Ballmer Admits Google Apps Are Biting Into MS Office

twitter points out coverage of a discussion between Steve Ballmer and two Gartner analysts in which the Microsoft CEO admits that Google Apps is enjoying an advantage over Office by users who want to share their documents. He points to Office Live as their response to Google, and adds, "Google has the lead, but, if we're good at advertising, we'll compete with them in the consumer business." Whether or not they're good at advertising is still in question, if their recent attempts are any indication. Ballmer also made statements indicating some sort of arrangement with Yahoo! could still be in the works, but Microsoft was quick to step on that idea. Regarding Windows Vista, he said Microsoft was prepared for people to skip it altogether, and that Microsoft would be "ready" when it was time to deploy Windows 7.

Comments

Well, here we go

[morgan_greywolf]

Regarding Windows Vista, he said Microsoft was prepared for people to skip it altogether, and that Microsoft would be "ready" when it was time to deploy Windows 7.

If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.

Re:Well, here we go

[Darkness404]

If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop. Now's the time for OSS developers to step up to plate and deliver a solution that will make Windows 7 look like child's play. I'm game.

Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows, and will be by Windows 7. The problem is, some people will never use Linux unless it has a uniform UI (which, have you ever seen Windows?, Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products.) and other will not move to Linux unless *insert specialty application or game* is available on Linux. Still, the vast majority of users will use whatever is on their computer, be it Linux, Vista, XP, OS X, BSD, etc.

Re:Well, here we go

[grub]

Linux's UI is more uniform than even all of MS's products

Unless you're referring to the uniformity of a nice 80x24 text console, you're way off. Unix/Linux have oodles of different window managers.

Re:Well, here we go

[ColdWetDog]

Once the last hurdle is crossed, you can say good bye to Windows.

Two concepts (not mutually exclusive):

1. Enterprise space - along with whatever mission critical application you care to name that isn't available on Linux
2. Photoshop - and no, we aren't talking about GIMP. It has to be the genuine locked down Adobe product (for all of those big commercial shops).

Yes, you can run Photoshop on OS X but there are many (perhaps most) LARGE 'artistic' groups in advertising and publishing that run on Windows.

So Linux may well make inroads in the individual user space, perhaps even in the SOHO space, but until application developers embrace Linux (or OS X or anybody else), it's gonna be Windows all the way down.

Re:Well, here we go

[Darkness404]

Yes, tons of window managers, but the average user only has to pick one of 2 (or three if you count in XFCE) but if you stick with all the apps with a G as the first letter you can be assured a standard UI if you are using Gnome, likewise if K is the first letter you can be assured that it uses a standard UI for KDE, compare that with MS who has tons of different icons, etc. for different products which are all in the same time frame and first-party applications, see http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/microsoft-learn-from-apple-II.media/vista.png for an example of what I'm talking about.

Re:Well, here we go

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows...

Like what? And why should customers care about it?

Well, OS X has drag and drop system services so users and applications can provide universal functionality, like grammar checking in all applications. Linux has more cleanly implemented network services and both have better standards compliance so you don't end up using as many redundant services in mixed OS environments (eg, UPNP and ZeroConf to discover other network services, like when you run Adobe CS on Windows). Both have better and more granular and usable ACLs for userspace applications. I could go on, but I'm not investing a lot of time, especially responding to an AC. Register an account already.

* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem. I could create a .sh file that deleted .config files or something equally evil and tell your grandma to run it and she will... * Malware - Again not specific to Windows.

Let's be clear. Trojans, viruses and worms are all distinct and all problems, but of the three worms are the largest problem and Windows is the most vulnerable due to a variety of design decisions, even if there were no install base disparity. Malware is a theoretical threat on Linux and OS X, but a practical, day-to-day problem on Windows and theories that if market share were to become more balanced are simply that, theories and not applicable to making practical decisions today.

* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc ,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.

Don't even understand what you're trying to argue here. Please be more clear.

Re:Well, here we go

[Darkness404]

* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.

* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.

Oh, right. I forgot, your browser is clearly supposed to install all kinds of random crap that messes with settings and toolbars without prompts. Oh wait, other browsers don't do that? Other browsers prompt you before they do things like that? Yes, MS managed to fix a lot of that with IE7, but its still not an excuse for them doing that for the ~2-3 years of IE6.

* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates? Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications? Who pays for the massive bandwidth? What if you're not connected online,etc ,etc. Again. Doesnt scale, buddy.

Lets see... On an average Windows install, the only software that isn't usually pirated, is made by Microsoft in the form of Office/Works/etc., An anti-virus/spyware application but the rest is all freeware/shareware/OSS. Most people's software is downloaded. You make a good point about games, but it honestly wouldn't be hard for a game maker to include a binary to run for Linux, same with commercial software. The thing is, boxed commercial software is a really, really, really small part of the average user's computer even on Windows. The "massive bandwidth" would be provided in the same way it always has, via mirrors and the official site. Today, most computers that are not in specialty use are connected online. If they aren't, it isn't that hard to go to a library or a friends house, or buy a CD with some .deb files in them, double click and type in your password.

Linux also has the advantage of customization. For example, its a pain to create a customized XP/Vista install disk, its trivial for someone to create a modified Ubuntu or other distro with the applications you need.

Re:Well, here we go

[mrsteveman1]

There are some things that used to be architectural flaws with Windows services that caused security problems but they are supposed to be fixed in Vista now.

Crashes, I have seen a blue screen reference MS-provided code, but upon digging deeper i found conclusively that it was a third party driver responsible for the crash, and removing that driver fixed the problem.

Drivers on Linux i agree, the Linux driver model is flawed as you noted. The effects of this flawed plan are evident, some things work (months after the release of the hardware in many cases, if ever), some don't work at all, and some things sort of work but with caveats. Distros make up for some of the problems by including drivers ahead of their upstream scheduled inclusion, and including closed source drivers, though they get blasted for it by fanatics.

Re:Well, here we go

[sloanster]

> Enterprise space - along with whatever mission critical application you care to name that isn't available on Linux

LOL, ever heard of Oracle, IBM or Novell? The enterprise isn't a problem for linux, but the home market has large legacy install of peecee software that will take time to replace.

Re:Well, here we go

[SL Baur]

The problem is you can't walk into a store and get a computer with Linux on it, unless you want to go for a netbook.

You can in a free country. My next computer purchase will be a Linux preinstall from Octagon. Or a competitor a few stores down. You can buy Linux preinstalls from anywhere in Manila.

Re:Well, here we go

[akoltz]

Technologically, Linux and OS X are light years ahead of Windows...

This is just wrong. Regardless of how you feel about Windows as a whole, the NT kernel is easily among the best, if not the best on the market.

Re:Well, here we go

[3p1ph4ny]

This is coming from a developer perspective, but I think two of these apply (maybe moreso) to your average user:

1. Packages. Specifically, aptitude. It is unbelievably easy to find software to open weird file formats, play simple games, or speak some weird protocol. This is the single #1 feature Linux (BSDs too, possibly) has going for it. Packages are awesome for experienced users and newbies. If you say otherwise, you really haven't tried a well maintained distribution yet.

Now, if a package doesn't do what you want (this is what a lot of power users complain about), compile it yourself. /usr/local exists, use it. Again, grandma isn't going to need a custom compiled version of Wine, but I do. It's therefore not an issue that she is forced to use the one in the repo.

2. $SHELL shell, and the associated core utils. I use bash, but that's probably because it's what I learned first. I know my grandmother, my mother, and my girlfriend don't want to use the CLI, so it's not a major feature for most. I don't care. The Windows shell and core utils suck, and bash, csh, ksh, *sh are better.

3. UI consistency. ZOMFG WUT? Yes; I use KDE, and it kicks ass. There is consistency between the file browser, the archive utility, the media player, etc. You'd be hard pressed to argue that explorer, Windows Media Player (or winamp, or foobar, or whatever), and winrar or winzip all have the same interface.

However, their KDE counterparts Dolphin, Ark, and Amarok all look the same. If I want to change a setting, I know where to look instead of having to try "Edit -> Preferences" then "Tools -> Options" then "Options -> Settings" then... Also, similar settings are grouped under similar headings.

Those are just three things off of the top of my head.

Re:Well, here we go

[wisty]

Anyone who says that Linux is technologically light years ahead of Windows is ... wrong. Stuff like OLE, the Com interface, the Jet database (which does the job of SQLite, not the other ones), data sharing API's and so on are much better in Windows that Linux. Yes, I have heard of Wine, and Mono. They are not the main point of of the open source software ecosystem, which has different goals to Microsoft; both technologically and from a business point of view..

Of course, you could say that Linux (and OSX) has a better design, or that more free software works better on Linux, both of which are clear advantages. No argument there.

Or that consumers (non-programmers) need more killer apps to show them the power of plain text (which is the underlying point of Linux), as opposed to embedded applications and 'rich' (ugly) API and data formats.

Re:Well, here we go

[lysergic.acid]

easier for the average user to do what?

someone who's used KDE or Gnome since 1995 would find it easier to use KDE/Gnome than !KDE or !Gnome. what does that prove? unless you're trying to argue that people should stick with the same operating system that they've used in the past because users are too stupid to deal with change, i don't really see your point. that has nothing to do with UI uniformity or the usability of a particular OS.

there's more to software user-friendliness/usability than just resistance to change.

Re:Well, here we go

[gallwapa]

Most people's software is downloaded?

Not to quote Sarah Palin, but "Joe Sixpack" and Grandma have a lot of legit software. I think it is a stretch to say most software is pirated. Do you know how many people are STILL buying WinZip? Or those little "Reg cleaners"? Games?

C'mon...

Re:Well, here we go

[Nursie]

The enterpirse space is embracing linux. It's a major player in the server space and enterprise desktops are getting more linux friendly all the time (it's an option at our enterprise).

Re:Well, here we go

[techno-vampire]

You ask some good questions and make some good points. However, I can tell you one place where Linux (and, AFAIK FreeBSD) are light years ahead of anything from Microsoft and have been for years: Linux partitions don't need regular defragging. They can go for years without needing one and, unless they're over 80% full or so and have large files that are constantly changing they probably never will. This isn't because the file system itself is better, but because Linux doesn't jam the files one right next to the other like Windows does; it leaves room between them for growth. If MS really wanted to "embrace and extend," they'd rewrite the part of the OS that decides where files go to be more like the Linux model and do away with defrag altogether.

Re:Well, here we go

[node 3]

If you ask me, Windows 7 looks a lot like a response to Linux on the desktop.

Windows 7 is a response to Linux the same way Coke Zero is a response to Tab.

Windows 7 is a response to Vista. People turned down the bloated system that is Vista, so Microsoft has made promises to fix all the issues and release a new system in two years' time. But as is always the case, the promises will be forgotten and the release date will slip again and again. But Windows 8, now that's going to really rock...

Re:Well, here we go

[HangingChad]

Choice is Good. Specialization is for insects.

Microsoft Dung Beetle. Now that's a catchy product name!

Re:Well, here we go

[SL Baur]

I hate to give a long response to an AC ...

Like what? And why should customers care about it? Your responses will show if you're a troll, or if you have anything technical reasoning behind it.

Linux, like Mac OS X and really all modern Unix-derived systems do not crash. I've only run production quality Linux systems since the late 1990s and I cannot remember the last time I've had the system crash. That equates X Server crashes with system crashes by the way. The last reliable X server crash I had was in the late 1990s when XEmacs was trying to display the Mule hello page. I got patches into XEmacs to fix that side and patches into the X server to fix that side and Life Moved On.

* Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem. I could create a .sh file that deleted .config files or something equally evil and tell your grandma to run it and she will.

True, but deceptive. Before Microsoft Windows 95 vulgarized the internet, it was long known that running arbitrary executable code coming across the wire was A Very Bad Idea. The decision by Microsoft to jump into internet support *and* provide default unprompted execute support for that poisoned enough minds to make it an industry standard.

* Malware - Again not specific to Windows.

No, but it was Microsoft Windows that popularized the idea of execute any old thing including malware by default.

* Crashes - Yeah, comeback with real proof.

It's your reputation, not ours. My best anecdotal evidence was something that crossed an internal corporate email group where I wrote something like "Microsoft Windows XP is the most stable O/S they've ever released because it only crashes 1 or 2 times a week." and among the responses I got back were "I wish it were that few ...".

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter where the blame actually lies (perhaps it does lie on enterprise crapware that the Microsoft Windows users are forced to use, but whatever). It's the fact that the platform does crash and people are conditioned to it. The last supposedly all intranet web meeting I had to attend at work, was delayed due to software issues on Microsoft Windows XP. Money was lost while a bunch of highly paid engineers were looking at a blank screen. Says a lot about True Cost of Ownership too...

In the meantime, my desktop machine (running RHEL) has only ever been rebooted on power failure or moving the equipment since it was deployed.

* Drivers - Add all the drivers to the kernel? So the manufacturers of devices have to wait till the kernel maintainer decides on his own sweet time when to integrate patches. AND THEN wait till picks them up downstream. Nice solution. Doesnt scale, buddy.

Greg KH has gotten into the latest Linux kernel a staging area where half-worked drivers can get wider code distribution and more eyes and hands to fix them up. It remains to be seen how well this work, but they are trying.

I used to think the amount of code changes that is currently going on in the Linux was unsustainable with control of the final tree in a single person's hands. Linus proved me wrong.

The amount of code that goes into the Linux kernel every day (on average) is astonishing.

* Applications - All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications. Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates?

While I have no problem with proprietary software, like games, on something like Linux or OpenBSD/Mac OS X, I do have a problem with the Software As A Service model. It sucks and I agree with you on this point.

The one and only thing I thank Microsoft for is that at the time it was strangling the PC market, it also killed X terminals, which were cheap, but an abomination to use, in my opinion. I thank them for that.

Re:Well, here we go

[BrokenHalo]

Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.

If Windows can be infected with viruses or malware within hours of installation, with almost no user input, that is an OS problem. Lame excuses not accepted.

Crashes - Yeah, comeback with real proof.

Having just spent the last few hours rescuing a friend's computer when Microsoft had advised her to re-format and reinstall (which would have blown away her PhD thesis in the process) after a crash from which it wouldn't reboot, I think I'm in a good position to answer that. This lady was only running MS Word at the time, and last time I looked, that was MS code.

I have been using Linux on all of my desktop machines since 1995, and I have never had a kernel crash. No, NOT EVEN ONCE. Sure, I have had the occasional panic on bootup when I've done something stupid like forgetting to build in support for my root filesystem type, but I don't think that counts.

Re:Well, here we go

[SanityInAnarchy]

Viruses - THis is not a OS problem, its a user problem.... Malware - Again not specific to Windows.

Granted.

But I'll take an OS any day that works with me on this problem, not against me. Yes, Windows is trying to improve with Vista -- too little, too late. Too many programs that won't scale to limited user accounts, no unified system-wide updates.

Prove conclusively, once and for all that X percentage of crashes are because of MS code, Vs. X percentage of crashes on Linux.

Doesn't matter. If the crashes were because of a driver (that is, the manufacturer's fault), and Linux has a more solid driver for that (but it's in-kernel, and therefore unofficial), then Linux wins that argument.

Drivers - Add all the drivers to the kernel? So the manufacturers of devices have to wait till the kernel maintainer decides on his own sweet time when to integrate patches. AND THEN wait till picks them up downstream.

This assumes several things:

- That all drivers must be in the kernel source. There are drivers which are separately maintained, just like on Windows.
- That all drivers are even in-kernel. The bulk of printer drivers, for example, are PPDs, used by CUPS -- entirely userspace.
- That the kernel maintainer is the one integrating. Nope, that's up to you. The kernel maintainer just decides if your patch makes it into the kernel. Nothing stopping you from maintaining it as a separate module, or letting distros merge it into their own kernel forks.
- That the kernel maintainer is a different person than the manufacturer.
- That the manufacturer is even involved in the process, beyond publishing specs.
- That any of this is remotely an issue for OS X. Apple pretty much gets to pick and choose what hardware will be supported, and how.

All the software in the world at a single spot. i.e. Google for applications.

Or search your package manager.

Who addresses commercial software? Who handles payments for this? Who will handle updates?

If you're on Ubuntu, the answer to all of the above is "Canonical". I can buy Parallels directly from Canonical, add an official repository, and install it (and get updates) through the same channels I install all my other software.

Or you could ask Dell how they handle the Fluendo codecs. I'm betting it's the same mechanism, though.

Do users want to download Multi GB Games/Applications?

I don't know that I've seen a multi-GB downloadable game or application for Linux. Sure, the whole distro is huge, but individual apps aren't, even when you factor in needed libraries.

Note: That was "downloadable". Most games for Linux come in a small-ish demo form through the repositories. If you buy the full game (for Windows, presumably), you can copy the game files off the disc, type in the CD key, and you've now got the full game -- but the patches still come through the package manager. Honestly, the binaries are small enough.

Who pays for the massive bandwidth?

Again, Canonical.

Are you not aware of how existing package managers work, for existing apps?

What if you're not connected online

Then, presumably, you get a disc which has the files on it. Granted, no one's built a disc that is specifically a compilation of all the demo versions of various games -- but it could be done.

I'll wait for some real responses now...

I actually like the UI.

And I like the fact that if I didn't like the UI, there are dozens (hundreds?) of window managers, all compatible enough that I can run any Linux app on them -- or write my own.

I like the fact that I can have both a rock-solid OS (and one which doesn't nag me all the time) and better desktop effects than Vi

Re:Well, here we go

[hairyfeet]

Hell,I'll probably get flamed to negative 1000 for this,but what the hey,I've got Karma to burn. If you want to know how to get Joe and Jane home user(along with Sam SMB) I'll be happy to tell you. As someone who has been working in PC repair more years than I care to count,as well as someone who tried to sell Linux boxes and watched them rot on the shelves,I can happily tell you the problems that need fixing. Here they are-

1.-Make an ndiswrapper for those damned Lexmark all in one printers! Surely it can't be anymore difficult than those funky wireless "cards" which are nothing but a firmware chip and Windows. Those Lexmarks ain't changed in ages and are calling Windows GDI for everything so surely someone who can code ought to be able to figure that one out. But WAY too many of the home users(probably 85-95% here) have one of those damned printers. They are cheap,make good pictures,and do what they want it to do,so they WON'T go buy a $150 printer just to use a new and strange OS.
2.-Games. Even those girls that say "Eeew,games are stupid and I can't see why you waste you time with those!" actually have at least one game they play(for some reason it is almost always AoE ! or II. I swear it is like catnip to females). While Wine is nice in theory,it is just too damned complex for Joe and Jane. It needs to work when you stick a disc in,ala "clicky clicky,next next next". If they can stick their Windows game disc and go Clicky Clicky,then they are happy campers. Which brings me to number three-
3.-WalMart and Best Buy. Joe and Jane don't want to find their software by looking through some repo and trying to figure out what they want by some description that may be over their heads,they want to look at pretty pictures with simple descriptions so it is easy to choose. So maybe someone can talk Shuttleworth into either packaging similar Linux programs(games pack,office pack,school pack,etc) into a nice set of CD or DVDs that can sit on a shelf,or perhaps have the repos have nice little screenshots of the apps with very simple descriptions and a "learn more" button that would give a more in depth explanation.
4.-Finally for the SMBs. MSFT may hate it and just wish it would die,but there is a damned good reason why VB6 is still the number three business language. It is because VB is the engine that runs many a SMB. I can't count the number of times I've walked into a place and their mission critical app,be it a POS,a billing app,customer database,etc, was a VB app.For SMBs VB just works and works well for those little "one of a kind" personalized apps that all SMBs seem to have a need for. An easy to use VB plugin would go a long way to converting your SMBs. Sadly though you'll never be able to convert around 25% thanks to those damned IE Intranet ActiveX laden "apps".

So there you have it,my suggestions for switching Joe and Jane and Sam without having them go running back to Windows at the first sign of trouble. While some would probably be easiest to fix by helping out the ReactOS guys(and I'm sure they'd like the help) others like the repo idea could be implemented by any major distro with some work. But these are the ones that have been deal breakers when I have tried to convert users to Linux. Maybe if Win7 turns into a giant pile of super suck like Vista it will be easier to get them to switch. Or maybe they'll just do like most of my current customers and hang onto XP for dear life,I just don't know. But having even just 1 and 3 would go a LONG way to helping guys like me switch the customers I see walk through my door.

Re:Well, here we go

[remmelt]

From my experience, you don't have to access the "command" any more, or at least a lot less then before.

Debian/Ubuntu has apt, and has loads of stuff in their repositories. Ubuntu even enables multiverse by default, as far as I know. If not, it's a click away. If it's not in the repositories, it can be packaged as a .deb by the package maintainer, and yes you can double click those, fill in your password and it installs, without any need for the "command."
Software developers for Windows now make elaborate installers, making a deb and an rpm won't cost them any more time.

I understand why people get directed to the command line a lot though. Linux is still a power user OS, and power users often use the command line, because it gets things done faster and more efficiently in a lot of cases. So, this is what they know. They know how to set up X by editing xorg.conf. They'd rather use apt-get than synaptic. So, if you have a problem with your Linux install and ask the average user, you're likely to get a power user answer and it involves opening up the command prompt.
I do feel that Ubuntu is a step in the right direction. A lot of the howtos on their wiki and forum are focused on the GUI.

Re:Well, here we go

[rhsanborn]

Yes that is a perfect analogy. If the standard user hopped into an F1 car as opposed to their normal sedan, they'd have a hell of a time even figuring out how to put on their steering wheel, much less learning how to shift and how to drive around without killing himself.

Linux has made really huge strides with regards to a cleaner easier to navigate UI that is consistent (as long as you stick with just one). And driver support has been getting better all the time. But there are two issues that I've seen personally that will hold this up.

1) Driver support for new hardware. This isn't eally the fault of the people working on Linux drivers, people are still getting hardware from manufacturers for which there aren't, or aren't yet Linux drivers that just work. We're talking about average users here, so buying open hardware isn't an issue. They don't care. They want the really good deal that was advertised last month, and they're going to buy that one.

2) People are still trying to downplay software support and point to Linux alternatives. Again, people don't care. They have their favorite copy of game/finance/whatever software sitting around and they want to be able to install that.

I think we can hope that people in this community are a little more open to buying hardware that is OSS friendly, and likewise figure out how to use alternative software or get things working under Wine, etc. But there really is nothing wrong with people expecting to use their computer as an appliance. Right now, aside from people who want to use it simply as a web/email machine, or even have someone set it up with several apps and then never change anything, I don't think it's there yet. And it's definitely a catch 22 of whether user adoption brings more manufacturers/developers in line or manufacturers/devs bring users in line.

Re:Well, here we go

[rhsanborn]

But that's it. People are resistant to change. Not because change is scary. But because change is difficult. They don't want to put effort into relearning how to use their computer. Much the same way that they don't want to put effort into using their TV or their toaster. The computer is an appliance and they want it to just work, and they don't want to think about it. Really, there isn't anything wrong with that either.

Re:Well, here we go

[Martin Soto]

The problem with Linux, is that each app has its own widgets, its own theme, its own file selector etc. And when some programs install they don't even get into the menus so you can't open them. And some apps don't have packages for your distribution. And some apps only come as source. Etc.

When was the last time you saw a (desktop) Linux system in operation? 1998? Try installing a recent version of Ubuntu, for example. You will have a hard time to find a single application in the default install that doesn't fit the basic GNOME look-and-feel; and that includes using the same theme and file selector. Some applications, such as Firefox and OpenOffice, have their own widget sets (also under Windows, by the way), but they have been carefully adapted to the GNOME style and integrate quite well.

I'm a programmer and use Ubuntu as my only desktop system. Since years ago, the only interactive program I run regularly that doesn't fit the look-and-feel is emacs, and that's because I'm already addicted to emacs beyond recovery. But notice that if a wanted to have a 100% consistent environment, all I'd have to do would be switching to Eclipse, which adapts to the GNOME look-and-feel pretty well.

The 90s are long gone. Welcome to the future!

Re:Well, here we go

[AvitarX]

People are fighting K/G naming schemes; claiming it is stupid or childish.

Guess with of these are gnome and which are kde based on name:
GIMP
F-Spot
gThumb
Gwenview

Kde is fairly consistent with the K though, it just could be better. Gnome seams to be heading full steam away from the G.

Re:Well, here we go

[Tisha_AH]

Again, the point is completely missed. Using Google Apps, users can collaborate on works irrespective of the platform in use. (Windowz, OSX, Linux, phone or gaming platform)

Microsoft is going to roll an exclusively Windows solution for the Windows OS. If it bears any semblance to their previous efforts in collaborative groupware it will be irrelevant.

Re:Well, here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, and I just bought an AcerAspireOne with linux preloaded, off the shelf, from CanadaComputers on College Street in Toronto! :-)

http://www.canadacomputers.com/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=018911&cid=896.862

In fact, I'm posting right now, using it, in a Tim Hortons, of course! :-)

Re:Well, here we go

[techno-vampire]

Couldn't this be a case where *both* sides are partially right? Microsoft filesystems could be better designed. Linux filesystems could use a defragger. I'm certainly not too proud to admit defragging is a good idea!

There actually are defraggers for Linux, I'm told, but it's rare to need one. And, because they shove everything down to one end of the drive, they spoil the advantage in seek time that comes from keeping the heads halfway up. I've seen it claimed that it's better to back everything up, reformat and restore so that you end up with everything well spread out again but I'd not argue the point.

And, while I'm thinking about it, it's not that the Microsoft filesystems are badly designed, it's that Windows is programmed to put files one right after the other so that there's no room for growth and files quickly fragment. Microsoft doesn't need to rework NTFS, they need to rework their file location algorithm.

Re:Well, here we go

[the_B0fh]

Yet another fucking moron repeating crap. Find out why kde4 was released, and go read the part where it says "don't use it, not for end users" ya?

Google Apps is pretty useful

[yppiz]

I started a company last year, and I could have chosen to either: a) set up a Windows Server and buy multiple Office licenses, or b) sign up for Google Docs.

Docs has worked out really well for us.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Darkness404]

Or, set up a Linux server and use OOo and configure it to do a few backups or set up a RAID.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Anpheus]

Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Firehed]

Google Apps has the MAJOR advantage of having live document collaboration, which AFAIK isn't even close to available in MS Office or OpenOffice.org. For some people/companies this doesn't matter at all, but for others it'll make it the obvious choice. You can think of it like the collaborative features offered by Sharepoint and the like, but implemented in a way that is actually usable.

On the flip side, you're going to need a lot of love from Gears if a hosted solution scares you. While Docs is fine for what I do most of the time (and the rest of the time I really need more of a layout tool, like Apple's Pages), I envision them seeing a lot more adoption if there were a desktop app that synced up with the cloud (whether Google's, or your own internal setup which could be as simple as a network share). And of course, pretty much anything that's not MS Office tends to have compatibility issues with the MS Office-using rest of the world, whether you like it or not. You can whine all you want about the lack of truly open standards for document exchange (besides plain text) and I'd agree with you all day long, but that doesn't fix the problem.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[zmjjmz]

Or just install OpenGoo on a Linux server and have everyone work from there. This way you own the documents you upload.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[mrsteveman1]

I don't want goo on my server, i keep my porn elsewhere for a reason.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[stephanruby]

Or just install OpenGoo on a Linux server and have everyone work from there. This way you own the documents you upload.

What do you mean by saying "you own the documents you upload"? Are you talking about legal ownership or physical ownership?

There is nothing in the ToS of Google Apps that implies you don't own your own documents. And also, if you want physical local ownership, all of you have to do is enable Google Gears, and that will maintain local copies of your documents on your desktop/laptop -- so that you can keep on working completely disconnected from the internet -- should you ever need to.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Anonymous Coward]

You can whine all you want about the lack of truly open standards for document exchange (besides plain text) and I'd agree with you all day long, but that doesn't fix the problem.

No, but moving away from MS Office does.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Frosty Piss]

Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.

Maybe so, but honestly, Google Apps are not a particularly satisfying solution. Open Office is much much more suitable. Gmail maybe, but spreadsheets, word processing, and presentations? Google Apps just don't cut it.

In my opinion...

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[SL Baur]

Your solution is the most complicated to implement, even if it's the least expensive.

Perhaps, but how much are your company's documents worth to you?

I also would argue that Darkness404's idea would be the safest, regardless of cost.

Re:Google Apps is pretty useful

[Lemmy Caution]

Google Docs is useful as a collaborative text editor. Almost everything else about it - particularly formatting - gets broken much too often. I've been trying, earnestly, to use it for academic writing, and the results have been ridiculous: as in, depending on what browser I use, wordwrap may not work; internal links don't work; fonts change from time to time, etc.

Ballmer is correct in noting (which, since noone RTFA, I should note contradicts the badly written summary) that Google Apps is not something that is worrying them: Open Office is. I would love Google Docs to step up, but it definitely has not, and seems to be trapped in the Google perpetual beta limbo.

Microsoft is evil an all . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . but trusting one's data to the "cloud" is just plain foolhardy. I'll keep local applications and local control, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Microsoft is evil an all . . .

[Darkness404]

The thing about the cloud is, it has more uptime than the average user can ever hope to have. For example, the average user makes no backups except perhaps on a yearly basis, even if one of Google's servers literally caught on fire, most of the data could easily be recovered. The average person doesn't have a RAID, so when one disk crashes the entire system crashes, and they don't have backups. Yes, for us geeks and our 1 TB external HDs, local fileservers, 8 GB flash drives and rsync we might be able to have marginally better uptime than the cloud, but honestly, the normal user is going to have better reliability with the cloud.

Re:Microsoft is evil an all . . .

[rtb61]

Unless of course the network goes down, then zero access. It happens all the time, a ship drops and anchor in the wrong spot, somebody somewhere in the routing path configures the hardware wrong, power brownouts anywhere in that route and of course it is only in beta and the warranties are completely and absolutely less than worthless. Cloud computing is really all about data being distributed everywhere and not being locked into a limited number of locations where you have to pay rent to access it. Let's just call a spade a spade, rented access to your own data, ain't cloud computing it is greed computing.

The future in computer software is FOSS and service and support. So yes the typical end user can not really set and up maintain a stable, secure and reliable system and that is why they pay for service and support, when they do need high reliability and uptime and for the majority of businesses in certainly is cheap enough to achieve, they just need reliable access to people who can provide it for them.

As for the end user, easy simple access to most of their stuff, whether they are connected to the net or not is the most important, computers are not their life, they are just a means by which they can share photos, send a letter, browse the net, play a few games and maybe do a bit of shopping and bill paying.

The cloud computing that ballmer et all keep waffling on about only exists because it is the only model they can envisage where they can maintain inflated profit margins, the service and support and fully distributed computing is a much more competitive, high performance and low profit margin market. The performance aspect, is all about companies providing services must be seen to perform, must continually demonstrate high skill and reliability and any failures will soon be reported through their potential and existing client base. This is where M$ is most behind the eight ball, with a reputation for poor service and support, lying to customers, ignoring and denying customer feedback and, routinely distributing unreliable and faulty products.

Re:Microsoft is evil an all . . .

[multisync]

trusting one's data to the "cloud" is just plain foolhardy

Not to troll, but is it more so than trusting your data to proprietary software?

Misquote.

[base3]

Ballmer actually said "Google and their apps can bite me."

I don't believe it

[garett_spencley]

Ballmer was supposed to fucking kill Google. He's like Chuck Norris and stuff ... only with chairs. No way is this happening. I won't believe it. Slashdot is all lies.

Re:I don't believe it

[dark42]

Chuck Norris doesn't need chairs, if he needs to sit down, he just grabs the nearest person and shapes their backbone into a chair.

This is a not true

[tkrotchko]

I was there at the talk. What Ballmer said (and I'm paraphrasing) is that Google Apps have no audience; user growth plateaued months ago and that in their (MS's) own studies almost all college students buy MS Office and use it. He said the only time students are using Google Apps is when they need to collaborate on projects but he talked about how MS is working to beef up their own collaboration tools in Office 2007/08.

Really guys, this is reaching.

Ballmer is a good entertaining speaker, and Gartner analysts are not going to outfox the guy.

quick comparison

[British]

Google Office-like apps: Netbook
MS Office: bloated pig laptop that cost $3K.

I'm just fine with the Google Apps. All the extra features that the latest revision of MS Office has that Google doesn't don't ever get any usage from me anyways.

One word

[germansausage]

AutoCad

Or whatever app it is that your industry uses that doesn't run on Linux, will keep the need for Windows for a very long time.

Ugh

[jav1231]

As much as I am loath to say this, I seriously doubt Microsoft has to worry about Google-apps. Corp-America is not going to go Google-apps. But mind you, they WILL worry. Because Microsoft is so fucking egotistical as a company they can't envision anyone having something successful besides them. It pisses them off, esp. Balmer. They just can't accept that they should stick to what they're good at (were good?). If they put as much effort into making Windows better it WOULD be. They chased the search market in vain and the mp3 player in vain. They're a spoiled company that thinks they should have it because they want it. Microsoft never innovates. They copy or buy. They usually fail at copying. The XBox is a noted example of something they copied and succeeded at gaining market. Keep at it, MS! Pursue! The more money you waste on shit like online apps the more that won't go into Windows! Which is fine. The world would be better off if more people would move on to another OS.

Re:Ugh

[im_thatoneguy]

Microsoft copycat with the Xbox?

That's why they were the first to put in a Hard Drive.
The first to offer streaming downloads for movies.
The first to offer downloadable games.
The first to include a network adapter.
The first to have a social gaming network for matchmaking and messaging built into the service.
The first to implement a system wide achievement/trophy system.

Yeah it's likea direct clone of... nothing... and that's why it's succeeding. It's not just ripping off anyone else. Everyone else is trying to rip them off.

---

Back to the topic at hand. We use both Microsoft Office and GoogleDocs. We like Office because it has really really great spreadsheet tools and formatting for sophisticated data tracking. But we can't share it with other companies. (We work in advertising). We use Google Docs too because we can create a document with a shotlist or schedule and the agency can access it from anywhere and make changes to it and everybody always has the latest version.

If we could have an online Office. We would prefer it because Google Docs is like a gimped wordpad. But for many applications we've found it to be the best solution to our needs.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

MS Office file formats are becoming the odd ones

[gelfling]

In my firm, which is a Fortune 50 company, we're actively abandoning MS Office for our own modification of Open Office. In fact OO3 does everything better - it handles all the problems of earlier versions like embedded OLE objects, it handles all our all 'legacy' junk AND it handles all of the various MS Office 2007 file formats which, as everyone knows were invented JUST to force people to lock in and upgrade. In fact all those Office 2007 formats are becoming the weird occasional exception for us as we move to ODF and such. Mostly we use MS Office 2007 formats as a required translation step from DOC to ODF since OO3 handles it that way by default: DOC > DOCX > ODF for instance.

So being weird and unique, Balmer, we don't care. Soon MS Office will be just another legacy format we keep around for archival purposes like Lotus Wordpro, 123, AmiPro and the like. Good luck with that, Steve.

Sorry twitter.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you say must be considered a lie. You lost your credibility a long time ago. The only reason this story made it to the front page after your well-deserved yearlong blacklisting is because you had to misrepresent what the article said, and the /. editor happens to be relatively new, so he doesn't know about you.

Why don't you get a blog or something? You can use all those things you learned from the FUDster in Chief Roy like "SweatyB" and "Silverblight", and you won't have to put up with the collective derision and ridicule of the largest free software community in the world.

Really, think about it.

Re:Sorry twitter.

[harry666t]

Seriously, you're an idiot for taking part in his game. Don't you see he's having a great time trolling here? His goals are not spreading anti-"M$", "pro-OSS" BS, his goal is having fun of people like you -- people who think they will be so cool when they'll point out how stupid they think he is. You are feeding the troll. Damnit, just ignore him, it's *that* easy!

Really, think about it.

Emacs -vs- Emacs

[SL Baur]

I am a big fan of (the basic GNU) Emacs, because it's so easy to edit with a nice blank screen rather than all having those superfluous menubars and whatnot cluttering up the workspace.

There is no doubt about it, the Emacs architecture has won the day. Microsoft uses a poorly reimplemented model for everything nowadays. The ability to modify behavior of an application with a full-fledged computer language was truly innovative. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html

(My perspective is of one who remembers when Emacs was a bunch of macros for TECO, so I never got into the habit of using a menubar.) And now that GNU Emacs can render fonts nicely in X11, XEmacs has become even more otiose.

I happen to like menubars, scrollbars and GUI and that's why I was attracted to XEmacs in order to fix the deficiencies in 19.14.

You can always turn off that sort of stuff in XEmacs. My first commercial use of XEmacs was as an embedded editor in a Process Control System that only had access to PC console tty.

But ... if it bothers you, no problem. At least you're not using something loathesome like VIM. (nvi is nice though).

And XEmacs has as much right to be called "GNU Emacs" as the one sitting on gnu.org, but that is an argument for a different day.

Re:Stop complaining and do something

[Trelane]

http://www.alfresco.com/ http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence/ I'm sure there are more.