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.
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.
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-)
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).
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)
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