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).
Microsoft Holding Its Ground on Office for Linux
114 Comments
-
2005-09-02 3:53 pm
Walter[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
.
2005-09-01 4:16 pm
2005-09-01 4:27 pm
-
2005-09-01 5:42 pm
2005-09-01 4:35 pm
-
2005-09-02 4:21 am
2005-09-01 4:42 pm
2005-09-01 4:50 pm
2005-09-01 5:00 pm
2005-09-01 5:12 pm
2005-09-01 5:16 pm
2005-09-01 5:19 pm
2005-09-01 6:42 pm
2005-09-01 6:42 pm
2005-09-01 6:52 pm
2005-09-01 6:59 pm
2005-09-01 7:46 pm
2005-09-01 8:05 pm
2005-09-01 8:06 pm
2005-09-01 10:33 pm
2005-09-01 11:00 pm
2005-09-01 11:40 pm
2005-09-01 11:57 pm
2005-09-02 12:15 am
-
-
-
2005-09-02 2:07 am
2005-09-02 12:37 am
2005-09-02 12:43 am
-
2005-09-02 8:47 am
2005-09-02 2:21 am
2005-09-02 3:01 am
2005-09-02 5:32 am
-
-
2005-09-02 5:46 am
-
2005-09-02 6:10 am
-
-
2005-09-02 10:49 am
2005-09-02 11:57 am
2005-09-02 12:39 pm
2005-09-02 3:02 pm
Anonymous
> 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.
2005-09-03 12:33 pm
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.
Yes Simcity 3000 is still working fine
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.
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?
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
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.
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 …
http://www.spatula.net/proc/linux/breakage.src
Have a read. It’s great.
“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
%s/payed/paid/g
Me having a very bad spelling day.
Please ignore my piglish.
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. 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.
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?
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
You complain a lot about Windows breaking … SP2 broke your machines, Office 2000 was broken on your machines … it sounds like your company needs to fire all of you and hire some competent Windows admins.
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.
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
Incorrect. The odd/even refers to the second number (ie. 6). The 2.1 kernel was the dev branch that lead to the stable 2.2. The 2.3 kernel was the dev branch that lead to the stable 2.4. 2.5 lead to 2.6, and that’s where they abandoned the idea. Technically, I expect all 2.6 kernels to be stable, but the kernel devs don’t seem to think so. Ted T’so made a particularily disappointing statement once about the hit-and-miss nature of 2.6 releases and their stability. It really puts the non-professional development attitude of the Linux kernel in the spotlight.
sorry, my mistake.
you are completely right.
I remember from trying a 2.5 kernel
You are completely wrong. 2.6.9 is a stable Linux kernel. It is if the second number is odd that it is unstable. In fact, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 ships with kernel 2.6.9.
2.5.9 would be unstable.
2.6.9 would be stable.
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.
Not to mention, if upgrading your kernel breaks something, you can always go back to your previous kernel until the app is updated to the newer kernel. At least you’re not stranded like you would under Windows, where you can’t “uninstall” a service pack…
“Linux is Poo” seems to be a good troll, since he elicits many intelligent responses from people demonstrating how he is wrong. This shows that trolls can serve a positive purpose in the online ecosystem… 🙂
Nice work there… i like ur style
dylansmrjones
Ummm, actually XP SP2 is uninstallable, as are many hotfixes. Dunno about previous SPs, but I can tell you first-hand as I had to uninstall SP2. Worked!
…Then, rather later, found ways to resolve the total network lockup SP2 had caused, then reinstalled. Hurrah!
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.
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.
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.
Why? Because there isn’t one Linux, but lots of different variations of Linux. So trying to make sure that all works isn’t such an easy task. That’s why most people install Linux software using package managers and not just download stuff from web like Windows people do. Why?, because that way programs will work, shortcuts and other stuff will be there.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
yep, I do it all the time on Simply Mepis and Mepis Lite.
“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 ?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Hopefully they do bring it across, it will be good healthy competition for OOO.
What claptrap are you spouting off about now? What breakage are you talking about?
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.
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…
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.
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…
“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 )
“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.
OpenOffice is already there, why would people switch to Office? I don’t see any gains…
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.
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.
why will it “never” replace it???
never ever?
Massachusits? Or are you going for domination there?
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.
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.
“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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
Having MS Office for Linux would help validate Linux as a desktop OS. I’m sure Microsoft will resist doing this.
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.
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.
“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….
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?
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.
…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.
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.
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!
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 ($190) and you need to install win on the virtual machine.
It is not going to happen anytime soon.
Office is far more than open office (yes I’ve used both)
open office is getting better, I was able to edit some excel files (with a few complex formulas) at work with open office while waiting for IT to install office on my new workstation (they did not have a free license ironically enough) and it worked ok.
After the couple of days I used open office I was left with the impression that it is not quite ready for prime time, at least not for anything beyond mildy complex spreadsheets.
As a whole package, with a development community built around the suite there is just no comparison, office wins hands down.
The entire desktop Linux discussion is silly. I work for a company trying to push desktop Linux and OpenOffice and am involved in the sales process. It’s astounding the disconnect between the hardcore folks who are completely sold on the OSS community concept and the business folks who only care about getting their work done.
M$-Orifice on Linux won’t happen. Fagetabatit. Done. Dead. The ONLY reason that M$FT is still supporting Orifice on the Mac platform is to keep the semblance of competition alive. If Apple were to achieve a significant percentage of desktop installations M$FT would no longer have to even play that game.
Forget about Orifice on Linux…..Hell, while you’re at it, forget about desktop Linux. Don’t waste any more electricity on the subject.
Cheers!
… 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=20050809