Fair use where, though? Here in the UK, for example, it is legal to record a broadcast for the purposes of time-shifting, ie watching/listening to it at a more convenient time.
You are explicitly not allowed to keep it, though. I don't know the situation in Germany, and certainly I've never heard of anyone here in the UK being prosecuted for it, but if you want to be completely legal, this may well not be the way to go.
Indeed it is - without explicit permission from the copyright holder, we UKians do not have the right to make any copy. That includes format shifting, backups, etc.
Kinda sucks, really - I guess that 260GBP iRiver I bought is just a nice USB hard-drive with built-in mic and FM tuner, as I certainly can't buy electronic versions of the music I like (ebm, goth, etc). Hell, some of the stuff I like is hard enough to get on CD...
On the plus side, the law is effectively unenforceable - I don't know a single person who doesn't have some sort of audio device, be it cassette, mp3 player, minidisc, or whatever. I suspect that the vast majority of people in the UK have broken this particular law at some point, most likely right now.
On the minus side, that really means that, should they want to investigate you for some reason, that's another line of attack they can take. Remember, they *wanted* Al Capone because he was a gangster. They *got* him for tax evasion...
Paranoia aside, it damages the Law as a whole to have unenforced/unenforceable laws on the books. I don't see it changing any time soon, though - in fact, in light of recent events (the EU "super-DMCA"), I can only see it getting worse.
What's the use of encryption without authentication? You don't want anyone but the recipient to be able to read or change the data, but don't care who the recipient actually is?
The only time I can think that I'd use that would be when I am the intended recipient, eg encrypting data on my harddrive, or before mailing it to myself.
I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but in Mozilla, go to Edit -> Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> SSL -> Edit Ciphers. On the "Extra SSL3/TLS" tab, the last two options are for authenitcation-only ciphers (and appear to be disabled by default).
Unfortunately, I can't see an equivalent in FireFox, and I don't know for sure if the Mozilla settings are what you're looking for either...
No, the original poster was incorrect. He spoke of the wasted hours and lost work "each of us" suffers because of Windows.
Well, I for one do not recall ever losing any work to a Windows crash. I have certainly never lost a database (and we have a number of SQL Server dbs at work), and since switching to Win2K a couple of years ago I've lost almost no time "meddling with its problems". (XP is similarly rock-solid, for me - ymmv, of course)
Don't get me wrong, Linux is similarly stable and reliable, but it takes a lot more effort to get it set up the way I need it, and the third party applications simply aren't there yet. To an extent, neither is the core system, at least on the desktop.
At work, where I use XP, I have Mozilla set as my default web browser. Everything I use that might display a hyperlink to me, *including Word and Outlook*, respect that and invoke Mozilla to handle clicked links.
With one exception - ICQ. It *always* uses IE (and I'm running the latest version), regardless of my preference. Given that Outlook, etc respect my preferences, I don't buy this being MS's fault. Similarly with your experiences, I'd suggest that part of the problem is in your setup somewhere, especially if Firefox randomly opens links in the same or a new window.
I mean to say that the sum of all Mem Usage or VM Size does not add up to the commit charge.
That's probably because of OS-level caches. Linux is the same - the total amount of RAM used is generally far in excess of the actual amount used by currently memory-resident programs. In both cases, the system will give up memory it's using for its own purposes if it needs to.
Perhaps that's true where you are, but I see a lot of consumer-level machines advertised here in the UK with 512meg of RAM. The one I bought my girlfriend at the end of 2002, for example, came with that much as standard, and it was by no means an exception.
As someone else has pointed out, if the next version of Windows requires 512 meg of RAM, then consumer-level machines will have at least that much. No PC manufacturer is going to ship a PC that just plain doesn't work, runs unacceptably slowly, or doesn't have the latest version of Windows preinstalled.
Dang, i remember the days when 8 megs of ram was a lot, and 80 meg hard drive would never get filled.
8 megs? My first computer had 16KB of RAM, and storage was on cassette tapes.
Personally, I'm *damn glad* that technology progresses - I do not want to be using 1982-level technology for the rest of my life. I can comfortably bring any PC you care to supply me with to its knees in terms of resource usage, as can anyone who's done any numerical simulation work. For that matter, just editing large-enough images can do it - a work mate of mine has a very, very nice panoramic view of some Tibetan mountains that ground his machine (with a gig of RAM) to a near halt while he was stitching it together.
As operating systems and applications become more complex, they will necessarily require more resources. If you don't want to upgrade your machine, don't upgrade your software. You can't expect it to do more, but use no more resources.
I don't know for sure, but I believe that Windows build numbers update across versions. That is, this is build number 4053 of Windows (or just the NT series?), not build 4053 of Longhorn.
For example, Windows XP was build 2600 when it was released.
That's not a problem with copyrighting software, but with copyrights in general. They shouldn't (imho) last anything like as long as they currently do.
Copyrights are meant to be an incentive to authors, etc to create more works. Tell me - if I (somehow) manage to create a wildly popular work, and am able to live comfortably on the royalties for as long as it is protected by copyright, what incentive is there to me to produce more if that protection extends beyond my death? Yes, I realise that that's a somewhat (okay, very) unlikely situation, but hopefully you see my point.
Software-Copyrights effectively eliminate public dissemination forever
They also underpin the GPL and similar licences. Abolish copyright on software, and there's nothing to stop people and companies from taking source and incorporating it into closed source products. Sure, you could do that with closed source stuff too, to an extent, but decompiling a binary to produce meaningful source code is somewhat harder than just downloading the source in the first place.
No, you probably can't - and you certainly wouldn't be able to do that and carry half a dozen or more other weapons strapped to yourself, *and* run the entire length of the map at full speed, jump, or leap into the driving seat of a vehicle...
It's a *game*. It's meant to be fun, not ultra-realistic:-)
Yes, you can hold an alpha emitter in your hand with few ill effects, if any. It's a little different, though, if the emitter is pulverised and you ingest the dust; then you may well have problems (I forget what, if any, biological path Pu takes, or whether there are any alpha emitters that are absorbed rather than just being excreted).
Not saying that Pu is some sort of doomsday material that will kill us all; just pointing out that it's not entirely harmless either, given the right set of circumstances.
Copyrighting music is just plain stupid... I agree with protecting your hard work but it's getting out of hand.
Well, which is it? Do you agree with protecting hard work, or is copyrighting music stupid?
I do agree that it's getting out of hand, but that's not the fault of the concept of copyright, but with how it's being (ab)used by those few in power. That always happens though - there are exceptions, but in general, those in power use it such as to remain in power. This is no different, remembering that money and power are to a large extent interchangeable.
Hell, even go so far as to help Microsoft get J# J2SE 1.4/1.5 compatable or something.
Why on earth would MS want to do that? Don't you think that they already would have done so?
The only reason that the MS VM is at the level that it is (1.1.2, iirc) is because that's the last version that they developed that they can ship, having lost the court case that Sun brought against them. Now, I don't know the exact terms of the agreement, but I suspect that it simply prevents them from shipping an infringing JVM. I would have thought that they would be free to remove the code that broke the licence in the first place, but they have chosen not to.
Instead, they've developed an entire VM-replacement (the CLR) and Java replacement/competitor, C#. J# is intended as a stepping-stone to get Java developers to migrate to C#, in the same way that VB.NET is generally regarded as being intended to lure VB developers to migrate to C#, and Managed C++ to lure C++ developers to C#.
If they shipped a modern, fully-compliant version of J#, Java developers would have less reason to change to C#. I don't think that's what MS wants.
Is there a reason that IBM cannot GPL their version?
I *believe* (but don't actually know *for sure*) that anyone who implements a (certified-compliant?) JVM does so under licence from Sun. (Certainly, it was for breach of licence/contract that Sun successfully sued Microsoft when they added classes to the core java.* hierarchy) I would expect such a licence to forbid releasing this implementation under an open-source licence (perhaps only as a side-effect of specifying the sort of licence that is acceptable).
If not, then - especially given Java's popularity - why is there not already a GPLed implentation? Too much work? Tell that to the mono guys...
How old were the machines? Bought new around the time that the respective OSes were released?
It may be a hardware problem - dodgy RAM, something overheating, etc. Seriously, it might be an idea to open the machine up, clean all the fans, heatsinks, etc, and take a look. Actually investigate the problem, rather than just shrugging and saying "Windows, huh?".
I'd imagine that that's short for "Extensions" - dropping the "e" on words that start "ex" is getting pretty popular at the moment, as annoying as it is...
That may be how it works now, or how it works in engineering subjects, but that's not how my Physics degree worked. (Disclaimer: I graduated in 1997, so it may well have changed since).
I did the four-year MSci course. This essentially consisted of the normal three-year course, with an extra year on the end. At the end of that, students were award an MSci, or Master *in* Science. Unlike the MSc (Master *of* Science), we didn't specialise in a single subject in the final year, but took a range of subjects. (6, iirc, along with a project that was worth 11% of the degree overall). It was aimed at people who were considering going into a career in science, generally via a PhD.
Like I said though, it's been a depressingly long time since I graduated, so it may have changed since then.
They're forced to pay for software they don't intend to use. Is that fair?
No, of course it isn't fair - but anyone who wants a machine without a copy of Windows can buy one. There are a few companies that offer prebuilt machines without Windows, and failing that, you can always build your own from parts.
No, that's not an ideal solution, but then neither is yours, imho. I don't want to be collateral damage in your war against MS, any more than you want to be collateral damage in MS's war against its competitors. You can't fight one injustice by creating another; that's not fair either.
As for your point about software publishers quickly porting to other OSes, yes, they probably would start porting stuff. I challenge the assertion that it would be quick, however, and I doubt that anything other than a tiny proportion of existing software would be ported. New software would almost certainly be written to be as portable as possible, but that will take time, as the majority of coders have to learn how to do so.
All the while, MS would go on the offensive, trying to scare companies away from it using vague threats about the viral nature of the GPL. Even here, on slashdot, you'll find conflicting opinions as to what is and is not a derivative work. How do you expect newcomers to the scene to work it out? Companies may decide that catering to a slowly dwindling Windows user base is safer than risking losing their IPR by coding stuff for Linux. Whether the risk is real or not, if they believe that it is, it may be enough to stop them. If enough stay away, that may be enough to keep Windows in the majority, despite it not being shipped pre-installed on new machines.
if you want Windows, you have to separately pay for a retail license
Who are you trying to punish with this, MS, or Windows users?
I use software, including games, that simply does not exist for Linux. I bought a copy of XP Pro because of this. However, because I was buying hardware at the same time (motherboard, processor, etc), I was eligible to buy an OEM copy. That's *half* the price of the retail one.
Your scheme would prevent me from doing that. I wouldn't save any money - if I felt that I needed (or just plain wanted) a copy of Windows, Id just pay full price. I suspect that a lot of people would do the same.
You'd not only be punishing MS, but a lot of us who choose to use Windows, but are techy enough not to have to pay full price. Scrap volume discounts if you must, but leave the normal people alone, thank you.
I have to say that it has come a long way in the last few years....windows has not, but office has.
Well, I can't comment on Office, as I've not used any version of Word more recent than 2000, but Windows has improved a great deal since I started using it. I've used a variety of versions from 3.1 through 95 and 98, NT 3.51 and 4, 2k and XP, and imho XP is the best of the lot. 2k is good, but had compatibility problems with some of my software (games mostly); these have gone since I upgraded to XP.
Java has had just-in-time compilation to native machine code since at least JDK 1.2. True, it's generally only those classes that the JVM determines will most benefit from JIT compilation that are compiled, and they're not persisted across invocations of the JVM, but for server and other long-running applications, that doesn't really matter.
Well, speaking as a professional programmer who's charged out by the hour to write bespoke software, in our company, it would almost certainly be more expensive to port them to OO.o.
Even that ignores the fact that all our clients and associated business partners use MS Office. If OO.o isn't 100% compatible, then we simply can't use it. There's no way on Earth we can send a spec out to a client for sign off, for example, if there's a possibility that it won't render correctly. Saying "Sorry, we don't use MS Office, download OpenOffice from openoffice.org" is *not* an option.
If MS office runs on linux, there'll be nothing else closing the road for linux on the corporate desktop.
Two words: Exchange integration. Oh, I know that there's a plugin for Exchange that lets Evolution work with it, but last I heard that was only compatible with a single version (7?).
On top of that, most corporations have a lot of people using an awful lot more than just Office. Billing software, time and incident/bug tracking software, etc. Not to mention more "specialist" applications, like CAM/CAD stuff, etc.
With Office on Linux, then the way is (probably) clear for corporate secretaries to move to Linux. That's about all you can say for definite, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair use where, though? Here in the UK, for example, it is legal to record a broadcast for the purposes of time-shifting, ie watching/listening to it at a more convenient time.
You are explicitly not allowed to keep it, though. I don't know the situation in Germany, and certainly I've never heard of anyone here in the UK being prosecuted for it, but if you want to be completely legal, this may well not be the way to go.
Indeed it is - without explicit permission from the copyright holder, we UKians do not have the right to make any copy. That includes format shifting, backups, etc.
Kinda sucks, really - I guess that 260GBP iRiver I bought is just a nice USB hard-drive with built-in mic and FM tuner, as I certainly can't buy electronic versions of the music I like (ebm, goth, etc). Hell, some of the stuff I like is hard enough to get on CD...
On the plus side, the law is effectively unenforceable - I don't know a single person who doesn't have some sort of audio device, be it cassette, mp3 player, minidisc, or whatever. I suspect that the vast majority of people in the UK have broken this particular law at some point, most likely right now.
On the minus side, that really means that, should they want to investigate you for some reason, that's another line of attack they can take. Remember, they *wanted* Al Capone because he was a gangster. They *got* him for tax evasion...
Paranoia aside, it damages the Law as a whole to have unenforced/unenforceable laws on the books. I don't see it changing any time soon, though - in fact, in light of recent events (the EU "super-DMCA"), I can only see it getting worse.
What's the use of encryption without authentication? You don't want anyone but the recipient to be able to read or change the data, but don't care who the recipient actually is?
The only time I can think that I'd use that would be when I am the intended recipient, eg encrypting data on my harddrive, or before mailing it to myself.
I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but in Mozilla, go to Edit -> Preferences -> Security & Privacy -> SSL -> Edit Ciphers. On the "Extra SSL3/TLS" tab, the last two options are for authenitcation-only ciphers (and appear to be disabled by default).
Unfortunately, I can't see an equivalent in FireFox, and I don't know for sure if the Mozilla settings are what you're looking for either...
(Must be early; I'm responding to an AC troll...)
No, the original poster was incorrect. He spoke of the wasted hours and lost work "each of us" suffers because of Windows.
Well, I for one do not recall ever losing any work to a Windows crash. I have certainly never lost a database (and we have a number of SQL Server dbs at work), and since switching to Win2K a couple of years ago I've lost almost no time "meddling with its problems". (XP is similarly rock-solid, for me - ymmv, of course)
Don't get me wrong, Linux is similarly stable and reliable, but it takes a lot more effort to get it set up the way I need it, and the third party applications simply aren't there yet. To an extent, neither is the core system, at least on the desktop.
At work, where I use XP, I have Mozilla set as my default web browser. Everything I use that might display a hyperlink to me, *including Word and Outlook*, respect that and invoke Mozilla to handle clicked links.
With one exception - ICQ. It *always* uses IE (and I'm running the latest version), regardless of my preference. Given that Outlook, etc respect my preferences, I don't buy this being MS's fault. Similarly with your experiences, I'd suggest that part of the problem is in your setup somewhere, especially if Firefox randomly opens links in the same or a new window.
I mean to say that the sum of all Mem Usage or VM Size does not add up to the commit charge.
That's probably because of OS-level caches. Linux is the same - the total amount of RAM used is generally far in excess of the actual amount used by currently memory-resident programs. In both cases, the system will give up memory it's using for its own purposes if it needs to.
Perhaps that's true where you are, but I see a lot of consumer-level machines advertised here in the UK with 512meg of RAM. The one I bought my girlfriend at the end of 2002, for example, came with that much as standard, and it was by no means an exception.
As someone else has pointed out, if the next version of Windows requires 512 meg of RAM, then consumer-level machines will have at least that much. No PC manufacturer is going to ship a PC that just plain doesn't work, runs unacceptably slowly, or doesn't have the latest version of Windows preinstalled.
Dang, i remember the days when 8 megs of ram was a lot, and 80 meg hard drive would never get filled.
8 megs? My first computer had 16KB of RAM, and storage was on cassette tapes.
Personally, I'm *damn glad* that technology progresses - I do not want to be using 1982-level technology for the rest of my life. I can comfortably bring any PC you care to supply me with to its knees in terms of resource usage, as can anyone who's done any numerical simulation work. For that matter, just editing large-enough images can do it - a work mate of mine has a very, very nice panoramic view of some Tibetan mountains that ground his machine (with a gig of RAM) to a near halt while he was stitching it together.
As operating systems and applications become more complex, they will necessarily require more resources. If you don't want to upgrade your machine, don't upgrade your software. You can't expect it to do more, but use no more resources.
I don't know for sure, but I believe that Windows build numbers update across versions. That is, this is build number 4053 of Windows (or just the NT series?), not build 4053 of Longhorn.
For example, Windows XP was build 2600 when it was released.
That's not a problem with copyrighting software, but with copyrights in general. They shouldn't (imho) last anything like as long as they currently do.
Copyrights are meant to be an incentive to authors, etc to create more works. Tell me - if I (somehow) manage to create a wildly popular work, and am able to live comfortably on the royalties for as long as it is protected by copyright, what incentive is there to me to produce more if that protection extends beyond my death? Yes, I realise that that's a somewhat (okay, very) unlikely situation, but hopefully you see my point.
Software-Copyrights effectively eliminate public dissemination forever
They also underpin the GPL and similar licences. Abolish copyright on software, and there's nothing to stop people and companies from taking source and incorporating it into closed source products. Sure, you could do that with closed source stuff too, to an extent, but decompiling a binary to produce meaningful source code is somewhat harder than just downloading the source in the first place.
No, you probably can't - and you certainly wouldn't be able to do that and carry half a dozen or more other weapons strapped to yourself, *and* run the entire length of the map at full speed, jump, or leap into the driving seat of a vehicle...
:-)
It's a *game*. It's meant to be fun, not ultra-realistic
Yes, you can hold an alpha emitter in your hand with few ill effects, if any. It's a little different, though, if the emitter is pulverised and you ingest the dust; then you may well have problems (I forget what, if any, biological path Pu takes, or whether there are any alpha emitters that are absorbed rather than just being excreted).
Not saying that Pu is some sort of doomsday material that will kill us all; just pointing out that it's not entirely harmless either, given the right set of circumstances.
Copyrighting music is just plain stupid... I agree with protecting your hard work but it's getting out of hand.
Well, which is it? Do you agree with protecting hard work, or is copyrighting music stupid?
I do agree that it's getting out of hand, but that's not the fault of the concept of copyright, but with how it's being (ab)used by those few in power. That always happens though - there are exceptions, but in general, those in power use it such as to remain in power. This is no different, remembering that money and power are to a large extent interchangeable.
Hell, even go so far as to help Microsoft get J# J2SE 1.4/1.5 compatable or something.
Why on earth would MS want to do that? Don't you think that they already would have done so?
The only reason that the MS VM is at the level that it is (1.1.2, iirc) is because that's the last version that they developed that they can ship, having lost the court case that Sun brought against them. Now, I don't know the exact terms of the agreement, but I suspect that it simply prevents them from shipping an infringing JVM. I would have thought that they would be free to remove the code that broke the licence in the first place, but they have chosen not to.
Instead, they've developed an entire VM-replacement (the CLR) and Java replacement/competitor, C#. J# is intended as a stepping-stone to get Java developers to migrate to C#, in the same way that VB.NET is generally regarded as being intended to lure VB developers to migrate to C#, and Managed C++ to lure C++ developers to C#.
If they shipped a modern, fully-compliant version of J#, Java developers would have less reason to change to C#. I don't think that's what MS wants.
Is there a reason that IBM cannot GPL their version?
I *believe* (but don't actually know *for sure*) that anyone who implements a (certified-compliant?) JVM does so under licence from Sun. (Certainly, it was for breach of licence/contract that Sun successfully sued Microsoft when they added classes to the core java.* hierarchy) I would expect such a licence to forbid releasing this implementation under an open-source licence (perhaps only as a side-effect of specifying the sort of licence that is acceptable).
If not, then - especially given Java's popularity - why is there not already a GPLed implentation? Too much work? Tell that to the mono guys...
How old were the machines? Bought new around the time that the respective OSes were released?
It may be a hardware problem - dodgy RAM, something overheating, etc. Seriously, it might be an idea to open the machine up, clean all the fans, heatsinks, etc, and take a look. Actually investigate the problem, rather than just shrugging and saying "Windows, huh?".
Xtns: ...? Xtns? I have no idea.
I'd imagine that that's short for "Extensions" - dropping the "e" on words that start "ex" is getting pretty popular at the moment, as annoying as it is...
That may be how it works now, or how it works in engineering subjects, but that's not how my Physics degree worked. (Disclaimer: I graduated in 1997, so it may well have changed since).
I did the four-year MSci course. This essentially consisted of the normal three-year course, with an extra year on the end. At the end of that, students were award an MSci, or Master *in* Science. Unlike the MSc (Master *of* Science), we didn't specialise in a single subject in the final year, but took a range of subjects. (6, iirc, along with a project that was worth 11% of the degree overall). It was aimed at people who were considering going into a career in science, generally via a PhD.
Like I said though, it's been a depressingly long time since I graduated, so it may have changed since then.
They're forced to pay for software they don't intend to use. Is that fair?
No, of course it isn't fair - but anyone who wants a machine without a copy of Windows can buy one. There are a few companies that offer prebuilt machines without Windows, and failing that, you can always build your own from parts.
No, that's not an ideal solution, but then neither is yours, imho. I don't want to be collateral damage in your war against MS, any more than you want to be collateral damage in MS's war against its competitors. You can't fight one injustice by creating another; that's not fair either.
As for your point about software publishers quickly porting to other OSes, yes, they probably would start porting stuff. I challenge the assertion that it would be quick, however, and I doubt that anything other than a tiny proportion of existing software would be ported. New software would almost certainly be written to be as portable as possible, but that will take time, as the majority of coders have to learn how to do so.
All the while, MS would go on the offensive, trying to scare companies away from it using vague threats about the viral nature of the GPL. Even here, on slashdot, you'll find conflicting opinions as to what is and is not a derivative work. How do you expect newcomers to the scene to work it out? Companies may decide that catering to a slowly dwindling Windows user base is safer than risking losing their IPR by coding stuff for Linux. Whether the risk is real or not, if they believe that it is, it may be enough to stop them. If enough stay away, that may be enough to keep Windows in the majority, despite it not being shipped pre-installed on new machines.
if you want Windows, you have to separately pay for a retail license
Who are you trying to punish with this, MS, or Windows users?
I use software, including games, that simply does not exist for Linux. I bought a copy of XP Pro because of this. However, because I was buying hardware at the same time (motherboard, processor, etc), I was eligible to buy an OEM copy. That's *half* the price of the retail one.
Your scheme would prevent me from doing that. I wouldn't save any money - if I felt that I needed (or just plain wanted) a copy of Windows, Id just pay full price. I suspect that a lot of people would do the same.
You'd not only be punishing MS, but a lot of us who choose to use Windows, but are techy enough not to have to pay full price. Scrap volume discounts if you must, but leave the normal people alone, thank you.
I have to say that it has come a long way in the last few years....windows has not, but office has.
Well, I can't comment on Office, as I've not used any version of Word more recent than 2000, but Windows has improved a great deal since I started using it. I've used a variety of versions from 3.1 through 95 and 98, NT 3.51 and 4, 2k and XP, and imho XP is the best of the lot. 2k is good, but had compatibility problems with some of my software (games mostly); these have gone since I upgraded to XP.
Java has had just-in-time compilation to native machine code since at least JDK 1.2. True, it's generally only those classes that the JVM determines will most benefit from JIT compilation that are compiled, and they're not persisted across invocations of the JVM, but for server and other long-running applications, that doesn't really matter.
Well, speaking as a professional programmer who's charged out by the hour to write bespoke software, in our company, it would almost certainly be more expensive to port them to OO.o.
Even that ignores the fact that all our clients and associated business partners use MS Office. If OO.o isn't 100% compatible, then we simply can't use it. There's no way on Earth we can send a spec out to a client for sign off, for example, if there's a possibility that it won't render correctly. Saying "Sorry, we don't use MS Office, download OpenOffice from openoffice.org" is *not* an option.
If MS office runs on linux, there'll be nothing else closing the road for linux on the corporate desktop.
Two words: Exchange integration. Oh, I know that there's a plugin for Exchange that lets Evolution work with it, but last I heard that was only compatible with a single version (7?).
On top of that, most corporations have a lot of people using an awful lot more than just Office. Billing software, time and incident/bug tracking software, etc. Not to mention more "specialist" applications, like CAM/CAD stuff, etc.
With Office on Linux, then the way is (probably) clear for corporate secretaries to move to Linux. That's about all you can say for definite, though.