Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Oct 2005 17:43 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has rejected porting its Office productivity suite to Linux anytime soon, despite the growing popularity of open source on the desktop. Speaking at the LinuxWorld conference in London on Wednesday, Microsoft's head of platform strategy, Nick McGrath, said that the software maker had no intention of porting Office to any of the Linux desktop distributions.
Order by: Score:
Right
by Smartpatrol on Wed 5th Oct 2005 17:54 UTC
Smartpatrol
Member since:
2005-07-06

Not surprising since that would be the single bigest enhancement to Linux that would cause widespread adoption. Why would MS want to do that?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Right
by RGCook on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:23 UTC in reply to "Right"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

I agree, but if MS also produced their own Linux distro, then this could be a great way to expand their capabilities and benefit the entire industry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Right
by DittoBox on Wed 5th Oct 2005 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Right"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Right
by ma_d on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Right"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Everyone mod parent up. That's just perfect...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Right
by RGCook on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Right"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Couldn't agree more.

Reply Score: 1

So Why?
by shotsman on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:09 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

Why was this Microsoft Drone speaking at a Linux Conference if he was not going to say anything new?

Microsoft are well known for their attitude to Linux. Ok, I can understand him visiting the show but actually speaking? Strange indeed.

I was at the show today and found it pretty poor. IBM weren't there and HP was pushing Linux very hard especially via their "partners". Other companies were a bit more Laid Back. Alan Cox was on the Red Hat stand ensuring that all the suits were very out of place.
Dell wouldn't say if their "No Windows" desktops were going to be sold in the UK.
Lots of stands promoting Debian & Ubuntu and quite a few with embedded hardware. But overall it was not a very inspiring event and left after an hour or so. On a very un PC note, the Rackspace Ladies did brighten the place up considerably.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So Why?
by Varg Vikernes on Thu 6th Oct 2005 00:22 UTC in reply to "So Why?"
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft are well known for their attitude to Linux. Ok, I can understand him visiting the show but actually speaking? Strange indeed.

Actually I've read and watched a lot of Microsoft employees talk about Linux and it's clear that they don't hate it or want to see it die. There are a lot of these kinds of videos on Channel 9 if you want to take a look. Sure they don't like it, because it's their competition, but many people think that Steve Ballmer's speeches against Linux are the entire company's attitude. That's just the good old PR FUD which we're all used to, but in reality the truth is much greyer.

Reply Score: 1

ms and linux
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

ms makes products for linux it is exclusively on the server side of things though.

Reply Score: 0

RE: ms and linux
by rm6990 on Thu 6th Oct 2005 01:04 UTC in reply to "ms and linux"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

ms makes products for linux it is exclusively on the server side of things though.

Please name a few (don't include their virtualization products, they don't count as they don't run on Linux)

Reply Score: 1

Interesting times
by Kris on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:33 UTC
Kris
Member since:
2005-07-24

The whole MS-Office on Linux situation is quite interesting. A company with 2 core products with one being the enabler for the other so far (ignoring OSX). Potentially boost sales of one product at the cost of making the other one less attractive I guess it all comes down to Microsoft's judgement on
(a) the estimated growth of Linux over the next years
(b) the potential thread of say OpenOffice.org

The use of Office is currently bundled with the need for Windows (and at the same time enhances the attractiveness of Windows) but the use of Windows is independent of Office (except for the enhancement it gets). Linux is not really a thread as far as the Desktop goes however OO.o is a bigger problem for Microsoft beacause it allows Users to "slowly migrate". Step one in the worst case scenario is your average user switching to OO.o but still using Windows beacause that's what he/she is used to, step b would be higher pressure on resellers to bundle OO.o with computers and step c might be the migration to Linux.

Either way it's a lose-lose situation how they handle it depends on their long term vs. short term thinking and how they value Windows vs. Office
(a) No Office for Linux -> They won't get any Linux users to switch back to their Office should Linux have 50% market share one day
(b) Office for Linux -> They will weaken Windows but strengthen Office

Good thing there's gamers ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting times
by Varg Vikernes on Thu 6th Oct 2005 00:33 UTC in reply to "Interesting times"
Varg Vikernes Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think Office for Linux would have had that much of an impact. See OS X for example. Microsoft has three of their major products for OS X (Office and IE and MSN) and there wasn't a major growth in Mac users (at least not because of these products beeing available on OS X). There's actually a lot of MS stuff available for OS X so I don't know how Office for Linux would have turned out. I also don't think OO.o is a major problem for Office at this point. If it were, why would they default to the open XML format (GPL issues aside, the format is open for everyone to use).

However, if Linux does see big share increase you can bet your ass there will be Office and a whole other bunch of Microsoft software for it. If people suddenly choose to use Linux, why stop the from that and risk a big loss from trying to tie them into Windows. Instead offer them key applications (Office, VS,...) and you still make a lot of money. You'll lose the Windows profit, but better that than all right?

Reply Score: 1

Yeah right
by bringmewater on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:40 UTC
bringmewater
Member since:
2005-09-29

You can be sure they are writing it for Linux compatability in the background.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Yeah right
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:42 UTC in reply to "Yeah right"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You can be sure they are writing it for Linux compatability in the background.

I doubt it, even if they are thinking of making a linux version, they'll probably wait until the decision is made and then hack a version up as quick as they can. If Microsoft really were forward thinking they wouldn't have waited to update IE or waited until XP SP2 to add security features.

As to wether they will do it. They won't until the potential lost revenue from Windows licenses is less than the lost revenue from not having a linux version. And Window's market share has to drop a lot before that is the case.

Reply Score: 0

v RE
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 18:53 UTC
RE
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE"
Anonymous Member since:
---

You seem to assume that the vocal minority of 13-yearolds running their omg-optimized Gentoo are representative for the Linux community. Sure, there's an MS-bashing element, but this is mostly in the userbase. I have yet to encounter a developer with such an attitude (not counting asshats like RMS). Most are very professional and focused on creating good software.
Apple and the Mac-community are not free of dislike for MS either.

MS wouldn't port Office to Linux, even if it was as easy as porting it to Mac (meaning one toolkit for example, though I'm not saying that's always a good thing) because Linux is much more of a threat to MS than OSX (in the enterprise that is). Not because Linux is technically superior, but because of the concept. I don't think corporations would like the idea of being locked to one company's fate, both on the hardware and software side.
Also, Office on Linux would just make the transition easier, and why would MS want that? If Linux manages to achieve a considerable amount of the market (like 10%-15%) MS might consider it. Today? Forget it

Reply Score: 0

RE
by ma_d on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

The sort of "flagship book" if you will of the FOSS community is entitled "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." The book is about the babbling bazaar that is the Linux kernel development method. However, it really does translate heavily into the way the community is: It's a babbling bazaar itself!

So, to propose the idea that their is one mindset of the FOSS community is quite silly. There are millions of mindsets, which converge on thousands of platforms. So, to act as if we all want to see Microsoft gone is silly. There are many who could care less. Many who like it, because it keeps the twits off in their world. And, yes, those who just wanna see Microsoft go and they see the FOSS community as able to do it.

In the end, the only thing that's gonna kill Microsoft is Microsoft. They know that, we all know that. Microsoft has to make mistakes to lose its hold (and yes, past mistakes count today). All the FOSS community is doing is ensuring that there will be some sort of alternative out there: Even if Apple goes out, and any other company that pops up dies off; you're not going to kill free software. And that's the "way" many think FOSS can destroy Microsoft. But in the end, it's just keeping Microsoft honest; giving consumers and alternative, and giving Microsoft some decent competition.

Linux, by its very license, is incapable of totalitarian behaviour. Read the GPL, you'll understand why.

I think Microsoft ports Office to Mac because Office is a bigger moneymaker and a better lock-in than Windows. I know it's a bigger money maker, that's published. And I think we all know there's little left on Windows that is effective at locking people in. Most of it is just a series of small things that you just need to grow accustomed too, and a few apps that companies haven't yet ported (but most at least run windows/mac if they're any good).

Reply Score: 1

Would Linux users even buy it?
by Marcellus on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:00 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

Would Linux users even bother to buy MS Office if it was available?
Corps probably would, but I mean normal users.

Would they even get it, if it was free? (not open sourced)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Would Linux users even buy it?
by raver31 on Wed 5th Oct 2005 22:16 UTC in reply to "Would Linux users even buy it?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

no thanks.

even if it was free I would still not use it.

I prefer to have access to MY files on MY computer. I do not want one company standing between me and the things I create.

So, even if MS Office was free to download, the formats would not be open.

I choose the freedom to use my files whenever and wherever I want, therefore, I will pick OpenOffice

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

let me guess, you're the kind of guy who writes his files letters in postscript - LOL!

emmm,, yes and no
I write letters and documents and save and distriubute them in PDF. Which is a descendant of postscript.

so your point was ?

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Well, I would get it if it was free. But, I wouldn't really be inclined to use it, I'd just have it in case I got any documents that had problems in OOo.

Reply Score: 0

Growing Popularity? Yes and no...
by markjensen on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:06 UTC
markjensen
Member since:
2005-07-26

Well, yes, Linux popularity is growing. Howevever, it is still very much a minority OS. Even the standards-centric w3schools.com site shows only a trickle of Linux hits: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Again, yes, it is increasing (approx 50% increase in the share of Linux hits from 2003 to 2005), indicating a probable corresponding increase in usage as a desktop OS. However, 3.3% is very small. (Of interesting note is that the same site shows alighly less Mac hits, yet they have an Office suite) ;)

It is a bit confusing, as the exact verbage of the quoted article states "growing popularity of Open Source on the desktop", not necessarily an Open Source Operating System (like BSD or Linux), but could easily apply to Firefox and other Open Source apps that can run in Windows. I think that they meant to imply "Linux" as that is what is popular to compare to Windows, and hold up as "the next big threat".

But at 3% market to 90% market, it is like Bambi to Godzilla.

Factor in the "aiding the potential competition" factor, and the odds of a Microsoft Office for Linux drops significantly... ;)

Reply Score: 1

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

are you dim ?

3% of the computer using base is a lot of users.
try counting it sometime.

Reply Score: 1

office - *nix
by Devilotx on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:23 UTC
Devilotx
Member since:
2005-07-06

I always worried about office for *nix, I can see the scenario unfolding.

MS released Office Linux, it is well recieved in the industry, even if this takes time, MS can wait, they've never made money on the Xbox, they can eat some loss by launching this product.

Linux starts to make inroads from it.

MS innovations flow into the Linux Office system leaving the alternatives behind, with the money and manpower of MS behind, it becomes the Linux standard for productivity suits.

MS abandons it, the companies and parties that are now dependant on Microsoft Linux Office are now stranded.

MS announes an upgrade path for its Linux Office users, this upgrade path involves a move to Windows.

Spun correctly, MS would come out of this smelling like a rose, they "tried" to support the market, but the market didn't work with them (say - innability to turn a profit perhaps?) and at the same time they would cripple the movement of linux into the destop environment.

Reply Score: 1

v Yer and?
by segedunum on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:26 UTC
v Openoffice is better
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:31 UTC
v RE: Openoffice is better
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 19:55 UTC in reply to "Openoffice is better"
Butt plugs
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 20:46 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

"First family of Windows Vista viruses unleashed"
http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=2305...

When you're too busy trying to cork your own ass you don't have time to develop for others.

Reply Score: 1

More like you are an @sshat.
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:54 UTC in reply to "Butt plugs"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"First family of Windows Vista viruses unleashed"
http://computerworld.com.sg/ShowPage.aspx?pagetype=2&articleid=...

When you're too busy trying to cork your own ass you don't have time to develop for others.


well first its not a virus. Its a script that uses system objects while running as an administrator in 'creative ways'. If you consider scripts running at a high priviledge level to be a virus then I don't know what to say.

second Monad is not slated to ship with Vista.

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122145,00.asp

Reply Score: 0

RE: More like you are an @sshat.
by Dually on Thu 6th Oct 2005 06:55 UTC in reply to "More like you are an @sshat. "
Dually Member since:
2005-07-26

I keep reading these stories about Vista wont have X feature or Y feature that was stated to be in it. What exactly will it have other than a new look?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Butt plugs
by proforma on Thu 6th Oct 2005 09:29 UTC in reply to "Butt plugs"
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

>When you're too busy trying to cork your own ass you >don't have time to develop for others.

No, it's not that at all. The problem is two fold on why people want to run linux.

1) They want to run something that isn't Microsoft Based (usually a political move, but they don't understand that Microsoft nor anyone else cares).

2) They don't buy software. They try to get free software the legal way. This is because they either don't have a job, live with their parents, or work at Taco Bell.

There is really no market for Microsoft Office for Linux.

Half of the linux advocates will whine and complain that Microsoft is trying to take over the computer industry and they won't buy it and the other half will say that they already have a better solution in FREE (as in beer) open source software and that they wouldn't buy it either.

Linux advocates talk about the same stuff over and over and over again. It makes me throw up inside my mouth.

Everyone is bored to death and we get it that they don't like Microsoft, think they are a monopoly and that linux is a much better product and open source rules and will kill windows someday.

It's the same shit over and over and over again,
each day. Linux advocates are sooooo predictable

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Butt plugs
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Butt plugs"
Anonymous Member since:
---

{{ No, it's not that at all. The problem is two fold on why people want to run linux.

1) They want to run something that isn't Microsoft Based (usually a political move, but they don't understand that Microsoft nor anyone else cares).

2) They don't buy software. They try to get free software the legal way. This is because they either don't have a job, live with their parents, or work at Taco Bell. }}

No, it's not that at all. The problem is Cross-platform interoperability.

Data generated by Microsoft applications (Office in particular) is not portable to other platforms.

If Microsoft refuse to make Office in particular available on different platforms, then a lot of people would consider alternate Office applications from other vendors that are indeed cross-platform compatible. This is because there are a lot of other platforms out there. To cater to that market, Microsoft could either make their Office format readily interchangeable with applications on other platforms, or they could make Office itself available on other platforms.

Microsoft refuse to do either. More and more this will force end users to use alternative (non-Microsoft) products (particularly Office equivalents).

{{Half of the linux advocates will whine and complain that Microsoft is trying to take over the computer industry and they won't buy it and the other half will say that they already have a better solution in FREE (as in beer) open source software and that they wouldn't buy it either.

Linux advocates talk about the same stuff over and over and over again. It makes me throw up inside my mouth. }}

Windows advocates come up with the same excuses over and over about why Microsoft refuse to make their products inter-operable with other platforms. It makes me throw up.

It's the same shit over and over and over again,
each day. Windows astroturfers are sooooo predictable.

Reply Score: 0

There's no market
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 20:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux is too small of a market for Microsoft to consider, along with no standard desktop libraries to use.

Reply Score: 0

RE: There's no market
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 21:32 UTC in reply to "There's no market"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Wouldn't matter to microsoft, Office has never used the standard widgets even on Windows. They just statically compile in, or include everything it needs.

Reply Score: 0

RE: There's no market
by stew on Wed 5th Oct 2005 21:45 UTC in reply to "There's no market"
stew Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly. It's just a pure business decision - the revenue would not pay the investment, so there's on reason why Microsoft should write Office for Linux.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Member since:
---

Cross-platform interoperability.

There is a big market for any application that is cross-platform capable, particularly government customers.

A lot of people want to be able to use their data on a number of different platforms.

Data generated by Microsoft applications (Office in particular) is not portable to other platforms.

If Microsoft refuse to make Office in particular available on different platforms, then a lot of people would consider alternate Office applications from other vendors that are indeed cross-platform compatible.

To cater to that market, Microsoft could either make their Office format readily interchangeable with applications on other platforms, or they could make Office itself available on other platforms.

Microsoft refuse to do either. More and more this will force end users to use alternative (non-Microsoft) products (particularly Office equivalents).

Reply Score: 0

RE: There's no market
by ma_d on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:45 UTC in reply to "There's no market"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I wonder how much their API's are tied into the OS... Do you suppose they couldn't port their GUI API to another OS?

There are plenty of libraries to use though. But nobody wants to rewrite all their code for a different library, it's a pain in the butt!

Reply Score: 1

Again
by segedunum on Wed 5th Oct 2005 21:39 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yer. Microsoft isn't going to make a version of Office for Linux, the world isn't flat. So what? What's the actual news here?

Reply Score: 2

Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 21:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

MS has a hard time figuring out which linux version?. If they develop to Redhat, debian and slakers would be up in arms. If they developed to SuSE, Fedora and Mandy users would be bitching to high heavens and if they developed to Ubuntu then the Gentoo users would come out with pitch forks.


So they took the safest approach, don't develop for Linux at all.

(Hey MS, how about doing us FreeBSD guys a favor - afterall we did give you your TCP/IP stack ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous Penguin on Wed 5th Oct 2005 22:15 UTC in reply to "Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you ever notice that Staroffice works on every distribution? So do a lot of other programs...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Wed 5th Oct 2005 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

it's open office and each distro compiles it's own version of Open Office. Star Office generally will work if you have Java and some specific Gnome environment but doesn't install correctly (mime types, menu items and other integration) if you're on KDE.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

"it's open office and each distro compiles it's own version of Open Office."

Not without reason I wrote StarOffice" and not "OpenOffice"

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Which version of Linux?
by andrewg on Thu 6th Oct 2005 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which version of Linux?"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Its because Staroffice does not use any shared libraries. It basically includes everything it needs.

Statically compiled QT and GTK apps generally do the same thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Which version of Linux?
by ma_d on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which version of Linux?"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Thousands of programs run on any distro you compile them on. You have to meet their dependencies: Doy. OpenOffice has a package for gnome integration, I believe if you don't use it you should be fine without gnome. It won't integrate with KDE, but it'll still work.
This really is a stupid complaint. If you release rpm's the slackers and debs won't yell, they'll be slightly annoyed as they whip out rpm2tgz and alien... Or you could just make an autopackage, which says it will work on anything!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 01:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Jeezzz you Linux guys should stop making excuses for everything that requires manual intervention.

When I install a Gnome-Redhat-.RPM on a KDE-Xandros-.DEB system. It should "JUST WORK (TM)".

Even firefox has to use .tar.gz because there's no automatic way for a .deb or .rpm to install on Linux.

Even Firefox says: Firefox has been tested on Red Hat Linux 8.0 and later.

So if I'm a newbie and I bough SuSE Linux - I'd have a problem because Firefox says Redhat Linux 8.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

{{Even Firefox says: Firefox has been tested on Red Hat Linux 8.0 and later.

So if I'm a newbie and I bough SuSE Linux - I'd have a problem because Firefox says Redhat Linux 8.}}

Surely a newbie would ask himself/herself "How do I install stuff on my new Linux system?" - then look on the menu - OK there is a category for "System" - then look under that and see "Software Installer". OK, run the Software Installer (package manager), find firefox, click to install - done. Easy.

Now for a hypothetical "Microsoft Office for Linux", Microsoft could simply maintain a few repositories (one for each of the major distributions), and provide a (normally hidden) URL on its website for anyone who had purchased the application. Then it would be a matter (for the end user) of:

- run the package manager,
- add the applicable URL for the Microsoft Office for Linux repository suitable for your distribution,
- update the package manager, and
- install the "Microsoft Office for Linux" as usual.

Alternatively there is always the universal Autopackage (whatever it is called).

Reply Score: 0

RE: Which version of Linux?
by rm6990 on Thu 6th Oct 2005 01:14 UTC in reply to "Which version of Linux?"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

MS has a hard time figuring out which linux version?. If they develop to Redhat, debian and slakers would be up in arms. If they developed to SuSE, Fedora and Mandy users would be bitching to high heavens and if they developed to Ubuntu then the Gentoo users would come out with pitch forks.


So they took the safest approach, don't develop for Linux at all.

(Hey MS, how about doing us FreeBSD guys a favor - afterall we did give you your TCP/IP stack ;)


Ummm, excuse me, OpenOffice.org installs on ANY distribution I've thrown the vanilla install from the main website at, flawlessly. You see, there is this thing called static compiling.

They could even make it an autopackage, which would mak e it available on any distro.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 02:13 UTC in reply to "Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

{{MS has a hard time figuring out which linux version?. If they develop to Redhat, debian and slakers would be up in arms. If they developed to SuSE, Fedora and Mandy users would be bitching to high heavens and if they developed to Ubuntu then the Gentoo users would come out with pitch forks.}}

There are several ways to make a given application suitable to install on any distribution (say OpenOffice as just one high-profile example). This can be made to work even for binaries.

One method is autopackage.

It is even possible for example to put four of five different binary packages on an install CD and simply ask the user which one is most suitable (is their distro based on Debian/Ubuntu, SuSe, RedHat or Slackware?). It could even be possible to write an install script which worked out the answer to that question for itself, without asking the user.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Which version of Linux?
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Which version of Linux?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>ask the user which one is most suitable (is their distro based on Debian/Ubuntu, SuSe, RedHat or Slackware?).


It gets worse, do you mean FC3 or FC4 or how about SuSE 9.3 or SuSE 10, debian woody or debian sarge?- there are major differences between versions of the same distribution.

Reply Score: 0

No money
by snowflake on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:09 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

Although the Mac and Linux community maybe roughly the same size and thus make the argument for porting Office to Linux, the purchasing power of each is quite different. Given the nature of Linux, software sales are likely to be much smaller compared to the Mac community. Hence why bother porting Office over, there isn't any money to be made.

Reply Score: 1

They don't need to...
by A30Guy on Wed 5th Oct 2005 23:35 UTC
A30Guy
Member since:
2005-07-06

The reason Microsoft won't create Office for Linux is that there is no need. Recent versions of Office already run under Wine or Crossover Office quite adequately.

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous
Member since:
---

Are we that unimaginative?

Reply Score: 0

How big is the userbase
by Haicube on Thu 6th Oct 2005 08:58 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

I can see Microsofts standpoint here because of some real serious issues.

Surely there are a lot of Linux users (I would assume so anyway).

But from Microsofts point of view you have to divide them into 3 groups

1. Linux users who did the switch because they don't wanna use MS -- will NOT buy Office
2. Linux users who simply don't wanna pay - will NOT buy office
3. Linux users who don't mind paying - Might buy office

Putting it like this makes the userbase probably very small. Let's make a comparison here...
MySQL targets all 3 groups, they're still like a tiny winy company with small income despite that they have thousands of users.

This is only through a simple sales perspective which should be put in relation to the technical obstacles of making office for Linux which lacks standards between distributions etc...

Reply Score: 1

The day will come...
by Anonymous on Thu 6th Oct 2005 12:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Linux will grow to the point where Microsoft will be forced to view it as a market, not competition. Even when that time arrives, Microsoft will have to be dragged to it kicking and screaming. Their objection to Linux has always been for philosophical reasons. The mere thought of free software is repugnant to them. It turns their entire business model on its head. Just like IBM in the past, and the recording industry now, Microsoft is trying everything they can to maintain the status quo. IBM nearly went bankrupt with that strategy, and so will Microsoft if they don't "see the light".

Reply Score: 0