Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Microsoft Could Embrace Linux

Posted by timothy on from the mslinux-not-so-far-fetched dept.

securitas writes "In a commentary and analysis piece, BusinessWeek technology editor Alex Salkever discusses how Microsoft can embrace Linux, and asks the question, 'Considering Redmond's slim odds of conquering developing nations, why not offer them a low-cost Linux version of Office?' Salkever explains that 'Microsoft faces increasing competition in both PC operating systems and in desktop applications' which are its core businesses, while corporate customers would likely adopt Microsoft Linux products." (Read more below.)

"He goes on to cite the governments of Paris, Munich, Brazil, Peru, China, Korea, and Japan which are all embracing open source software to varying degrees. Meanwhile, when they choose Microsoft software, fast-growing emerging markets like China and India opt for pirated copies. Salkever explains that the concerns for customers like these are the 'relatively high price of Microsoft software' and the 'concerns about buying proprietary software to run critical government operations.' Finally he points to recent moves by Sun and IBM to leave the commoditized software and hardware business behind, writing 'When the world's largest and most respected IT consultancy draws a clear bead on your crown jewels, it's time to mount a bold counterattack.'"

32 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Office for Linux? who'd use it? by phantasma6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why not offer them a low-cost Linux version of Office?

    why would any linux user use MS Office, especially when they have to pay for it?

    considering heaps of people use OpenOffice.org and the like on Windows, I really don't see many people using MS Office under linux.

    1. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by Elektrance · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think there would be a market for this. Consider an IT department that is transistioning to Linux. If they can use Microsoft Office on Linux, there is one less area to re-train the users, saving the business money and time. That is of course assuming that the cost of the Office liscenses is less than the cost of training all your users.

    2. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by giampy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can think of many reasons why one would like to use it,

      100% compatibility with the other 95% of office users is one ...

      --
      We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
    3. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by Sogol · · Score: 2, Insightful
      if I had money free (ie, not a student) I would happily donate to some OSS projects


      I used to say that when I was a student. Now I have a family to support....

    4. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by GreatDrok · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when does having a copy of MS Office guarantee 100% compatibility with other MS Office users? I have Office X on my Mac and it can't successfully share files with the PC version. Fonts and formatting get minced so I don't see any reason why a Linux version would be any different. I can run Office under Linux using Crossover and it is pretty good but none of the MS Office formats should be used if you want to preserve and share your documents, the 'format' just isn't good enough. OpenOffice files transfer much better between Windows, Linux and MacOS X.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    5. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by Elektrance · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, this decision (although I personally believe it will never be made) has little to do with the GNU/Linux community. If MS decides to make Office for Linux, all the community can do is not use it.

      However, this will not stop a company interested in lowering IT costs, and remaining on Office.

      Most companies are not interested in F/OSS as a political ideal, but as a means to an end. As such, they are going to use any combination of proprietary & open software that they are comfortable with using, and lowers the bottom line.

    6. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why shouldn't they?

      Because they would be exposed to competition in office suites. If I write an excellent office suite for Windows, and somehow have a real chance to take on MSOffice, all they have to do is wait for the next deadly Windows worm, release a patch that everybody will have to install, and attach it something that will make my program crash; then blame me for my poor programming.


      In Windows they own the house, in Linux they would be guests. Windows/Office is a powerful combination, and it makes no sense to break it. Rather, they will give discounts on Windows, give away software (typically to schools), or tolerate piracy as in China, so that when the market gets rich they can start some enforcing.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    7. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by Undertaker43017 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Office on Windows is platform dependant, but I use Office X on OS X and it works flawlessly and is not platform dependant, except for the Carbon integration.

      Office X wasn't my first choice but unforunately it ended up being the only real choice since, at the time, OpenOffice was woefully behind for OS X and requires you to run X11, which ends up being like an emulation layer on OS X.

      It seems if they can do such a nice job on Office X (I personally think it is 100% better than the Windows version of Office), then doing a native port to Linux shouldn't be that hard.

    8. Re:Office for Linux? who'd use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you sure it's due to crossplatform issues and not crossversion issues? Different versions of Word are notorious for playing badly with each other.

  2. Er, OpenOffice by DrStrangeLug · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people have already decided to go for a linux OS then finding a good open source office suite to go with it is no problem at all. I think the time for MS to try to gain a foothold in the linux application market was about 2 years ago and they missed it.

    1. Re:Er, OpenOffice by Clansman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Finding an 'OK' office suite is fine but finding one that completely replicates the entire functionality of MS Office (especially macros, pivot tables etc) is not that easy. The current options are either much slower or as fast but with half the features.

      Now it's true that most people dont' use most features but, in any reasonably sized organisation, there will be enough people doing important work using these extra features that will make the transition require like for like feature replacement.

      Someone mentioned Crossover Office from Codeweavers. This is an excellent product as it runs Word and Excel perfectly and much faster than Oopen Office on any platform. If MS produced a native version, it would save me having to pay extra for Crossover.

  3. If MS were not so proud... by otisg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would venture to say that if Microsoft were smart and if they could lose some of their stubborn pride, they would adopt a UNIX kernel the way Apple did.

    Before that move, Apple's Mac OSes were a joke - constantly crashing, freezing, etc. They integrated BSD kernel and built their pretty UI and nice apps on top. Good move by Steve Jobs. Apple lost nothing. This is the real reason why MacOS is so popular among the 'computer owners elite' today.

    Microsoft could do the same and really hurt all of their competition whose existence is based on the fragility of various/all Windows versions.

    Of course, MS could also just make their own Linux distro (MS Linux), make it better than RedHat and 100% free. That's an easy way to get all other Linux distro companies out of business. With their thick bank accounts holding over 30 billion USD, they could offer it for free for a looong looong time. On the other hand, that's Linux distro companies' bread and butter.

    --
    Simpy
    1. Re:If MS were not so proud... by acvh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For desktop use XP is as reliable as Linux. Comparing it to OS 9 is off base.

      MS controls 100% of the market that they want to, the businesses that pay for software. Why change?

    2. Re:If MS were not so proud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Condition variables (available under any half decent implementation of Pthreads Posix standard) give you just that kind of ability.

      Granted you don't have the ability to set up asynchronous callbacks to be called when something does happen to your mutex/socket.

      Before someone points out that a call to select() will tell you when data becomes available for reading, the important distinction is that in the asynchronous callback model in Win32 you get told when and don't have to hang around waiting for it to happen. Obviously you could simulate something along the same lines by having a select() in a single thread notify you (or do a callback) when data is available but in Win32 this takes almost no effort on your part.

      If doing communication based software that has to actually be cross platform (and your stuck with C++ for some reason) then ACE is your saviour.

      It is a bit unfair criticising the features of the Pthreads model vs the Win32 model - as with everything Microsoft they only had to make it work on one platform theirs ! Portability and real cross platform applicability does come at a cost.

    3. Re:If MS were not so proud... by steinnes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, that was a really good move for apple. I recently read in a history of Mac OS X, that it is in fact just the latest "NeXT Step" platform.

      NeXT Step was from the start (according to the document I read) a BSD like system built on a Mach microkernel, and with a windowing system on top of the BSD.

      So what happens is that Jobs is forced out of Apple, he starts NeXT, returns to apple a few years later, and uses the stuff he started at NeXT, thus effectively Steve Jobs never stopped working towards a better Mac! :-)

      Too bad (or not?) that Microsoft's top executives have historically lacked the vision and drive exhibited by Apple (most notably Jobs maybe?), but compensated for lack of vision with ruthless business tactics?

    4. Re:If MS were not so proud... by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not pride, it's wisdom. First of all, as for changing their kernel to Unix, there's many things wrong with that plan. First off, as Twylite points out below, the latest NT kernels aren't less stable than Unix. There are several reason to choose Linux over 2000/2003 for a production server, but stability isn't one of them. You're right, Mac OS before X was unstable, as were Windows 3, 95, 98, and ME. Win 2000 and 2003 aren't.

      Secondly, if they were to change their kernel to a Unix flavor, all of a sudden the most important code in their entire company would be code that almost none of their best programmers were familiar with, and it would break compatibility with almost all of their existing code. The time spent playing catch-up to something like that could cripple even a company as dominant as Microsoft.

      As for porting Office to Linux, the only gain would be sales. It's not like there's all these Linux users out there who would be seduced by Office into switching to a Windows OS. If there's any switching, it will be in the opposite direction. As for the sales themselves, they would be insignificantly small. Linux and other Unix flavors are doing very well in the server market, but miserably in the desktop market. Office is for the desktop market, not the server. Look at the size of the Linux desktop market (already we're talking small). Now cut that down to the fraction who are willing to pay anything for an Office suite when they could get a free alternative. Now cut that down to the slice who would use a closed-source MS Office suite when they could use an open, standards-compliant alternative. Multiply this tiny slice of users by the suggested reduced price of MS Office for Linux, and you have the amount to be gained from this proposed port. Can you possibly argue that this tiny number outweighs the cost of porting it, combined with the incentive you create for MS Office users to switch to Linux?

      Microsoft knows exactly what they're doing. The reason they aren't switching to Unix or porting Office to Linux is because they're both bad ideas, not because of stubborn pride.

    5. Re:If MS were not so proud... by ookaze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What ??!!! STraw men and red herrings !!!

      Stop spreading such lies. Each one of your sentence seems unfinished to spread half truths.
      Well, I suppose you know the Windows kernel pretty well. But it is NOT as solid as Linux, at best, it is as solid as the PART of Linux that deals with the same hardware and functionality. Windows still does not scale as well as Linux, even with threads
      on a single processor. It fails also faster under heavy load.

      And you are switching easy (and bloatty) API with "ahead of *nix" too. You misinterpret 1 call of an easy API which is equivalent to 4 or 5 different calls on *nix. You make the mistake of thinking "easy to program" = "kernel ahead". That is just not true. You can "wait for a mutex to be released or a socket to become readable" on *nix. It is harder to program, because you have to actually know what you are doing, to know the theory. So, you have a better scaling than on Windows, but it is harder to program, that I agree. That does not make the Win NT kernel more powerful. Most professors would tell you such a complicated API should never go into a kernel, especially on these topics of parallelism and concurrency. This is better left in user space, and you have several libraries that implements this for you on Linux if you need them.

      Perhaps *nix are showing their age, perhaps POSIX is showing its age, but saying that Linux is showing its age (compared to Win 2000, or even Win 2003) is nonsense.
      BTW, you change the subject from Linux to *nix in your post, I suppose it was done on purpose to spread more FUD.

    6. Re:If MS were not so proud... by mosschops · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The perceived frailty of MS is (a) a hangover from the Win95/98/Me crap and (b) because of the UI and application communication layers, not the kernel.

      What about the current inability to cancel create requests in the kernel? That's responsible for a lot of application-level hangs, without involving 3rd-party drivers. You also end up with unkillable processes - not just Unix-like zombie processes, but multi-megabyte monsters that won't go away. In such situations Shutdown is merely a wishful request, and even W2K/XP will struggle to complete it with hung applications.

      And many aspects of Windows, from a developer perspective, are ahread of *nix.

      Such as? I've been coding for Windows for 10 years, and I still yearn for the simpler and more powerful approach of Unix coding (which is mainly in my spare time at present). From a coder's point of view, the only thing Windows has going for it is Visual Studio, which is still much nicer than KDevelop. The new Visual Studio 2005 Beta is very sluggish, so I hope they've not ruined it.

      I had the misfortune to be working on a file-system driver under Windows last year, and it's beyond a joke. Writing even a simple new filesystem requires spending thousands of dollars on the MS IFS kit, and it's far from easy from there. It's a complete spaghetti of interactions between your driver and the cache manager + OS, with many subtle pitfalls. Why else could OSR charge $50K for a driver framework kit just to aid development?? Did I mention that a file-system driver for 9x/Me is completely different from NT/W2K/XP? Now compare this to the simplicity of the VFS layer Unix, and weep...

      Windows seems to go out of its way to make everything complicated, just for the sake of it. I'm pleased to see the push for .NET and Web Services is going "so well", as it's another step down the road to hell.

      30 year old technology may be "mature", but its not always The Right Thing To Do for the future.

      If it works well, why change it? As a coder I'd rather work with a tried an tested system. With Windows I seem to too much time testing on and coding round the subtle differences between different versions of Windows than , and I'm sure Longhorn is going to be yet another version to include.

    7. Re:If MS were not so proud... by Twylite · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry fuckwit, but I learned multithreading and most of my programming skills on FreeBSD and Linux. At some point you have to use your ridiculously fucking power general purpose threads and asynchronous IO to solve a problem rather than just mentally masturbating about it on Slashdot, and in some instance that problem might just be that you need to resume processing once either a mutex is available or a socket is readable. If you every studied software engineering you'd probably even think about abstracting that particlar problem as a function if you use it more than once. But guess what? You can't solve that problem on Linux, because it doesn't have the kernel primitives to facilitate waiting on IO and synchronisation events simultaneously. So take a flying fuck off a short pier, get a clue what you're talking about before you sprout your shit, and perhaps you may want to read some books on why developers who know a fuckload more than you do think that the Win32 threading and synchronisation model is more powerful for application development than anything available in the *nix world.

      --
      i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
  4. Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would Micro$oft make the Linux platform more appealing by creating apps for it?

  5. They won't ! by jalet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They won't embrace it, because they can't extend and extinguish it as they have done for other software.

    Thanks for the most part to RMS and the GNU GPL.

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  6. The article doesn't think things through by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It lists two reasons people are moving to Linux/OpenOffice, but doesn't address either of them.
    Quote: In November, 2003, the government of Brazil ordered its agencies to use Linux and other open-source software as much as possible. A month later, Israel's Commerce Ministry announced a decision to migrate to OpenOffice, an open-source desktop suite that runs on Linux and Apple's (AAPL ) OS X system, as well as on Windows. The city governments of Paris and Munich both announced their intention to switch to Linux and open-source applications. In Peru, a state legislature nearly passed a law banning the use of proprietary software by government agencies. And the governments of China, Korea, and Japan have announced an alliance to promote open-source software.
    All of these organisations are switching because they don't want to use proprietary software. Providing a Linux version of MS Office won't solve this, as there's no chance in hell MS will release it as OSS.
    So that's one of the concerns the article mentions, but leaves unaddressed.
    Second is the price. Why would MS offer Office for Linux for a low price, when it can just offer existing products (Windows XP plus Office) for a low price, ensuring a lock-in that wouldn't occur with Office/Linux?

  7. Re:That would be a wise move by Lethyos · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Support for TCP/IP in Windows 3.11


    Are you implying that Microsoft provided this? If so, that is not correct. The product you're thinking of that brought TCP/IP to to Windows 3.x is Trumpet Winsock.

    --
    Why bother.
  8. it would be their death by Cheeze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They only make money off of their OS and office suite. If they offered a low-cost office suite, no one would need the expensive operating system or expensive office suite. Who really wants to pay $750 for Longhorn, and then pay another few hundred for an Office suite? Then, 5 years down the road, have to upgrade again because MS stops offering bug fixes. Multiply that by 500 workstations and you have a large budget that you're basically giving MS. That probably funds upgrades to calc.exe and clock.exe.

    --
    Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
  9. This is a rather moot point really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is rather comical to say the least. And while I will most likly be marked down for stating the truth, or not bothering to create an account to post my view once a year, Take this for what you will.

    The desktop market is what...at least 75% dominated by microsoft? linux has taken what...8 years to cut into it 10%? This translate into a few pennies less per day the company makes..on just one of it's fronts. I am sure people would love to dream of the day *nix is on equal ground in the desktop market as windows, it is simply not going to happen in the next 10 years minimum.

    Why you ask? driver support for new, exotic hardware. Gaming support(DX9 ring a bell?). propritory drivers and software to power those drivers. software users have been using for years and years. All of these are things linux could "do" per se..or any other *nix. just not now. The turnaround rate to get new drivers, software, and ports made is simply too long to be useful. and that is a simple, painful fact when it comes to desktops.

    As for corperate resources using linux in a widescale deployment..There are just too few companies that are willing to try that. Why? It takes time for hundreds or thousands of people to "relearn" how to use thier computer. remember that most of the work force in the world had "windows for dummies" to get them employed years ago? Companies do not want to take the time, or the money training the entire staff..for such a change. it would end up costing the same, if not more, then windows products. Not to mention the time lost in the process..That in itself could cost far, far more then the liecences. This is just another simple fact that people tend to turn a blind eye to.

    And before the zealots start, I am a unix sys admin..have been for 8 years now. Please do not start with the whole "blah blah blah LINUX R00LZ blah" rant, Because it serves no point. Direct that energy to making drivers and supporting hardware and ports.

    Either way. Microsoft really has nothing to fear from Apple or Linux...or unix either in the desktop market. Even if Apple and linux combined have 40% of the desktop market..that translates to what..only 100 billion a year in revenue for microsoft off windows? Please.

    --nitedog

  10. Microsoft will never offer linux software by matdodgson · · Score: 2, Insightful



    To do so they would be admitting that Windows is on the way out and they'd never do that. While they have Windows they control everything else in the software market - they will never give that up under any circumstances.

    The sad fact is that the desktop market is owned by Microsoft and this will never change. Corporations, who are ultimately the ones that decide on standards through their software purchasing habits, are more interested in playing it safe. Most corporate IT decision makers are more like politicians in their laziness and inaction - they're more interested in their pay packet and their reputation.

    The smart corporations have seen the way MS react to the threat of a Linux deployment and will start their own. It is clear that the threat of a large scale Linux deployment is a way to reduce MS software licensing costs. Unfortunately most corporations do not follow through on the deployment.

    In any case it's much easier to sack IT people in western countries and rehire them in India than to retrain your entire work force to use a different OS. I mean how many people who ring the help desk would even notice the difference?

    </rant>

    1. Re:Microsoft will never offer linux software by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the desktop market is owned by Microsoft and this will never change

      Right, just like how the computer industry as a whole is still dominated by IBM.

  11. Re:M$ on linux by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "First of all I don't think it would be an easy port to make considering how M$likes to intermingle it's OS with it's applications."

    While part of that is true, i'd like to bring to your attention the nice, shiny boxes that hold MS Office for OSX.

  12. It's not Windows, it's OFFICE! by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Microsoft's stranglehold on many organizations (including the University where I work) is not based on its operating system, it's based on MS Office. THE issue is whether or not people can exchange files. Training issues involved in using a different user interface are secondary, and minor.

    This is the mechanism by which MS can keep Apple in check. At any time, Apple knows that MS can stop providing Office for the Mac, neatly pulling the plug on any problematic growth in Mac user share.

    If Microsoft cares about keeping Windows on desktops, it would be utterly foolish to release a version of Office for Linux. Unlike OSX, Linux is free, removing one of the barriers to acceptance. If Office were available for Linux, corporate types (and Universities) would very quickly embrace Linux as the desktop standard. It's a no-brainer.

  13. Re:Wh make a Linux Office version by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually it will be called 'Lindows', as Microsoft now has the rights to that name after the settlement with Linspire (formerly Lindows).

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  14. One step further: MS Linux... by Thimble · · Score: 3, Insightful

    MS Linux bundled with a compatible MS Office makes more sense...

    1. Re:One step further: MS Linux... by pappy97 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. If MS puts out their own brand of Linux, they could kill the open-source movement. Too bad (For them) that they don't have any business people who understand how to fight fire with fire.