Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 1st Sep 2005 14:47 UTC
Microsoft Some prominent figures in the Linux community believe that as enterprises increase their use of Linux on the desktop, Microsoft will be forced to consider offering a version of Office for Linux. "When the [Linux desktop] market share gets to a certain point, Microsoft will, just as it did with Apple in the past, make Office available on Linux," CEO Stuart Cohen of OSDL said in an interview. My take: Mr. Cohen is forgetting two important things: Excel was first released for the Mac (1985) and Word wasn't popular until MS ported it from DOS to Mac (1985).
Order by: Score:
Breakage
by Tom K on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:08 UTC
Tom K
Member since:
2005-07-06

With the GNU/Linux people constantly re-inventing the wheel (API compatibility breakage and the like), I wonder how Microsoft will deal with the issue of keeping the software working across multiple distros indefinitely.

Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:20 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Yes Simcity 3000 is still working fine

Reply Score: 0

RE: Breakage
by markjensen on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:21 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
markjensen Member since:
2005-07-26

I am not sure what exactly you are talking about. I have UT2004, purchased from the store, and in pure binary form - no source code, so no recompiling for a specific setup. It works fine. Run the installer, and voila, I have the game installed.

I think that Microsoft could accomplish the same successful results. They have a lot of resources, and some in-house *nix expertise.

As for will this happen (MS Office on *nix)? Perhaps, but maybe not. I believe that their Office (and other apps) are a separate department and would choose whatever path looks best for making the company money in teh long run. I don't see this happening any time soon, but if Linux hits around 10% of desktops (especially corporate deskstops), Microsoft may find it hard to say "no" for too long.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Breakage
by archiesteel on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:24 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so.

Yes, because those games installed their statically-linked libs locally.

Got FUD?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:27 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

With the GNU/Linux people constantly re-inventing the wheel (API compatibility breakage and the like), I wonder how Microsoft will deal with the issue of keeping the software working across multiple distros indefinitely.

Linux Is Poo,

You seem to be a one trick pony.
I saw the same "API compatibility breakage" of yours on more then 10 different threads, I remember asking you for examples a couple of times, but somehow, you only seem to repeat the same old mantra over-and-over-again.
If I may use your own words: pending examples "I call Bullshit" on all of your statements.

Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Breakage"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh...
And before you start shooting blanks:
I use binary only software that was compiled again RH7.3, TH9, FC3 on my brand new FC4/x86-64 and it works just fine.
From the binary only nVidia drivers, proprietary software, old FC3 binaries to computer games.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Breakage
by Tom K on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Breakage"
RE[3]: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Breakage"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"I'm willing to bet?"
Again you make comments you can't back with any real example.

As for the single example you bothered to post, I'd suggest you re-read it.
Gee, beta major kernel build broke compatibility with an older release kernel.
I wonder, would my Windows NT driver work on Microsoft Vista beta we will be receiving later this year? Cause I really don't feel like porting the driver (again).

As for GTK and QT.
I've got a number of GTK 1.x and QT 2.0 applications running on FC3 and FC4.

Speaking of which,
When I switched to XP I needed to upgrade the following software (an upgrade I paied dearly for...):
* Disk-keeper 6 was incompatible with XP.
* Mcafee Antivirus 5.2 was incompatible with XP.
* Zone Alarm v5 was imcompatible with XP.
* Visual Studio v5 was imcompatible with XP.
* Office 2000 had severe stability problem with XP. Had to upgrade to Office XP.
* We had severe upgrade pains with our own software, forcing an expensive XP port.

I can continue.
I wonder, if this doesn't count as an API breakage...?

Friendly advice: Pack a real pistol next time. Spewing the first result Google result you got by entering "Linux API breakage" doesn't hold water here.

Until next time,
Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Breakage"
v RE[4]: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Breakage"
v RE[4]: Breakage
by Tom K on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Breakage"
RE[5]: Breakage
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Breakage"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Aww ... am I pushing your buttons? The big bad Linux bully doesn't like it when someone tells him how much his shit sucks.

Now, gotten that out of you system? Feeling better now?

I call BS on Office 2000.
Every time I read one your posts, I feel like my IQ is dropping by another 10 points...

I've seen it running, and running well.
Luck youy. I worship the ground you walk on.
Sadly enough, we had to upgrade ~50 machines because we weren't as lucky as you are.

As for the other applications ... welll WTF do you expect? You're upgrading to an entirely new operating system -- that's a far cry from updating your kernel one version and experience major driver breakage.

You upgrade your kernel, one version, from Windows NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, and you need to rewrite your driver and upgrade your software! Oh!
Do you bother to read your own post before spewing this nonsense?

I think it's amazing that you manage to maintain all of that wonderful GTK compatibility ... what with them having broken the API yet again with the latest release. *sniff sniff* What's that I smell?

No. You don't proof read your posts before posting.

Time to stop feeding the troll.
Unless you something less offensive to add,
Have a lovely life,
Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

v RE[6]: Breakage
by Tom K on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Breakage"
RE[7]: Breakage
by raver31 on Thu 1st Sep 2005 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Breakage"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

bad example there....

you upgraded a stable version 2.6.8 to a testing version 2.6.9

in the linux world, a version number that ends in an even number is stable, and odd numbers are not.
they are for developers to do testing on, so therefore things could be broken.

I am not going to give you abuse about this, as you have probably came from a windows background, and believe everyhting microsoft says about "newest is better" and "the next version will have everything working"

2.6.10 would have been the better choice to upgrade to

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Breakage
by elsewhere on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 02:42 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Breakage"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Upgrading my kernel from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9 is not the same as updating from NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, or from 2000 to XP. Do you bother to read your own post before spewing this nonsense? I expect drivers to break when I perform a major OS upgrade. I don't expect my shit to break when I upgrade just my kernel one measly version.

And most people don't expect their shit to break when applying a service pack from the world's largest software company for their blessed-be operating system to lock it down and make it secure after the fact. But it happened. And don't deny it happened, because even Microsoft knew it would happen. They warned it would happen. They acknowledge it happened. And they even knew what it would happen to. Maybe it didn't happen to you, maybe it didn't happen to anyone you know, or work with. But it didn't stop people from throwing things at their computer when it happened to them, just stroll through the archives of any Windows support forum.

Sure, kernel revs can break things, programmers can't account for every eventuality at the pace the kernel is developed. Point out one OS where major system upgrades don't run that risk (and since the kernel is the core component of a linux distro, it is a major upgrade even if it's a point release).

Oh, wait, Microsoft thoroughly tests their upgrades / patches / service packs before releasing them to reduce that risk. Gee, I guess that's probably why commercial distros don't support customers that upgrade the kernel on their own. And I guess that's why most commercial distros don't release kernel point upgrades until a new distro release. I guess that's why real admins running real production linux systems don't rush out to upgrade every point release until there's a substantial reason to, and it has been fully tested on their platforms and deployment.

You want bleeding edge, you're on your own. Many casual linux users are comfortable with that. But it's a choice, not a requirement. Linux and "testing/unstable" are *not* synonymous.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Breakage
by Anonymous Coward on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Breakage"
Anonymous Coward Member since:
2005-07-06

I had to bite. . .

Aww ... am I pushing your buttons? The big bad Linux bully doesn't like it when someone tells him how much his shit sucks.

>I call BS on Office 2000. I've seen it running, and >running well.

Yeah, I have. I used it until I upgraded to 2003 on XP Pro.

>As for the other applications ... welll WTF do you >expect? You're upgrading to an entirely new operating >system -- that's a far cry from updating your kernel >one version and experience major driver breakage.

That depends on a few things. If he was upgrading from Windows 2000, then XP is certainly not a new operating system, which Microsoft makes quite clear by it being 5.1 to 2000 being 5.0.

Furthermore, Microsoft has made claims about backward compatibility for years, however each time you upgrade Windows, something is likely to break.

That being said. I have had good and bad upgrades with Linux, just about as often as with Windows.

As far as putting Office on Linux and keeping it from breaking try this.

Get The OpenOffice Installer, Firefox Installer, or a number of other applications that run on Linux with a similar method. I have been able to run these on Debian, Fedora, Slackware and Lycoris without a hitch.

It is possible to build applications that don't break across versions. On the other hand, if an application does break because you upgraded, chances are, there will be a new working version in a few days/weeks that won't cost another $450 to buy (I think that's what Office Pro is going for now....could be wrong)

Finally, it's possible to run Office XP 2002 under crossover on Linux...I use it for Frontpage, and OpenOffice does everything else I need.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Breakage
by somebody on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Breakage"
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

I think it's amazing that you manage to maintain all of that wonderful GTK compatibility ... what with them having broken the API yet again with the latest release.

GTK2.8 in source and binary compatible with older releases. Functions added in new version aren't.
Gnome2.12 is focusing on GTK2.8 (with the new features), and this is why Gnome2.12 isn't compatible with GTK2.6

*sniff sniff* What's that I smell?

That would probably be your brains being burned out when calculating 2+2.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Breakage"
RE[5]: Breakage
by rm6990 on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Breakage"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Woah, huge list. I think that's more than there commercial software for Linux! Well your talk about Office 2000 is pure BS, works fine. It's easy to say that programs that was coded for Red Hat will work in new versions based on Red Hat. But try switching between different Linux distros and you are pretty much screwed.

Well that's extremely odd. The staticly compiled Thunderbird from mozilla.org works just fine for me on Ubuntu and RHEL4. Same with OpenOffice.org 1.1.4, Blender and numerous others. Of course, you are screwed if you don't know what you are talking about ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Kernel driver API, GTK, I'm willing to bet X has been broken at least partially with all of the latest crap that they're compounding onto it, C++ libraries, and so on ...

From the top...

"Kernel driver API" -- Drivers come with the kernel, so I don't see this as a problem.

"GTK" -- Examples?

"I'm willing to bet X has been broken" -- Sounds like speculation.

"C++ libraries" -- Compatable libraries ship to handle old programs.

I'm not saying you are entirely wrong. It does look as if you are just shooting in the dark, though. More examples would be needed. Can you provide them?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Try some IBM stuff like Rational Rose and other Rational software. Actually i couldn't find so much commercial Linux software, i guess there isn't just any market for those.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Breakage
by unoengborg on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:52 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't know about Loki, I have never tried them, but my old Aplixware from around year 2000 bought to run on Red Hat 6.x still runs on Fedora FC4. Not that I would want to, OOo is so much better. Now note, Fedora is a distro that is supposed to be on the bleading edge, introduceing as much new technology as possible. It is not the kind of distribution you would chose for an enterprise setup.

Red Hat states that their enterprise editions always will stay binary compatible for at least seven years. As for source code compatibility you could probably expect significanly longer period of compatibility. Most Linux programs utilize POSIX standards that probably will stay more or less unchanged for a considerable future.

I think you have may have got too many facts about Linux from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Breakage
by ma_d on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:13 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

There are two games I can't play on modern Windows:
Sid Meier's Civil War
Star Trek Klingon Academy

They both only work on 9x. And I bought both around 1999.

What's your point?

Oh, and I believe Quake 3 still plays fine, but I haven't played for a good 3 months.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 21:06 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so.

Yup. Heroes of Might and Magic 3 still runs on my machine, even using Gentoo with bleeding-edge everything not a stable commercially-supported distro.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Breakage
by historyb on Thu 1st Sep 2005 21:07 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

yep, I do it all the time on Simply Mepis and Mepis Lite.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 22:58 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so."

Tell me , are you still running Word 97 on your computer. As you upgrade your machine/OS you upgrade your applications. They all move at roughly the same speed.

And besides most Loki games work on modern distros,but you ask yourself the questions , whose still playing Descent 3 ?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Breakage
by rm6990 on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 01:32 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

With the GNU/Linux people constantly re-inventing the wheel (API compatibility breakage and the like), I wonder how Microsoft will deal with the issue of keeping the software working across multiple distros indefinitely.

Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so.


I have Netscape from 2002 running on RHEL4. StarOffice 7 works just fine. See, there is this thing called static linking which means that most of these problems go away.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by kaiwai on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You're making the incorrect assumption that they would make a 100% native version, when the most likely scenario will be porting Office to Mainsoft's Windows to UNIX Win32 transition API - which would be the most likely scenario.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by nick_th_fury on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 05:40 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
nick_th_fury Member since:
2005-08-10

"Can anyone who bought some games from Loki Games back in 1999/2000 still play them on their modern Linux distro? I thought so."



Yea, I Have 3 games from Loki & they install pretty easily. Install & run on Slackware 10.1.
Sounds like your talking about something without ever having tried it. Course I can't get my DOS Wing Commander4 to run under XP. Go figure.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Breakage
by MatzeB on Sun 4th Sep 2005 11:38 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
MatzeB Member since:
2005-07-06

ABI stability is a real problem on todays linux (as some core people in gcc and glibc promote API stability which means recompile the app to have it running again instead of just running the old app without recompiling it). This is a real problem for commercial applicationsas they have to release different versions of their software all the time.

I'd suggest you take a look at all the hoops the autopackage people have to jump to get binary compatibility on linux. Indeed applications like ut2004 and doom3 work, but to get them to that stage you have to do lots of odd tricks, like compiling them on really old boxes to make sure no new glibcisms get compiled in, or loading some libraries conditionally at runtime to accomodate all the different systems out there (some people would like arts, others alsa, others OSS). This IS far more complex and troublesome than in the windows and OS/X world.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Breakage
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 02:49 UTC in reply to "Breakage"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Descent 3 for linux still runs nicely on my portable computer with Ubuntu Hoary. There is only a slight detail with the sound (seems to be a bit late) but considering what a pain it is to make Descent3 work in Windows, I'd say the linux version runs much, much BETTER than the Windows one. SO. Let ME pose you this question: can you still play your old DOS or even windows games on your fabulous windows XP? Oh, I thought that too.

Reply Score: 0

Competition is always good
by profiled on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:13 UTC
profiled
Member since:
2005-08-30

Hopefully they do bring it across, it will be good healthy competition for OOO.

Reply Score: 1

v re: breakage
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:16 UTC
RE: re: breakage
by rcsteiner on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:25 UTC in reply to "re: breakage"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Some of the APIs used by user applications (not games) are still somewhat in flux. GTK+ is one of them.

That's one reason why a number of current programs (e.g., any version of Firefox) won't work in older Linux distros (e.g., Mandrake 8.2).

Until these core APIs stop shifting, Microsoft is better off finding one which is more stable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: re: breakage
by archiesteel on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: re: breakage"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Until these core APIs stop shifting, Microsoft is better off finding one which is more stable.

I doubt Microsoft would use GTK+ for a hypothetical Linux version of MS Office. Seems to me they would follow a path similr to OpenOffice, which is statically linked to its own local set of libraries.

That said, MS Office works very well under Wine (which is completely unaffected by changes to the rest of the Linux system), so I'm not sure how much of an incentive there would be for such an undertaking in the first place...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: re: breakage
by ma_d on Thu 1st Sep 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE: re: breakage"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Gtk 2.8 runs Gtk 2.0 code TMK.... Does anyone know of any calls deprecated since 2.0 that have been removed?

You can always do what so many things do these days: Build statically. There's nothing on Linux that says "thou shalt not build thine binaries statically." Well, except glibc: You lose platform portability with static builds against glibc.

Now, calls that are new of course aren't going to exist on systems with older versions of gtk.

Reply Score: 1

IMHO
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:20 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

microsfot better build it pretty sweet in order to beat OpenOffice because it will take a really really good office suite to beat OpenOffice in Linux...

another thing microsoft better do is use COMPLETELY open file formats or they are just going to be eventually left behind, files belong to the person authoring them, not the software used in writing them...

Reply Score: 3

RE: IMHO
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 23:03 UTC in reply to "IMHO"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"microsfot better build it pretty sweet in order to beat OpenOffice because it will take a really really good office suite to beat OpenOffice in Linux..."

Sorry but that's nonsense. There is nothing um ...
that brilliant about OO. Sure it does the job but its not as good an application as Office. Be honest with yourself... Word 97/Excel (regardless of how you feel about MS) are actually good products (sure they try and keep you upgrading but tell me which commercial software does not the same thing )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: IMHO
by Celerate on Sat 3rd Sep 2005 05:36 UTC in reply to "RE: IMHO"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"Sorry but that's nonsense. There is nothing um ...
that brilliant about OO. Sure it does the job but its not as good an application as Office."


I don't think it's nonsense, I have MS Office on my desktop but I only use it when I have to for school work, the rest of the time I use and preffer OpenOffice.org. My reasoning for liking OpenOffice more is because it's free so I'll never have to worry about not having access to it, I own my copy of the software since there is no eula, and I can install it on as many computers as I want for $0. MS office Student and Teacher edition can only be used on three computers. I like knowing that several years down the road I'll still be able to open my OpenOffice.org files on any computer I own, I can't say the same about MS office since it's not as easy to get and isn't famous for backwards compatibility.

"Be honest with yourself... Word 97/Excel (regardless of how you feel about MS) are actually good products (sure they try and keep you upgrading but tell me which commercial software does not the same thing )"

I can agree with the point about all commercial software trying to get people to upgrade, really it's another reason I like OpenOffice.org. If I can upgrade for free it really saves me money, and not upgrading when it comes to MS office means not being able to open all those documents I bring home from school which were typed on the latest version I don't have.

Reply Score: 1

Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

OpenOffice is already there, why would people switch to Office? I don't see any gains...

Reply Score: 4

RE: Doesn't make sense
by cujo on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:25 UTC in reply to "Doesn't make sense"
cujo Member since:
2005-07-06

The answer to this is painfully obvious to anyone that has a job which relies on more than just simple spreadsheets and word doc.

Like it or not, the MS Office suite is vital to more offices than any OSS fan wants to admit. Not only are the tools matue, but the people who use them know how to use them to do very complex things. OpenOffice will never be appealing to these people on the simple fact that it is different.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Agreed. Open Office tends to be a bit buggy too. I tried using it back in college to create a spreadsheet and for some reason it wouldn't let me change certain fields; I had to retype the entire thing. Not exactly what I would called "productive" office suite. MS Office is solid, safe, effective office software. Open Office can never replace it in the work place.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Doesn't make sense
by Ben2040 on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
Ben2040 Member since:
2005-06-29

why will it "never" replace it???

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

never ever?

Massachusits? Or are you going for domination there?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Doesn't make sense
by unoengborg on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, as for buggy. I have probably lost more data due to bugs in MSO than in OOo, and sometimes I have been able to save crashed MSO documents by opening them in OOo.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

MS Office is getting buggy too. Yesterday I had a perfectly normal paragraph in a Word that I had written, that caused Word to crash when I tried to cut and paste it - weird :-(

I opened the document in OOo and was able to cut and paste the relevant part. The continue editing in OOo.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 02:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Agreed. Open Office tends to be a bit buggy too" [...]
"Open Office can never replace it in the work place."

I disagree. I've been using it exclusively since before it was 1.0, and it rocks. And it has replaced MSO in a few businesses, I've seen it.
How about trying a more recent version? Just perhaps not OOo2 beta2. We already know that one HAS bugs, which will be corrected before the OOo2 official release. BTW, I'm using OOo2b2 and haven't run into any serious bugs. Actually, I can't remember running into bugs.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I can't really comment on MSoffice or OOo being able to do the most complex tasks, but as for people being used to Office, well that's just something corporations will have to add to the equation: educating people on OOo and "Linux" (more likely a DE like KDE or Gnome).
As for MS selling Office for Linux: I don't see it happening. There's little gain in it for MS (they would just make it easier running something else than Windows and probably not make a lot of money either)

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I do think that MS Office on Linux might be worthwhile for Microsoft. Not at the moment though. But if you look at the history there have always been changes of operating systems, the world is not static. And it is very likely that Linux will be the next big thing. If you consider that Office is one of the moneymakers at MS it would be wise to establish it on linux before it is too late.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Doesn't make sense
by eosp on Thu 1st Sep 2005 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Doesn't make sense"
eosp Member since:
2005-07-07

Notice they're still reluctant to admit that it is a competent desktop OS. I seem to remember an article (either here or on /.) where a guy put Ubuntu on his n00b wife's PC, and she didn't even notice the difference from win.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Doesn't make sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Doesn't make sense"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Notice they're still reluctant to admit that it is a competent desktop OS. I seem to remember an article (either here or on /.) where a guy put Ubuntu on his n00b wife's PC, and she didn't even notice the difference from win.

I've had people use my Linux laptop before. The main comments were 'where is IE?' and 'so, this is Firefox'. Everything else seemed to be roughly where they expected it to be, though that is mostly because they didn't poke around too much beyond browsing and minor word processing.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Doesn't make sense
by Rude Turnip on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:38 UTC in reply to "Doesn't make sense"
Rude Turnip Member since:
2005-07-14

I've got an $800 Excel *add-on* that only works with Excel 2000 and later. It would be nice to still be able to use that investment ;)

Reply Score: 1

I doubt they will
by Matt Giacomini on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:25 UTC
Matt Giacomini
Member since:
2005-07-06

Having MS Office for Linux would help validate Linux as a desktop OS. I'm sure Microsoft will resist doing this.

Reply Score: 4

Flaw in the argument
by cujo on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:27 UTC
cujo
Member since:
2005-07-06

While it might make sense to offer Office on Linux if Linux actually overtakes Windows somehow, but for desktop use, this is a key reason why it won't take over anytime soon.

A heck of a lot of people and companies use windows because of office. Not the other way around. No MS Office on Linux? No Linux for them.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Flaw in the argument
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:35 UTC in reply to "Flaw in the argument"
Anonymous Member since:
---

A heck of a lot of people and companies use windows because of office. Not the other way around. No MS Office on Linux? No Linux for them.

Companies stick with Windows also because of other software, not just Office. Other software includes Lotus Notes/Domino servers, AS/400 secure terminal emulation, web development software (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.), and others. Perhaps there is other free software available for handling several tasks, but companies rather go with commercial software that is backed by a company.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Flaw in the argument
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Flaw in the argument"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Companies stick with Windows also because of other software, not just Office. Other software includes Lotus Notes/Domino servers, AS/400 secure terminal emulation, web development software (Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.), and others."

I'm picking here and i apologise but most companies consist outside of the tech industry have a very small number of people using Web technologies, in a company i worked for i think there was only 1 machine with Photoshop. Companies outsource their dev work.

As for Dominios i can say much about that....

Reply Score: 0

My take ;-D
by ralph on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:35 UTC
ralph
Member since:
2005-07-10

I don't think it's really relevant if the OSDL guy got all the facts about office on the Mac straight.

What he is essentially saying is that if and when Linux on the desktop becomes more relevant in corporate settings MS will be hard pressed not to eventually offer a version of MS Office for Linux. I don't think there is much to argue about it, actually, it just makes too much sense.

Off topic, but this is really getting on my nerves:
How long are the admins of osnews going to watch a troll like linux is poo (great name, very mature), turn every thread into an off topic flame- and trollfest?

Reply Score: 2

Doesn't matter
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:41 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

In my opinion it doesn't really matter if MS makes an Office for linux or not, the really important thing would be a TRUE standard in office applications file formats.
Now we have Open Office that "runs" everyday to make an acceptable compatibility with MS file formats while MS absolutely ignores compatibility with Open Office.
This is the real problem in using Open Office in an everyday working reality.

Reply Score: 0

Thom's Take...
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

...is missing one important factor: That was when Microsoft was still rising. Microsoft was using the Mac to run an end-around on the dominance Lotus 123 and Word Perfect had in the DOS market. And while those companies held on tightly to their old ways, Microsoft used what they learned on the Mac to get a head start on the Windows versions. Don't forget that 123 and WP were very late to the Windows party, and Lotus and WordPerfect/Novell/Corel built their office suites almost entirely through acquisitions.

Now, Microsoft is in the dominant position, where Lotus and WP were in the old days. And it's Sun and OpenOffice.org using Linux, or, more importantly, the OASIS XML standards, as an end-around.

Reply Score: 0

Open Office becoming standard
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Open Office is already widely used and on its way to become the standard which means Microsoft will try to do anything in order to maintain some market share. This may well include Microsoft Word for Linux but I am afraid it is too late because there is no reason to use Word but many reasons to use Open Office, especially once it has become the standard.

Reply Score: 0

Use and old computer as Office server!
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I have an interesting story in this regard. My son
who is 15 was always kept from switching entirely to Linux because for his homework he was *forced* to use Ms Office (and he didn't want to reboot every time).

He finally solved the problem by installing a copy of Windows XP on a home built computer without monitor or keyboard (it's just a wooden box!). For his homework he logs into it using rdesktop (which works very well and is very fast even over a 10Mb link). As a bonus this computer is now acting as a print server for a Canon MP110 inkjet printer which has no Linux drivers!

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

good for him, last night I finally got my canon s630 printer to work with samba on linux. you need commercial drivers from turboprint.de and make sure you install latest ghostscript (8.x). I have Gnu ghostscript installed and I can use the printer from linux or windows box.

another way to run windows apps is to run it over vmware emulation. However, the license is bit expensive ($190) and you need to install win on the virtual machine.

Reply Score: 0

Dream Land
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:59 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

It is not going to happen anytime soon.

Office is far more than open office (yes I've used both)

open office is getting better, I was able to edit some excel files (with a few complex formulas) at work with open office while waiting for IT to install office on my new workstation (they did not have a free license ironically enough) and it worked ok.

After the couple of days I used open office I was left with the impression that it is not quite ready for prime time, at least not for anything beyond mildy complex spreadsheets.

As a whole package, with a development community built around the suite there is just no comparison, office wins hands down.

Reply Score: 0

v Eh?
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 15:59 UTC
MS Office already runs on Linux/x86 ...
by testerus on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:03 UTC
testerus
Member since:
2005-07-06

... if you have CrossOver Office installed.
http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20050809" rel="nofollow">http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20050809http://w...

Reply Score: 2

Walter Member since:
2005-07-12

[quote="testerus"]if you have CrossOver Office installed. [/quote]
Yes, and its quite easy to install as well. However I do get some eye-frowns when people are seeing that I'm using Linux and I have a Big Blue E on my desktop ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Seriously doubt it...
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:16 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

MS will do just about anything it can to avoid shipping a product that touches Linux on any level. MS Office for Linux would be the last thing they would want to give any official commitments to.

Then again, Apple is switching to x86/x64, so what do I know...

Reply Score: 1

2-3 years maybe..
by Raven on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:27 UTC
Raven
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that in about 2 or 3 years we maybe hearing an announcement from MS stating that they will make Office for Linux. I dont think they will make Office availible for Linux before the Linux Distros are compatible with each other, but i hope that's not to far into the future.
---
http://bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

Reply Score: 1

RE: 2-3 years maybe..
by archiesteel on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:42 UTC in reply to "2-3 years maybe.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I dont think they will make Office availible for Linux before the Linux Distros are compatible with each other, but i hope that's not to far into the future.

What incompatibility are you referring to?

Reply Score: 0

v Dollars and Sense
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:35 UTC
RE: Dollars and Sense
by DigitalAxis on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 04:21 UTC in reply to "Dollars and Sense"
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I don't think they'd be aiming at the desktop Linux market, which is admittedly small. I think they'd try to sell to the business market.

Their chances of success would probably be better there, since those companies pay for Linux support and would be likely to pay for and benefit greatly from having a functional word processing suite interoperable with their other systems.

Reply Score: 1

Hell will freeze over...
by gilboa on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:42 UTC
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Before MS releases Office for Linux.
As much as I dislike Microsoft, I doubt that they'll be stupid enough to help Linux gain on them.

As for Open Office, well, most of my company uses MS Office 2003, I use Open Office 2.0 (from OO.org) and I've yet to encounter any big problems opening doc/ppt/etc.

Reply Score: 1

lol
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 16:50 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Mr. Cohen........He doesn't even know MS's history.....what a dork!

Make it avaliable, people will buy it!

Reply Score: 0

We shouldn't want MS Office on Linux
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Microsoft has not just one near-monopoly, it has two, and the more lucrative one is Office (which costs a lot more than the OS).

Let them keep it off of Linux. That just makes the argument that governments should not use their proprietary formats stronger, and OpenOffice can continue to take market share away from them.

Reply Score: 0

Not likely
by unoengborg on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:12 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

The only reason MIcrosoft would have to port MS-Office to Linux would be if OOo or some other cross platform office suite expands on windows, or Linux grows into the leading system for desktop use.

In these situations, Microsoft would need to expand their market.

Reply Score: 2

Funny, ain't it
by GrapeGraphics on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:16 UTC
GrapeGraphics
Member since:
2005-07-07

What I find funny, and a bit ironic, is that most applications that I use have there beginnings or at least major starts in the Mac OS. True, I am a graphic designer, but hey... if you wanna make it, it seems that you should get a firm grasp on the Mac OS and then the Windows minions will follow and claim it there own... let's see... there's Photoshop, Quark, InDesign, Illustrator, PageMaker, Painter, Excel, Word, Dreamweaver, and yes Preimere. I know, there's plenty of Windows originating apps that excelled but in my world, it was/is the Mac that is the key to success. (Funny, it don't work the udder way around - Corel, for example.)

All IMHO

Jb

Reply Score: 1

He fogets.
by ma_d on Thu 1st Sep 2005 17:19 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

Macintosh buyers value two things: Their computer being easy to use, and being able to go to a store and buy software.
Linux users value one thing: The ability to obtain and modify a program without unnecessary restriction. Actually paying for software isn't something we Free users do often. As if we'd pay $300+ for an office suite!

And most of the workers he's talking about, the ones where the companies do the buying; aren't going to need Microsoft Office. Years have been spent already trying to explain to people that you shouldn't e-mail important information in a document type that focus's on formatting (.doc, .html, etc).

Reply Score: 2

M$ Office on Linux
by aGNUstic on Thu 1st Sep 2005 18:42 UTC
aGNUstic
Member since:
2005-07-28

If M$ creates an office product for Linux it will be adminiting that you don't need the operating system. I agree with the earlier comment that the only reason that Apple's version exists is to keep from getting into trouble over monopoly issues.

Reply Score: 3

Anonymous
Member since:
---

It's 100% wrong approach to request or expect MS Office for Linux. It means we are all still completely depend on Microsoft proprietory formats.

Instead we have to demand compatibility with open XML-based standards, regardless of the particular software package and the platform.

Reply Score: 0

Only if they loose
by MORB on Thu 1st Sep 2005 18:52 UTC
MORB
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that MS will port Office to Linux only of they loose relevance in the desktop OS market, and at that point it won't be a surprise.

Reply Score: 2

Business Plan
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 19:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"Bill Hilf, Microsoft's director of platform technology and the man behind the Linux and Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., campus, also told eWEEK in a recent interview that Microsoft has not created a prototype of Office for Linux. To do so would be extremely technically challenging and would require a huge investment of staff and financial resources, he said. "Why would we do for something that does not play into our product or business plans?" Hilf asked."

The business plan is to sell Windows and Office. Now if you can not sell Windows to certain customers then how about selling office. Now if you had a choice:

1) Making 2 sales
2) Making 1 sale
3) Making 0 sales

Now Linux on the desktop, your option would be 2 or 3. The question is: At what point would this be financially acceptable?

I am actually curious about the numbers.

Alternate thoughts:

1) Support Wine
2) Termianl Service with/for Linux
3) Open up the file formats. Now before anyone starts complaing; just document the format; not provide the source code.

Actually, in order of preference:

1) Office compatibility (100% via OO.o or StarOffice). This option would be ideal (IMHO).
2) MS support for Wine (ok option 2/3 might be interchangeable).
3) Stand alone version of Office (native port)
4) Terminal Services (not to promising for the home user).

In essence; I think it will be quite some time before MS does anything for Office and Open Source. Just my .02cents.

Reply Score: 1

Crossover office?
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 20:05 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I own cross over office and it runs office well.
The question is how much better could M$ make a native version?
Would the fonts still suck?

Reply Score: 0

doubtful
by re_re on Thu 1st Sep 2005 20:06 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft knows that with all the buzz about linux lately that if they ported Office to Linux with the current market and everybody and their mom trying to woo business towards linux/unix and away from MS that this would be suicide.

This would make it much easier for businesses to switch over to linux and this is a large part of the reason many businesses do not switch to Linux.

I love linux, but I really don't see this happening any time in the near future.

Reply Score: 1

Not a Chance
by segedunum on Thu 1st Sep 2005 22:33 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Excel was first released for the Mac (1985) and Word wasn't popular until MS ported it from DOS to Mac (1985).

That's when Windows (or rather, DOS) was a minority operating system that hadn't reached critical mass of any kind. The chances of me winning the lottery are far greater than Office for Linux ever happening.

Reply Score: 1

Feed the Cash Cow
by RGCook on Thu 1st Sep 2005 23:00 UTC
RGCook
Member since:
2005-07-12

If Office is the cash cow, then it only makes sense for MS to offer it for Linux, even if the result is a certain increase in Linux OS sales, at the expense of Vista, the ROI analysis would indicate that the trade-off is a no brainer. Office for Linux would be a tremendous boon for both Linux and MS. I get excited just thinking about it.

Reply Score: 1

Won't happen people
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 23:40 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

MS Office on Linux would be a sword in MS Windows back. Only when *nix overtakes windows on desktops worldwide would this be a possibility, the last throws of MS. This discussion sounds like "will Apple let OSX run on beige boxes"....

Reply Score: 0

so...
by Anonymous on Thu 1st Sep 2005 23:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Mr. Cohen has it right, M$ released their software for the most popular and lucrative platform on the market at the time. M$ didn't release their apps on Apple products because we are all fan-boys who luv Apple omg!!!111oneoneone. They did it for the cash, thus them being a company. So as Linux becomes more integrated in the future workplace it should have a fair shot at various office mainstays.

Reply Score: 0

OSx86 Emulation?
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 00:15 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Could someone correct me please? I keep raising this, but people obviously think it's too stupid an idea to notice. Microsoft is already committed to Office on Unix, only it's OSx86.Why not find a way of running that?

OsX86 and Linux share hardware platforms and both are forms of standard unices. Fink allows linux apps to run on a mac (it's some sort of debian compatibility layer, I believe?) Surely if it's possible to emulate windows with a completely different os and api, it can't be that hard to emulate osx on intel in Linux, bearing in mind fink works the other way, and darwin is already oss. And it's really worth doing if only because manufacturers tend to offer Apple drivers for new hardware. On top of that you would gain access to commercial software.

Finally, if you want to persuade Apple to make osx86 available in a white box to any pc user, it's the way to go, after all an os is just a system which allows you to run applications on hardware. If linux is directly compatible with macOsX applications to Apple it becomes free OsX, only without any legal comeback, and without hardware restrictions. They can't compete with that unless they just give you the opportunity to buy disks.

Reply Score: 0

RE: OSx86 Emulation?
by re_re on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 00:22 UTC in reply to "OSx86 Emulation?"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

you're forgetting about cocoa which is closed source and which most all current mac apps are written with.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: OSx86 Emulation?
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE: OSx86 Emulation?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You're right, of course. I'm guess it's not really practical, but just just out of interest, how does gnustep fit in? There's an old article

http://www.macobserver.com/columns/devilsadvocate/2003/20030606.sht...

It seems to suggest some compatibility may exist between it and cocoa?

Reply Score: 0

RE: OSx86 Emulation?
by rm6990 on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 02:07 UTC in reply to "OSx86 Emulation?"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

OsX86 and Linux share hardware platforms and both are forms of standard unices. Fink allows linux apps to run on a mac (it's some sort of debian compatibility layer, I believe?) Surely if it's possible to emulate windows with a completely different os and api, it can't be that hard to emulate osx on intel in Linux, bearing in mind fink works the other way, and darwin is already oss. And it's really worth doing if only because manufacturers tend to offer Apple drivers for new hardware. On top of that you would gain access to commercial software.

You are completely wrong. Fink is a port of apt-get (also modified) to Mac OS X. All of the apps available through Fink are ported to OS X. Meaning they are native apps. Considering most OSS apps have OS X ports, what sense would it be emulating the Linux versions when the OS X versions are available for free?

Reply Score: 1

A ground for competition ?
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 00:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I absolutely agree.

Also, as once noticed, competition with OpenOffice might not be profitable because MsOffice will be closed source. Competition against open-source software often implies better results.

But here we speak about proprietary, costly, closed-source software. It might erased OOo form company computer while I will never install it on my destkop since I cannot pay that much for it.

bouh

Reply Score: 0

How is this relevant?
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 00:43 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> Mr. Cohen is forgetting two important things: Excel was first released for the Mac (1985) and Word wasn't popular until MS ported it from DOS to Mac (1985).

I'd be interested in an expansion of this thought. At first blush, it doesn't seem relevant to the conversation: that was then; this is now.

I thought the article was perceptive. Microsoft has the knack of filling markets well. As Linux expands on the business desktop, there will be a market for an Office port. Companies love familiarity. They'll buy it.

I personally think Open Office is terrific software.

Reply Score: 0

RE: How is this relevant?
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 08:47 UTC in reply to "How is this relevant?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

> Mr. Cohen is forgetting two important things: Excel was first released for the Mac (1985) and
> Word wasn't popular until MS ported it from DOS to Mac (1985).

I'd be interested in an expansion of this thought. At first blush, it doesn't seem relevant to the conversation: that was then; this is now.


It's important because Cohen said: "just as it did with Apple in the past". Cohen sees this as a relevant point that MS will one day make Office on Linux; however, MS never decided to make Office "available" on Mac in the way he is now suspecting MS to do with Linux.

It is easier to keep supporting the original platform an app came from, than to make the app available on a completely new platform altogether.

Reply Score: 5

The solution is pretty obvious
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 02:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Open standards. Not that MS will document their formats. But rather that marked mechanisms will force MS to implement support for the OpenDocument standard.

But I doubt you will ever see a MS Office for *Linux (* for GNU or whatever). Anyway, it runs decently under Wine these days - and OOo has good MS-support for anything but extreme complex documents. A standard 15 pages report written by a college student is not problem in regard to convert to and fro MS-formats.

Look here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050831202118904

MS _is_ losing ground in regard to standards. But don't ever expect MS to relase software for *Linux. That would be equal to surrender.

/dylansmrjones
kristian AT herkild DOT dk

Reply Score: 0

Way too early to speculate
by CanuckleFrog on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 05:32 UTC
CanuckleFrog
Member since:
2005-07-29

I don't think anybody would be surprised if Microsoft made software for Linux one of these days, but we're talking 5-10 years down the road.

And they wouldn't make software for linux because linux isn't an operating system. Do they target RedHat, Novell, what? It's silly to compare linux and OSX because linux is a kernel and OSX is an operating system.

Of course Microsoft would also most likely write their own toolkit or buy out Trolltech.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Way too early to speculate
by archiesteel on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 05:40 UTC in reply to "Way too early to speculate"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And they wouldn't make software for linux because linux isn't an operating system.

Well, if you want to be picky about it, linux is a kernel while GNU/Linux is an OS... :-)

Do they target RedHat, Novell, what?

They could easily target all of them. OpenOffice does, after all. I fail to see how one of the richest companies wouldn't be able to do it while a bunch of volunteers did.

Of course Microsoft would also most likely write their own toolkit or buy out Trolltech.

They wouldn't gain much by buying Trolltech, it'd be a lot cheaper to buy Qt licenses for its developers. After all, even if it bought Trolltech it wouldn't be able to "un-GPL" Qt...and I think we'll see Microsoft provide a commercial version of MS Office for Linux waaay before we'll see MS put out a GPLed product!

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Way too early to speculate
by barkley on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 05:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Way too early to speculate"
barkley Member since:
2005-07-18

After all, even if it bought Trolltech it wouldn't be able to "un-GPL" Qt...and I think we'll see Microsoft provide a commercial version of MS Office for Linux waaay before we'll see MS put out a GPLed product!

That's a pretty dumb comment. Of course Microsoft could un-GPL Qt. You can do anything you want when you own the copyright.

Reply Score: 2

nimble Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course Microsoft could un-GPL Qt. You can do anything you want when you own the copyright.

True, but due to the FreeQT agreement they'd have to either continue to make new versions available under GPL or give the last free version away under a BSD-style license. Unless of course their lawyers found some loophole in the agreement.

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yes, this is what I was referring to (the FreeQT agreement). Poor choice of words, perhaps, though not enough to qualify as "dumb."

The point I was trying to make is that MS could not un-GPL the existing versions of Qt. Most likely, what would happen is that the community would fork it and then continue developing it.

In that sense, Trolltech is not a very interesting acquisition target for Microsoft. They'd either license Qt, use Gtk or - more likely - come up with their own proprietary toolkit.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

After all, even if it bought Trolltech it wouldn't be able to "un-GPL" Qt...and I think we'll see Microsoft provide a commercial version of MS Office for Linux waaay before we'll see MS put out a GPLed product!

That's a pretty dumb comment. Of course Microsoft could un-GPL Qt. You can do anything you want when you own the copyright.


That's not quite accurate. They could stop releasing future versions under the GPL, but they could not revoke the already granted license. The version released under GPL would be redistributable indefintely to any person agreeing to the license's terms.

A grantor of a license cannot revoke it once proffered absent a clause that explicitly makes it part of the agreement. You can't sell the rights to a book and later change your mind...

Reply Score: 0

Just for the record...
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 10:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Domino runs on Linux, and has for years now.
(and even server parts of Rational software, IIRC)

Most if not all the IBM's _server_ software runs on linux. Try it: if you register on IBM's site they'll even send you DVDs with pretty much everything they produce.

For free and everywhere in the world.

Reply Score: 0

Office on Linux
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 11:57 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I believe the day will come when Linux will have grown to the point where Microsoft will be forced to consider it as a market, instead of competition. Might not happen in two years, might not happen in five years. But it will happen eventually. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand.

Reply Score: 0

Not getting off topic but....
by Anonymous on Fri 2nd Sep 2005 12:39 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I had a question somewhat relevent to the string of thought here. I have a fedora core 4 system with a Geforce 2 GTS. The new Nvidia drivers don't support my card. However, a couple years ago I ran Mandrake 8 and used Nvidia drivers. Could I use my Nvidia drivers from back then on my current system?

They were the drivers where you just copied two files to certain directories and then changed your xfree86.conf file. I havn't tried it, but would these older drivers work ok?

Any help appreciated.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

> OpenOffice will never be appealing to these people on the simple fact that it is different.

That's bullshit, when you employed ppl, they told you that they are ready to learn something new, are flexible and dynamic. Or didn't they? Oh, I forgot to say that ~95% of those people say that and you might want to remind them about that.

Helped in several firms where I moved whole buros from Windows to Linux and BSD. Those had the problem that the users were too dumb to see a difference between an exe and a jpg. While it might seem that with user's rights you can't really damage an NT system, too, BUT: industry spionage and keyloggers don't require root rights, too.

And until then ... the router filters everything, and except su no one knows how to chmod +x ;)
And how did the users switch to OOo? Easily: they've got a CD with an(except in 2 cases win32) ooo installer and an offline copy of an ooo handbook/howto. Who didn't manage to learn something new, he was allowed to consume more time for the same work. In two weeks all workers from the buros were doing all jobs with ooo quite easily.

Those who employ people who aren't flexible can in the same way employ a robot doing the same job. At least it doesn't have to go to the toilet and smoke a cigarette once in a while and can work 24/7.

The whole thing about "never" appealing is such a bullshit.

Reply Score: 0

Way to late.
by Anonymous on Sat 3rd Sep 2005 12:33 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

People are already migrated to OO.o, Novell are fully converted with all the company using OO.o and Linux desktop.

Buy the time microsoft try to do what they have done with Office on Mac-OSX (if they ever do with I really doubt) OO.o will be the standard Linux office solution and much cheaper.

Reply Score: 0