpenOffice.org not only will handle documents from different versions of M$ Word better than the current version of M$ Word but also will often read corrupted M$ Word documents that make M$ Word crash. Seriously, people have reported here on Slashdot that they use OO.o as a recovery tool for .doc files.
If those Indian programmers are as good as Indian tech support, the Office software they create will be loaded with bugs and full of security holes... That will be a perfect port after all.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
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.
Well, to be more correct, Mainframe refers to the architecture. You can run Linux on a Mainframe, and Linux isn't a mainframe OS (yeah, I know you usually run Linux/390 under VM, but whatever). The Mainframe is really quite unlike any microcomputer architecture in the way it deals with IO (devices can actually talk to each other directly, I believe) and that is what makes a mainframe a mainframe, not its operating system.
-twb
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.
Visual Basic is proprietary and can not be ported to linux at all
You say it as if it were a bad thing..
This is some guy that's trying to make an impression for a pet project of his, not global IBM strategy. I bet he's in for some angry phone calls from various people, including his boss who'll likely be pestered as to why one of his subordinates is talking to the press about things that isn't his business.
The reason Microsoft hasn't heard anything is probably because he's been talking to people at his level in Microsoft, who has no authority to make any real decisions, just as this guy is unlikely to have.
Now if they'd only create a native Lotus Notes client port, then I'd be really happy.
IBM wants to port MS Office to Linux because IBM wants to sell Linux desktops. Bingo! Sun is selling their "java" desktop. IBM can include in their desktop everything that Sun has on theirs plus the MS Office port. Many people like MS Office; many people think they need it. IBM wants to make money. MS makes a lot of money on their MAC Office port. If you had to use one which would be, a desktop with Office port or one without?
I know, the one without, blah blah blah....
kill -9 `ps -ef | grep -i clippy | awk '{print $2}'`
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
"Blue Linux" does not exist. What we have is Linux Client for E-Bussiness (C4EB), a Linux RH9 desktop that includes IBM apps such as a Lotus Sametime (an excellent Instant Messaging program) client, a Lotus Notes client (Windows version) running under WINE, and a few other things useful in the IBM Intranet.
There are about 20,000 users or so at the moment, and the IBM Linux desktop community is very active. The IBM CIO is extremely supportive: whenever we see a boneheaded internal site requiring MS IE only or other such atrocities, we report it and the Office of the CIO puts pressure on the site's maintainers to toe the line and support Mozilla.
Bottom line: "Blue Linux" = customized RedHat 9. It's hardly our own distro. But IBM is not just promoting Linux and recommending it to customers. We're also eating our own dog food.
We are studying a migration to a Fedora-based C4EB.
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
Astronomy 1&1: The sun only looks so small, because it is so far away.
In fact, it's rather large!