This is how I see the situation. Microsoft is going through a four stage system. 1. Deny it exists. 2. Oh, it does exist but we are not worried. 3. That thing is junk. (FUD) 4. Oh, well it does exist and it does have a market. So let us [Microsoft] exploit it.
The reason I suspect is 3 and 4. If it does seem to be a market they will be ready to exploit it with Corel, or they will prevent Corel from selling the Word Perfect Suite. With the money they have the excercise of actually doing a port is good for Microsoft. If the FUD works then they stop the project and go on to the status quo. If Linux does become a market then Microsoft will be ready.
Now for Linux it self. This will only work if it actually is shown to be done. The customer that will buy Linux because of MS Office, will only buy Linux when there is MS Office for Linux. So for the short term it is nothing for expanding Linux market. Long term it could get a few more people interested.
Final words is we should watch this but still point people to the existing set of Office Suites and Word Processors. Let our friends use the ones they like and help them with getting them to work.
Lastly if someone says, "should I wait until MS Office for Linux comes out to use Linux?" We say, "Don't wait, partition your drive and try it now. Do you need any help with installing Linux?"
Problem that Corel has is that they want to keep support of their Applications on the various platforms. From Linux to Windows and all Operating Systems in between.
To accomplish this they are writing a means to use WINE code as an interface between their generic code and the system dependant code of the Operating System. An example of what they at Corel are putting together.
Corel Draw Corel Interface WINE Code
Quote from Derek Burney:
Exactly, if we write what we call a portability layer, which allows us to write non platform-specific code on the one platform it minimises the amount of platform-specific code on the other and makes our job much easier to move from platform to platform. And we've already done quite a bit of that because we've done several applications and ported to the Mac, for example. So we have a lot of experience in writing so-called portable code. (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/7/ns-7106.html )
My opinion is this is a good short term means of getting things done. If we could find the specifications to the Corel Interface to the Operating System and it become Open Source, (LGPL or BSD), then this could be enhanced to the point of being Linux, *BSD, or Unix specific.
The source of my insight or guess is from the article from ZD Net UK. Where the quote above is from.
Other purpose of the WINE idea is that it will allow the porting of other comercial applications.
End all is for Corel, "Go for it." For IBM's position, it is true it would be better if you reduce the layers, there fore increase efficiency. So I say put the interface under LGPL or other, Corel over sees the project and lets the world contribute. Note is I see the other interface packages could be use for this end, or as a starting point if the packages are ported to other Operating Systems, namely non-Unix OS systems.
This was a good article on Linux. It would of been nice to show that more than one company is making some profit of it. Though it was only an article to show that it exists. The Linux people interviewed were protrayed with a good light.
Hope we can see this, or better articles on Linux and other Open Source initiatives.
My dream, to see job advertising for Linux experience or knoledge and next to nothing for Windows 1900.
It is by design you as a company whant you customer locked into you product line.
To this there is two ways to lock them in. First and common in North America is the impolite and dangerous. This is due to bugs and poor quality of product. Method is you are locked in or else you loose big time and I give no care to your rate of return on the investment. Second is the Demming, Japanese way which says you work with your vendor to a common goal of toalal profitablity of both. You work an agreement that you both produce quality product and help each other develop them. While this happens each companies bottom line are helped and any saving you make you pass to your customers, and profits are passed to you vendors.
As how I see Open Source, this method garantees that the above, first method can not happen. It can work in the second case, since you both are helping each other.
Slashdot Mirror
I support most replies and their positions.
This is how I see the situation. Microsoft is going through a four stage system.
1. Deny it exists.
2. Oh, it does exist but we are not worried.
3. That thing is junk. (FUD)
4. Oh, well it does exist and it does have a market. So let us [Microsoft] exploit it.
The reason I suspect is 3 and 4. If it does seem to be a market they will be ready to exploit it with Corel, or they will prevent Corel from selling the Word Perfect Suite. With the money they have the excercise of actually doing a port is good for Microsoft. If the FUD works then they stop the project and go on to the status quo. If Linux does become a market then Microsoft will be ready.
Now for Linux it self. This will only work if it actually is shown to be done. The customer that will buy Linux because of MS Office, will only buy Linux when there is MS Office for Linux. So for the short term it is nothing for expanding Linux market. Long term it could get a few more people interested.
Final words is we should watch this but still point people to the existing set of Office Suites and Word Processors. Let our friends use the ones they like and help them with getting them to work.
Lastly if someone says, "should I wait until MS Office for Linux comes out to use Linux?" We say, "Don't wait, partition your drive and try it now. Do you need any help with installing Linux?"
Iain
Problem that Corel has is that they want to keep support of their Applications on the various platforms. From Linux to Windows and all Operating Systems in between.
l )
To accomplish this they are writing a means to use WINE code as an interface between their generic code and the system dependant code of the Operating System. An example of what they at Corel are putting together.
Corel Draw Corel Interface WINE Code
Quote from Derek Burney:
Exactly, if we write what we call a portability layer, which allows us to write non platform-specific code on the one platform it
minimises the amount of platform-specific code on the other and makes our job much easier to move from platform to platform.
And we've already done quite a bit of that because we've done several applications and ported to the Mac, for example. So we
have a lot of experience in writing so-called portable code.
(http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/7/ns-7106.htm
My opinion is this is a good short term means of getting things done. If we could find the specifications to the Corel Interface to the Operating System and it become Open Source, (LGPL or BSD), then this could be enhanced to the point of being Linux, *BSD, or Unix specific.
The source of my insight or guess is from the article from ZD Net UK. Where the quote above is from.
Other purpose of the WINE idea is that it will allow the porting of other comercial applications.
End all is for Corel, "Go for it." For IBM's position, it is true it would be better if you reduce the layers, there fore increase efficiency. So I say put the interface under LGPL or other, Corel over sees the project and lets the world contribute. Note is I see the other interface packages could be use for this end, or as a starting point if the packages are ported to other Operating Systems, namely non-Unix OS systems.
Iain
This was a good article on Linux. It would of been nice to show that more than one company is making some profit of it. Though it was only an article to show that it exists. The Linux people interviewed were protrayed with a good light.
Hope we can see this, or better articles on Linux and other Open Source initiatives.
My dream, to see job advertising for Linux experience or knoledge and next to nothing for Windows 1900.
Iain
Test
It is by design you as a company whant you customer locked into you product line.
To this there is two ways to lock them in.
First and common in North America is the impolite and dangerous. This is due to bugs and poor quality of product. Method is you are locked in or else you loose big time and I give no care to your rate of return on the investment.
Second is the Demming, Japanese way which says you work with your vendor to a common goal of toalal profitablity of both. You work an agreement that you both produce quality product and help each other develop them. While this happens each companies bottom line are helped and any saving you make you pass to your customers, and profits are passed to you vendors.
As how I see Open Source, this method garantees that the above, first method can not happen. It can work in the second case, since you both are helping each other.
Any how this is my quick 2 cents.