Slashdot Mirror
MS Office on Linux (Continued)
GeeWiz
writes "According to the German Heise Newsticker, the
c't editors got hold of information that confirms that
Microsoft has assigned 37 developers with the task of
porting Office to Linux. "
Try using Babelfish
to translate the article to english
if your Deutsch ist nicht so gut.
I'd like to think that you're correct and that Linus is correct. But put this story together with the rumor that MS will bundle office 2000 with windows 2000 and I think you may be wrong. Maybe they want to make $ on Linux --which I'd applaud I guess in a way though I won't stop using StarOffice-- maybe OTOH they want a way to justify tying Windows and Office together, with lots of pitfalls thrown into the Linux version. That way they can say: what is it that you want? A free OS (that is clumsy for a ordinary user to set-up and use) and an expensive office suite, or would you rather have Windows 2000, which will cost you a little (since it is hiddn in the OEM preload charge), but will be easier to use and include the world-standard office suite for free, with fully integrated app/OS functionality. That's what I'd be doing if I were them, but then ppl do tell me I'm an asshole.
When I interviewed at MS many years ago, they told me
that they had done a port of Word to the Atari ST, but they
were waiting to see how successful that platform was before
they released it.
A company like MS can easily afford to write software that
they never release. It gives them lots of flexibility in their
strategy.
Hi All,
It seems to me that if MS decides to *release* a port, then they have two options. 1. Make sure MS Office runs on a standard Linux kernel and distro. 2. Make their own distribution. I'd think that 1 would be quicker, especially if they use WindU - the port of Win32 to Unix.
Knowing MS's whole business model depends on control of the platform, I'd think that eventually they'd want to move to 2 - recall what they did with Java.
What's to keep MS from building a Linux clone and having it *not* be under GPL? Or making MS Office run on a variation of FreeBSD? Aren't there ways for a company with $20B+ in cash to legally get around the GPL if they are willing to spend the time and money?
Personally, I believe that even if MS is working on a port, they won't release it for at least 2 years. They've got enough troubles with Win2k and approaching Y2K issues, IMO.
Cheers, Scott.
The MS business apps division has to have been thinking about this for over a year. Why I believe this: well before the dates on the Halloween Docs, I went to Redmond to interview for a position as a developer. I had mentioned in screening that I was an avid Linux enthusiast and had done some minor kernel-related hacking (heck, I know for a fact some of my interviewers saw the anti-MS links on my web page :-)); judging from the product teams I interviewed with, I think I may have been considered at least in part as a potential Linux developer - one was the team working on the next (post-Office2000) release of an Office app (almost certainly the release of Office they're porting); another was working on an as-yet-unreleased (AFAIK) technology they'd simply *have* to port to Unix and Mac for it to be realistically marketable.
But anyway, more to the point - here's what's probably happening... The port is probably underway in secret; throwing 37 Microserfs on a Linux port is a small price to pay for the business apps divsion to hedge its bets and increase its viability in the event MS is broken up or Linux gains significant desktop market share. But no, there won't be any kernel, /lib, or /usr/lib modifications in the picture - that's pure paranoia; monstrous, statically-linked binaries seem more their style. No, they won't use WineLib or open source widgets - the early start they would have had to make (think: two year product cycles that end up dragging on longer than that) rules out taking advantage of the recent maturity/development of Qt, GTK+, or WineLib, so they'll use MainWin and/or Motif instead. And no, definitely don't expect any public comment on this soon (ESPECIALLY not at Cebit).
As for me, even if Office for Linux gets released I'd still pay good money for WordPerfect Suite for Linux. :-)
It only makes sense for them to port their binary-only stuff over - to discourage the development of a GPL alternative - or even legitimate competition from the smaller, innovative companies. Once the alternative is created, it IS possible to port the other way.
I can't wait to see how they 'improve' linux. GPFs? BSODs? A little flashlight searching for things? The REGISTRY? 'Smart Quotes?' Oh, you'll have to run it on at least a 300MHz processor with at least 64MB of RAM too.
You'll also have to install 'upgrades' for the standard libraries (binary-only natch - or else under some mutilated 'Open' license) - or these fine applications won't work.
Not worth it to exchange info in a proprietary format.
6. Office and IE on Linux will help MS to decommoditize HTML and other protocols.
Disagree here, too. Unlike Windoze, Office and IE won't and can't be the sole option under Linux, so MS can't leverage anything.
they aren't the sole options under windows, either. they're just the commercially dominant options, and they will probably become so on linux as well. a hell of a lot of IT people will sell linux standardization to their PHB's by agreeing to compromise: "If you, O PHB, agree to use an OS that isn't a complete piece of shit, I, your IT minion, will agree to provide you with the same piece of shit word processor that you've always used. I promise that you will not be afflicted with acceptable quality in all areas." The PHB will think it over and say, "Okay. I can tolerate competence in my OS as long as my applications are still rotten, unstable, and proprietary."
If, however, they try to replace files in
but that's just what they probably will do. why not?
Given the "progress" Office has made since Word 5.1, I doubt Office 2000 will be compelling enough that customers will be willing to throw away Linux to get it.
enough of their customers, partners etc. will "upgrade" [sic
i don't know anybody who "upgraded" to office 97 for any other reason than that. they didn't want to spend the money, they expected it to be less stable with no worthwhile new features -- and they were right. but they bought it anyway because they had to deal with office 97 files from customers and whatnot. pretty horrible, IMHO, but that's what happened once, and will probably happen again. when MS maintained file format compatibility between word 6 and word 95, a lot of people didn't bother "upgrading". they were happy with what they had, so if they weren't forced to "upgrade", they didn't. MS learned a valuable lesson from that, and they will never let it happen again.
they may even introduce a few arbitrary file format incompatibilities between linux office and windows office. that would be a real coup.
Ms Office for Linux expects(expected)
The rumors circulate already longer, but now there are concrete indications for the first time: Microsoft portiert(porting) its popular Office package on Linux. c't experienced from well informed source that in talking moon a separate department for the project had been formed. According to the information Microsoft set 37 developers on the Portierung(porting).
It is expected that Microsoft announces the Portierung(porting) still during the CeBIT and calls a date for the completion. The software giant is far in the hintertreffen(?) guessed/advised in the Linux Applikationsmarkt(applications market); Office products of other manufacturers are long available. Those Hamburg star division makes its star available Office for the non-commercial application even free of charge. Whether Microsoft can struggle through itself to a similar selling concept, remains being waiting still.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by NBrazil:
Inaccurate. Early on Microsoft had a demo for what was called MS Write. What a lot of people don't know is that the ST was originally going to be a Windows (long before any version had shipped on the PC) system. It was a bid to make a Mac that was truly 'for the rest of us' in pricing. Redmond was already getting frustrated with Apple's inability to appreciate the mass market where application developers would have a field day. After it became apparent that Windows wasn't going to materialize in time for Atari's needs they went over to Digital Research for GEM running over CP/M 68K. The early demo of MS Write was a standalone bit of code written entirely to the metal since there was no OS yet. People remembered that demo though, and never stopped asking MS for the real thing, ignoring the fact the most of the WYSIWYG elements of GEM on the ST were still unimplemented. The users were desparate for recognition from a 'serious' brand name. (Sound familiar?) MS eventually delivered MS Write but by that time the platform was in serious decline in most markets with piracy driving away developer interest and stopping those who had already tested the water from offering new versions i.e. Word Perfect.
With the next release of Office, though, MS explains that in order to implement certain features, they had to make some modifications to the Linux kernel. So, if you want to use Office 2000, you need to install Microsoft Linux 2.2.7.
They're obligated to release their modified version under the GNU GPL, of course, but what this does is effectively fork the code tree. This would be a Bad Thing.
Granted, it's just a paranoid scenerio, but after reading the Halloween memos, it seems like the kind of thing they might try.
Microsoft officially apologize for the way it destroy the computing platform with ugly platforms like Windows 95(tm), Windows 98(tm) and Windows NT(tm). Microsoft have decided to concentrate it's efforts on a new platform called Linux. This was due to the fact that the 2 Windows code base (Windows 9x and NT) where in an almost useless and unmaintanable state.
Microsfot is sorry for the problems caused all these years.
Smile! 8-)
Unlike on Windows, on Linux Microsoft cannot count on getting ownership of the market as a fait accompli. MS Office for Linux will probably sell to corporate markets standardised on Office. Other than that, Corel, Applix and others have a fighting chance among those not committed to the One Microsoft Way, especially if their product is more reliable.
If Office comes out on Linux, and is marketed inexpensively at non-enterprise markets, it will provide the others with a bit of healthy competition in a fair arena.
I recall reading an interview with Linus where he said "If Microsoft ever does applications for Linux it means I've won." I just wish that I could find it. If anyone does, tell me. I wanna keep a link to that around.
** Martin
Hey, if they DO put out a version for Linux, enough people will get their product that they won't QUESTION why Microsoft does not publish their file formats.
:) if they just level the playing field. They STILL have the biggest wallet, but play on a level field. Until they do, I will cheer anyone who finds ways to hurt Microsoft.
Can you imagine if we had this format mess with other mediums of communication, like the telephone, or email?
I will retract MANY bad things I say about microsoft (but not all..
The problem is if Microsoft collapses HARD, like say how Apple collapsed between 1995 and early 98, Microsoft will take down all the other stocks with them.
And Microsoft crashing that hard IS possible. Just keep supporting open/free software, and make animal sacrifices for the excellent work being done for WINE. It'll fall into place, and then the only thing remaining is CLEANING UP Linux and making it "user friendly" (no, not killing or hiding the shell as the press sometimes opines, I mean updating obsolete man and info pages, application interoperability, and KDE merging with Gnome).
I just love machine translations!
Dog is my co-pilot.
MS Office for Linux expected
Rumors have been flying around lately, but now
there seems concrete evidence for the first time:
Microsoft will port its popular Office to Linux.
C't learned from well-informed sources that a
division has been built in Redmond especially for
this project. According to this information,
Microsoft has committed 37 developers to the port.
It's expected that Microsoft will announce the
port during CeBIT and will target a release date.
The software giant has been left behind in the
Linux application market; office products from
other vendors have been available for quite some
time.
Star Division from Hamburg, Germany offers its
Star Office free for non-commercial use.
Wheter Microsoft will choose a similar
distribution policy remains to be seen.
However, its common business practise for the
Windows company to offer applications for
competitors' operating systems: Office for MacOS
made a lot of money for the company.
(cp/c't)
Customer lock-in is only half of the story. The other half is developer lock-in. Anyone who has written Win32 applications will attest to the fact that any non-trivial Win32 application is not portable to a UNIX. Win32 actually discourages the use on ANSI C standard library calls. Win32 greatly encourages a Win32-specific program architectures centered around callback functions with particular prototypes. Take daemons (called "services" in NT), for example. WinNT services must have a callback entry point ( know as ServiceMain(), but may be alled anything) and a callback status handler. How many UNIX deamons have these functions?
Nope, we're not going to see MS Office. Microsoft would have to develop some kind of Win32-for-Linux libaray, IHMO, which would allow every other Win32 app to run on Linux. It would be the mother of all WABIs and WINEs. It would free other ISVs from being locked-in to Windows, and diminish the business case for Windows.
Theories so far:
1. MS wants to make money on the ported Office, plain and simple.
2. MS can't sabotage Linux unless they first get a foot in the door with a Linux app.
3. A flaky port of Office would hurt the credibility of Linux.
4. A promised port of Office that never emerges would hurt the credibility of Linux.
5. MS Office will require proprietary MS libs, allowing MS to gradually take over or corrupt Linux.
6. Office and IE on Linux will help MS to decommoditize HTML and other protocols.
To these we now add the following:
7. Office on Linux is just a lost leader, with the upgrade to Office 2000 requiring a corresponding "upgrade" to Windows 2000 (your theory).
Finally, I would add the following variation:
8. Office on Linux is a desparation ploy, to keep users from migrating away from MS Office (due to Y2K), while MS finishes Windows 2000.
This last theory is interesting. Office 97, Win95, and NT are not Y2K-ready. Windows 2000 will not be ready in time for Y2K. Office beta-2000 may be Y2K-ready, but there is no MS platform to support it. If customers migrate to Linux to solve their Y2K problems, they will also migrate to other office apps, making it nearly impossible for MS to get them back. The only way out of this is to port MS Office (beta-2000) to Linux in order to keep Office users in a holding pattern until W2K plus O2K are ready. It's their only chance.
Of course, there's always all-of-the-above.
You're forgetting something. Wiping Microsoft off the face of the earth, as enjoyable, and as beneficial for mankind as that might be, is not the primary goal of Linux. It is, at best, a side benefit, and it's likelihood is questionable.
:^). MS might win or lose in marketshare, and in court.
:^).
Remember--the primary goal is to have a great O/S (plus apps). All that is required for this is a critical mass of users who are dedicated to Linux and open standards.
If MS created their own proprietary version of Linux, then it's true that many, if not most businesses would support it. If MS violated the GPL, the lawsuits would fly (class-action suit--all Linux users please donate $1
In the end, though, none of it would matter. The market would be split between MS Linux (Win 2001) supported by a single vendor, and Standard Linux, supported by many vendors, IBM, Oracle, etc. If you don't think that a critical mass of support would survive for Standard Linux, just look at the Debian crowd
Further software support will draw users to a more robust stable environment.... however MS can start with good support then slowly draw it back to their home ground causing some users who were using Linux to migrate to Windows.... however I think that few would do that.
What I think would happen if that was tried is the sheeple would migrate to Linux and as MS support for linux floundered would migrate back to MS... while the users who see the power and stability of Linux but were never introduced to it before due to lack of software support would stay with Linux and find another office solution.
Personally I have MS on my machine for one reason and one reason only - GAMES. And as more and more games get ported, I dedicate less and less HD to MS Crap and more and more to Linux!
MS won't support Linux unless they are really getting desperate.... so maybe they are gonna....
Zanthor
c't experienced from well informed source that in talking moon . .
Man, that's nice. Lovely.
Those Hamburg star division makes its star available Office for the non-commercial application even free of charge. Whether Microsoft can struggle through itself to a similar selling concept, remains being waiting still.
I betcha it'll be free [beer] on the same terms. MS can afford to do it, and they'll want to own this market quickly.
It's depressing, though. Only a few weeks ago I was confidently predicting that MS would be too arrogant to sell Linux software, thereby giving others a shot at that market. No such luck. Stupid Borland hasn't even announced plans to port Delphi yet. They'll be beaten to market by VB on a new platform -- a platform they could have owned if they'd had some sense. That class library is abstract enough to make it very, very damn nearly possible to write source-portable RAD GUI programs in a real language. Of course, if there's one company on earth more arrogant, unresponsive, and fucked up than MS, it's Borland. They just have this annoying habit of releasing enough good products to keep our hopes up. Thank god, thank god for gcc.
-j
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
This might be another FUD campaign to kill all off development of all other Linux office suites. As soon as rumors of MS Office for Linux fly out, Star and Corel decide maybe they don't wanna dump too much money into developing their Office suites if MS is gonna take over anyways. Then, when Corel and Star are dead, MS stops development of their own Office suite, points at Linux and says "See! They don't have any good software!"
That's my conspiracy theory. More realistically, I think they'll make Office for Linux, release it, and rake in a ton of dough from newbie corporate Linux users who are forced to standardize on MS software...
The only word processors are Word, ClarisWorks, Mariner Write, and Nissus. I can't figure out Mariner Write's target market, since virtually all low-end Macs ship with ClarisWorks. Using the word "niche" to describe Nissus' market share would be generous. WordPerfect was an option once upon a time, but it hasn't been updated in years. Once again, only Word is a viable choice for businesses.
In short, if you want to use a Mac in an office, you need Microsoft. An MS port of Office to Linux would probably result in something similar. Getting the Office apps to run on Linux is going to require something vaguely Wine-like. This could be done with non-GPL code, as a commercial binary. Say the only way to get this would be by buying Microsoft Linux (tm). If you want Office for Linux, you'll need Microsoft Linux. Instant "embrace and extend." Sound familiar?
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Actually Microsoft makes slightly more money from its OS products than from Office, according to a chart I saw recently (somewhere online, forget where, sorry). Both account for >45% of total revenues, the other few percent being miscellaneous other stuff.
This being the case, it isn't hard to see why Microsoft's sheer (if concealed) terror at the prospect of losing OS revenues to Linux. It would be utter fiscal irresponsibility -- of the sort that makes for stockholder lawsuits -- to not have a backup plan to launch Office for Linux if/when that shift to Linux really starts to eat into OS revenues.
However, Microsoft can certainly afford to port it but never release it if that suits them. Right now the FUDmeisters probably figure that rumors of Office for Linux will hurt Windows sales more than it will hurt sales of Corel, StarOffice, Applix, etc, so they're in "official disavowal" mode. As Linux share increases, that will change, and MS will shift into "announcing vaporware" mode. If Linux plateaus out and Win2000 takes off (hah!), then officially Office for Linux will never have existed.
-- Alastair
This is good news, but it could be bad news as well: good news because it means that somehow linux is winning widespread support also in the desktop market and even M$ is forced to recognize this;
bat news in the fact that I fear we could go and see lots of people going to buy and install this product, just in order to face that "it works better under windows, after all" and then step back to that environment (after all Office on the Macs used to be quite bad and is not as up-to-date as on PCs; moreover you cannot install M$-win on a Mac, but you can on an Intel box with linux and, of course, Microsoft knows this!).
The key point is not wheather we shall get a port of M$-Office, but why and, in my not-so-humble-opinion, the reason we should avoid it like black plague: the thing I hate most about this suite is not its awful overbloated user interface, the fact that it runs snail-pace on all
machines but the latest P-III just in order to provide the service of a much glorified typewriter (btw: have you ever tryed typesetting maths in WinWord or having multilingual documents where one of the languages was sanskrit or middle egyptian in Word? I did not and I don't want to do that, but if someone can prove me that the final result is better than the one I can get with TeX, I would be very surprised), or the
fact that it is commercial proprietary software (but this is clearly BAD!), but the fact that it uses some propertary file format (even RTF is propertary): I belive that using a binary format as the standard one for saving all the documents, a binary format that changes
in incompatible ways from release to release so that people that created a document under WinWord 1.0 (there are still some) on their 286 at
home and edited it on WinWord 6.0 at the university are not able anymore to read it on their old machine... and installing Word95 in this case is not an option! Some institutions, moreover, like
French and Italian governments and the EC publish all official documents in the dreadful ".doc" format and require you to send them back your answers using the same encoding, where a SGML one would just be fine.
Office on Linux would mean Office formats natively supported under linux to their full extent. This would mean also that the pressure from the Linux community in order to scrap those propertary formats would weaken and this actually worries me quite a lot... I would accept Office on linux if and only if M$ were going to release a module for IMPORTING SGML documents (under a given, well defined and open DTD) under all the version of Office they ever released AND make this the default format (hardly possible, but I love asking things like this!)...
Microsoft will compete with KDE, GNOME and GNUStep by offering Office only for THEIR Linux GUI. They can make their GUI available for $0, (though NOT open source), maybe set it up to run DirectX applications (it is embrace and extend after all!), and make everybody who wants to run Office on Linux use the proprietary MS Linux GUI.
By supporting a standard, then providing proprietary modifications to the standard, you can become the de facto standards body.
-Dan
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
Surely the Talking Moon programmers will have to solve lots of technical problems doing that job but with one of them they will fail:
I don't believe, that it is possible to port the famous "Blue Screen of Death" to Linux.
Some have tried (KDE's screensaver programmers for example) but they all failed. No computer running Linux did ever behave like a real Windows box after the Blue Screen appeared.