Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft Porting Applications To Linux (Really!)

Posted by Hemos on Wed Aug 16, 2000 01:15 PM
from the kicking-down-chairs-and-knocking-down-tables dept.
Erbo writes "We've heard the rumors before, more times than we can count, but this time WinInfo claims they're true: Microsoft is working with Mainsoft in Israel and a small French development team to port their apps to Linux, and possibly other Unices. No estimates on availability, of course. Their strategy seems to be to use an "Office for Linux" as a bridge to Windows, similar to Mac Office."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:50PM
  • Re:Buy it? by Zordak (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:01PM
  • Re:Wine and Office by Mtgman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:01PM
  • OT: Honesty, Ellison, and the GPL by Tony (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:08AM
  • Re:Hmmm by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:53PM
  • Fear MS? Nah, fear Free Software. by Angst Badger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:08AM
  • Maybe not Office, Maybe IE by Captain Bumpsickle (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:09AM
  • This is a good thing by Mustang (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:59PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by quonsar (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:03PM
  • Re: Paper clip for linux by AdrianZ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:04PM
  • Re:Hmmm by Skald (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:06PM
  • Re:interesting? by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:12AM
  • Re:Linux is not stable by slickwillie (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:06PM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by flatrock (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:13AM
  • Re:You know hell has always been frozen, right? by sampson (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:01PM
  • Re:MS to Linux users: "Just install this RPM as ro by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:05PM
  • by KFury (19522) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:07PM (#850643) Homepage
    Defending their 'freedom to innovate' for so long, it's nice to see they're actually doing something innovative.

    It'd be nice to have a modern cross-Win/Mac/Unix office software package (and emacs doesn't count).

    I'm looking forward to see what atrocities they try to implement in X11 just to get suchandsuch widget performing in exactly the way they want.

    Kevin Fox
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by LordP (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:11PM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by JReam (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:08PM
  • Re:Info on how they'll do the port, and why by rlowe69 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:15PM
  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by swb (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:15AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Brian Feldman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:16PM
  • Thanks (NT) by WBDinnigan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:17PM
  • Re:This is smart by Phrogman (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:15PM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by andr0meda (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:18AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by tourvil (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:18PM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by Rumble (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:19AM
  • the most promising statement in the article... by extrarice (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:20PM
  • Re:Maybe not Office, Maybe IE by Captain Bumpsickle (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:20AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:21AM
  • Hoax. by gi_wrighty (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:20AM
  • A good idea but... by ConceptJunkie (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:21AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by nhavar (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @06:37PM
  • Re:MS on Linux by nhavar (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @06:50PM
  • Re:MS to Linux users: "Just install this RPM as ro by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:19PM
  • Re:I'd like to add... by Malcontent (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @07:03PM
  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by revengance (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @07:05PM
  • Re:Imagine This. by lemox (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @07:22PM
  • Re:The marketshare is just too big by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:20PM
  • Re:Mmm hmm... reeeeally.... by MrEd (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:24PM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:25PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by hEpen (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:25PM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Jason Earl (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @07:24PM
  • FUD on brother by Auckerman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:26PM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by JCCyC (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:23AM
  • ask yourself not slashdot crowd by Augur (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:26PM
  • Wine and Office (Score:3)

    by Restil (31903) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:24AM (#850673) Homepage
    I have been playing around with wine and the latest releases work VERY well with office. Running word, you cannot tell you're not sitting on a windows box. Excel also works great with a few minor cosmetic problems. Powerpoint still needs a bit of work, but its getting REALLY close.
    If wine becomes 100% effective for Office, then there may ben no real reason to hold out for a port, which probably won't occur anytime in the near future anyways.

    BTW, this was tested with office 97, not 2k. I haven't tried it with 2k yet.

    -Restil
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by The_Messenger (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:40PM
  • there is a solaris IE by 13013dobbs (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:33PM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by z0rg (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:34PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Daniel Serodio (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:25AM
  • Re:What the hell? by sean23007 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:36PM
  • Re:"is going to become bloated"? by luckykaa (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:26AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by jallen02 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:26AM
  • I'm sorry, but this is laughable. by TheFrood (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:29AM
  • Linux MS App Installation Procedure by MagicHack (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @07:54PM
  • Re:Download Freecell here!! by dinky (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:02PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Salvage (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @02:55PM
  • Re:More proof of M$ Monopolism. by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:29PM
  • Re:MS on Linux by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:37PM
  • Re:Hoax. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:11PM
  • The inevitable question...no not that one! by ComradePenguin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:11PM
  • Re:Oooo. by Skald (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:40PM
  • Re:You know hell has always been frozen, right? by alessio (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:39PM
  • Not necessarily all bad... by bokane (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:12PM
  • Re:Oooo. by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:48PM
  • I hope they port IE by IRNI (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:14PM
  • Oddly... by Greyfox (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:40PM
  • Actually, I like Outlook by Jason Levine (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:41PM
  • Re:No proof of MS Monopolism. by GhostCoder (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:41PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Ristretto (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:42PM
  • Re:Info on how they'll do the port, and why by Coolfish (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:46PM
  • Re:Wow, they're... INNOVATING? by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59PM
  • Re:Buy it? by danheskett (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:00PM
  • Re:Why this makes sense: by TheAncientHacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:07PM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:27PM
  • Re:Now we can play games by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:27PM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Yakata Nasakoto (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:27PM
  • Re:MS Win32 layer for UN*X by Alex Belits (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:56PM
  • Win32 maintenance code by allanj (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:06PM
  • Re:A good idea but... by The_Messenger (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:50PM
  • Solitaire by crok (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:21PM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by MSHNR (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:35PM
  • Re:Same Strategy Different Platform by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:38PM
  • Re:i feel some bloat coming oooooon! by nspeare (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:52PM
  • FUD, FUD, and more FUD by WillAffleck (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:52PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Enoch Root (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:38PM
  • Re:MS Win32 layer for UN*X by Evangelion (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:42PM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by Jakyll (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:56PM
  • Bad move for them by Greyfox (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:58PM
  • Re:Naive little boy... by 11390036 (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @07:35AM
  • Re:Naive little boy... by 11390036 (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @07:35AM
  • I was wondering... by awx (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @08:16AM
  • Re:Great. Auto-executed perl coming soon. by atcurtis (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:33PM
  • Re:You know hell has always been frozen, right? by devphil (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @08:38AM
  • Re:Wine and Office by Korth (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @09:43AM
  • Re:Freeze the market by atcurtis (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:41PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Brian Feldman (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @10:13AM
  • Re:interesting? by cyber-vandal (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:44PM
  • I hope they will be too late by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:54PM
  • Re:Buy it? by StarKruzr (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @10:52AM
  • Re:Buy it? by StarKruzr (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @10:57AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by The_Messenger (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:59PM
  • Re:Source? by slashdodo (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:52PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Surak (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @11:17AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by JonK (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:02PM
  • Drastic times... by pschmied (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @03:53PM
  • Re:interesting? by weeble (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:10PM
  • Re:But what about the children? by The_Messenger (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:04PM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by 303infinity (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:06PM
  • Possibly a defensive move by Chess Cardigan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:07PM
  • Re:Hoax. by Masked Marauder (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:09PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Surak (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @11:19AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by still_nfi (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @11:21AM
  • WINE is the reason by doublegauss (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @11:45AM
  • Re:No proof of MS Monopolism. by SimonK (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:18PM
  • Re:Come on by be-fan (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:44PM
  • Re:interesting? by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Friday August 18 2000, @02:41AM
  • Re:Source? by slashdodo (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:15PM
  • Re:The marketshare is just too big by drinkypoo (Score:2) Friday August 18 2000, @01:36PM
  • yes, that is what they did... by Juln (Score:1) Saturday August 19 2000, @12:13AM
  • Re:interesting? by Vanders (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:38PM
  • Re:The marketshare is just too big by Oblio (Score:1) Tuesday August 22 2000, @06:48AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by corniche (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:39PM
  • Re:Official PR Release says UNIX -- not Linux by brazil (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:42PM
  • Re:I'd like to add...Investor lawsuit? by mattdm (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:30PM
  • Re:Official PR Release says UNIX -- not Linux by MrBogus (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:33PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Blackheart2 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:57PM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by cyber-vandal (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @12:02AM
  • Re:The marketshare is just too big by Oblio (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:33PM
  • i don't buy it.     (pun fully intended) by hal9000 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:41PM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by cyber-vandal (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @12:04AM
  • Hmmm Microsoft makes Office for Linux by Felinoid (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @12:16AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by corniche (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @12:44AM
  • Please, spare me the bandwidth by SnapperHead (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @04:44PM
  • Re:Buy it? by demus (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @12:53AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by mallie_mcg (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:06AM
  • Oh gezz the Zealot thing again... by Felinoid (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:15AM
  • Re:Drastic times... by T-Punkt (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:23AM
  • Re:Hoax. by StudMuffin (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:27AM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Baki (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @01:44AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by DJStealth (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @02:30AM
  • slashdot weasels deserve death! by firewort (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:10PM
  • duh, www.mainsoft.com (wasRe:Source?) by firewort (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:16PM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by pete0t2 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:35PM
  • Been There, Done That, Still Have the T-Shirt by Elias Israel (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @02:36AM
  • Re:You mean giving... by Tim C (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @02:37AM
  • Re:Freeze the market by hey! (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @02:49AM
  • Re:interesting? by Caspuh (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:35PM
  • Re:Anti Linux-Traitor Legislation by Municipa (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:38PM
  • Re:A good idea but... by mr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:43PM
  • I don't think MS is at that level yet.. by DJStealth (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @02:54AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by erotus (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:43PM
  • Corel Wordperfect, revisited by billcopc (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:00AM
  • Network effects by EricEldred (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:44PM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by Caspuh (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:46PM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by JebOfTheForest (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:14AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by twitter (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:23AM
  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by gargle (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:47PM
  • Re:Bill Gates Name Fatalism (Offtopic) by mr_gerbik (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:52PM
  • Re:Why no Server Apps? by Caspuh (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @05:55PM
  • Re:IE for linux by JamesGreenhalgh (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:27AM
  • IE 5.5 by harmonica (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:29AM
  • Re:SlashSex by DJStealth (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:40AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by bmetzler (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:41AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by superdk (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:42AM
  • Re:wouldn't be a problem by DJStealth (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:49AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by SpacePunk (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:54AM
  • My take by GodSpiral (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @03:57AM
  • Keep MS out by simply not buying it... by stinky monkey (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:11AM
  • Re:Hoax. by vicoder (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:20AM
  • Re:Official PR Release says UNIX -- not Linux by rjamestaylor (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:20AM
  • Re:This is smart by stinky monkey (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:24AM
  • Re:The marketshare is just too big by anacron (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:35AM
  • M$ could be hurting themselves by int13 (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @04:42AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Jason Earl (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @05:24AM
  • Re:Hoax. by thomas jaeger (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @05:32AM
  • Microsoft looking for Linux Product Manager. by mr. creep (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @05:42AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Surak (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @05:56AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Surak (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @06:02AM
  • Did your mother teach you nothing? by roystgnr (Score:2) Thursday August 17 2000, @06:27AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by wurstfreund (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @06:31AM
  • WINE! by Jeppe Salvesen (Score:1) Thursday August 17 2000, @06:55AM
  • This is a suprise if it's mainstream MS apps by toast- (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:35AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by imac.usr (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:35AM
  • Topics in Article by WBDinnigan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:35AM
  • pic: BillG at the anouncement by Money__ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • Re:Bad Idea MS. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • Re:here comes ... by Kevin T. (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • WHY? by anothernumber (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by ex-freek (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • Remember IE on Solaris? by Daveamadid (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • by Elkman (198705) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM (#850819) Homepage
    Microsoft will leverage Linux as an entry point to Windows.

    If this report is true, then I think this strategy could really backfire on Microsoft. It's more likely that people will use this as an exit point from Windows to Linux. After all, there's probably quite a few potential Linux users who would switch in a heartbeat, but hesitate because the Office suite on Windows is more productive and more polished. Now, with the option of running Word, Excel, or Outlook on Linux, that objection goes away. (And that's my honest opinion, really: their Office suite is probably the best one out there, but the Windows operating system has plenty of architectural flaws.)

    At least it looks like they're operating and planning as two separate companies now. Maybe they think they're going to lose the DOJ case.

  • First this and then the end of the world? by denominateur (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:36AM
  • Questions that come to mind: what and why by Arien (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:37AM
  • Anti-trust time perhaps??? by HiyaPower (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:37AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by toast- (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:37AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by spinfire (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:37AM
  • by dimator (71399) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:38AM (#850825) Homepage Journal
    good , maybe when i send you a word doc you can open it


    --
  • Re:But what about the children? by Pope Slackman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:38AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by JatTDB (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:38AM
  • Soon to be on a shelf near you by funk_phenomenon (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:39AM
  • Why not? by Adler (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:55AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by nevets (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:55AM
  • Mainsoft Connection by bifrost (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:55AM
  • paradox... by Lizard_King (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • This is smart (Score:5)

    by stevens (84346) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:39AM (#850833) Homepage

    If it's true, this is a very smart move on Microsoft's part. They've left Linux to its own devices for some time now, and the lack of an office suite has been one of the biggest shortcomings of linux as an office desktop.

    But now that viable linux Office suites are coming into their own, and the lack of one won't hold linux back much longer, they can jump in with MSFT Office and claim a big marketshare of office suite installations on Linux.

    Hell, if they port DCOM and a bunch of apps that use it, then they can run with the 'it works better on Windows' strategy that they have used with Apple.

    Plus, when you've got a few billion in cash, it's not a bad idea to have a few products in your back pocket waiting for hte right time to release.

    Steve
  • .. and its available as a rpm package. by cnvogel (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • IE for Linux by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:39AM
  • Re:Hmmm by Hoo00 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by Fervent (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • by Ross C. Brackett (5878) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:39AM (#850838) Homepage
    The complicated undertaking, which has been a work in progress for over a year, requires the companies to map native Win32 API calls to the Linux equivalents so that Windows applications will run normally in that environment.


    Are you sure their job is to port MS apps? The way I read it, they're basically re-developing WINE, only with non-disclosure agreements... not specifically porting Office/IE/etc.

    Mainsoft's research and development team, located in Lod, Israeli, is working with Microsoft employees from Redmond and a small group of developers from France, [where Mainsoft originated]. The goal is for Microsoft's applications to run on Linux."


    Wow, that would seem to be WINE's goal as well.
    Anyone else read this interpretation?
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • Re:Microsoft porting applications to linux by be-fan (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:56AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by bmetzler (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:40AM
  • Re:Borg Invasion by Fervent (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • Borg Invasion by T3kno (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:40AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by yakfacts (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:40AM
  • This is Horrible News! by suwalski (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • GPL by Lizard_King (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • You guys are all wrong. by Ranger Rick (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • has it occured to anyone... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • Re:Hoax. by eyez (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • by BigBlockMopar (191202) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM (#850850) Homepage

    At this very moment, a SkiDoo dealer is packing up for his new position as VP of Marketing to Hell.

    At this very moment, pigs are growing wings.

    At this very moment... Ah, who cares. I don't want that damned paperclip on my Linux box.

  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by jfortier (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:58AM
  • Okay... by mholve (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • Wow, are we past "fighting stage" now? by Mr. Flibble (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by tealover (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59AM
  • by Enoch Root (57473) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM (#850855)
    I don't buy it. Very simple reason:

    MS doesn't want what little there is of a Linux desktop market share.

    Sure, Linux kicks ass on the server side. But aside from loving geeks who devote all their CPU and HD space to Linux, do you know a lot of people who actually think, 'Well, I'd get Windows, but Linux is so much *better* for desktop applications'?

    Well, do you?

    Linux is still catching up on Windows on the GUI and desktop side. Just look at the Holy Grail of Linux-related GUIs: 'We'll make it as nice-looking as MS'. As long as Linux is running after MS and Windows, they'll never be a threat.

    Seriously, who would MS try to convince, here? If people are using Linux as a desktop, then there's something else aside from convenience and wide-ranging applications that they're interested in. Stability? Perhaps. But everybody else still figures stability is a small price to pay for prettiness, especially if autosave is on.

    Sorry. MS isn't porting anything to Linux because, let's face it, on the desktop side it's so little of a threat it's laughable.

  • Hubris by White Roses (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • IE-superfriendly? by Ravagin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59AM
  • OK everyone . . by Money__ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • Freeze the market (Score:5)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59AM (#850859) Homepage Journal
    This is one of Microsoft's classic plays. When they see something that they think might threaten them, they either make an announcement or "leak" information regarding some great new MS Vaporware that's coming up. The idea is to "freeze" the marketplace, and get customers to avoid buying or adopting the competing technology until MS has its own crappy version in "barely usable" mode.

    This is clearly a response to the Gnome Foundation announcements. The future of non-Microsoft desktops suddenly got a whole lot brighter this week. Microsoft must do everything it can to steer people away from this up-and-coming technology. If they can get people to say to themselves "I'll just wait for MS Office to arrive before I try Linux" then they've succeeded.

    Still, even if it's true, I can't see how it'd be very good if they're using MainWin (basically the equivalent of WineLib) to do the port. While the entire Gnome Foundation initiative is centering around CORBA and the Bonobo framework, a ported MS Office will still be using a ported DCOM. Furthermore, it'll look and feel like a Windows app, right around the same time that Linux apps are starting to take on a more unified look and feel. It'll only talk to itself. In other words, MS Office will feel as isolationist and foreign in the future standardized Gnome desktop as the current version of StarOffice feels in the current Linux desktop. Who wants that? More importantly, who wants that and at a cost of $500?
    --
  • Re:Hmmm by kohashu (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • Perfect answer... by Cyclops (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • Re:But what about the children? by Lew Pitcher (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:41AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Chris Burke (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:59AM
  • by BigBlockMopar (191202) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:00AM (#850864) Homepage
    It's a shame it won't occur to anyone outside the geek community that the reason MICROS~1 can't port Office to Linux is that they can't write anything in an environment where they can't freely hack the OS to get around problems.

    Well, I love the admission that the article makes. I mean, my last time programming was assembly language on an Amiga 1000. But even with my woefully outdated programming skills, it's painfully obvious that M$ apps have had an interface to the OS advantage over everyone else.

    Why should Windows source code be required to port Office (let alone write it)? Corel certainly didn't get Windows source code to write WordPerfect 8.

    But the process is even more complex than it sounds, since most Microsoft applications--especially those in the Office suite--use a number of proprietary interfaces, and each application requires specific workarounds.

    Mainsoft has access to the Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 2000 source code, a necessity for the work it is doing.

    (If M$ wasn't using their market dominance unfairly, wouldn't porting Office require only Office source code, not Windows source code?)

    If this article is true, it's just a far more blatant piece of proof that Microsoft is corrupt, and really has to be broken into an OS division, distinct and different from their internet and applications businesses.

  • Re:Source? (Score:5)

    by Ralph Wiggam (22354) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:42AM (#850865) Homepage
    When has there ever been something not true on the internet? Come on, if you can't believe everything on Slashdot, what the hell can you believe?

    -B
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by Anarkhia (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:00AM
  • Re:Actual quote from my friend when he heard this: by yomahz (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:42AM
  • Finally by bob4u2c (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:42AM
  • Usual microsoft modus operandi by Greg@RageNet (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:00AM
  • Re:Hmmm by ArsonSmith (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:01AM
  • Star Office is the reason by jocknerd (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:42AM
  • Re:So, is WINE porting Microsoft apps to Linux too by Traksius Egas (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:02AM
  • Hopefully, they'll port IE. by Wakko Warner (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:43AM
  • i feel some bloat coming oooooon! by nspeare (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:43AM
  • some comments by johnnyb (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:43AM
  • Making C# & .NET look viable? by RhetoricalQuestion (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by aardvarkjoe (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • but is it gonna suck?... by MoNsTeR (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • Re:MS to Linux users: "Just install this RPM as ro by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • interesting? by ArchieBunker (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:03AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by BrerBear (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:03AM
  • Re:Linux is screwed by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:23AM
  • Uhhh.... by bjrubble (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:03AM
  • "is going to become bloated"? by Wakko Warner (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:44AM
  • Oooo. (Score:5)

    by Chris Johnson (580) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:03AM (#850885) Homepage
    Soon they'll be able to tell individual Linux developers and development teams to 'knife the baby' just like they told Apple!

    For those who don't recognise that reference- first of all, furrfu- second of all, this is the real leverage that comes with having Office on a platform. Given the expectation that 'oh, Office is on platform X, therefore legitimising it', Microsoft can and does use this as a weapon. For example, they literally told Apple to kill off Quicktime or they'd kill Office for MacOS- the quote comes from an exchange like 'We think it would be better if Quicktime, uh, wasn't.' 'Let's get this straight, are you asking us to knife Quicktime for you- to knife our baby?' 'Yes, we're talking about knifing the baby'.

    Should MS apps be established on Linux it'd be like that only instead of dealing with a single point of development and control, MS would be dealing with little groups and individuals, threatening them that if they didn't stop work on their projects, MS would kill Office for Linux (and presumably blame said developer). This degree of blackmail might not work on RMS types but there is a level where it is frightening. Basically it's a sort of extortion, and the point is to engender a climate of fear and obedience. Some of us (mac people into development) have been able to watch this sort of thing going on in the real world for longer than you linux people have... and yes it seems to be illegal, the antitrust case nailed them for JUST this sort of behavior. Now we've got to see if that sticks, or if they get to ignore that as well.

    At any rate- there is no benefit from having Office available for your platform. None. There's no significant compatibility between versions, ports are never in synch, it takes large amounts of motivation for them to produce software even half good (i.e. IE for mac) and even if they do they take pains to use it to cut off your other options and change the 'territory' right out from under you so your choices are dead.

    The people screaming 'nooooo!' are, ironically, a lot closer to the mark than the people screaming 'yay' here. You've got to look at the business practices that inevitably go along with this sort of 'beachhead'. These guys kill markets- that is their whole schtick. Why would you want them coming over and killing your market too, even if your market is largely mindshare instead of commercial? All it will do is kill your choices without giving you the supposed benefits you think you'd be getting. And that's because, as was repeatedly found by the judge in the antitrust case, they really make a special EFFORT to kill your choices and kill your market- we're not talking about 'network effects', we're talking 'knife the baby'. An MS guy actually accepted those words, mid-negotiation, as descriptive of what they were trying to do. How can that be right? How can that be a market?

  • Re:This is smart by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:24AM
  • MS Kerberos Part II? by WinDoze (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:04AM
  • If true then MS is finally coming out of denial by Paleolithic (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:44AM
  • by JimDabell (42870) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:04AM (#850889) Homepage

    Most software has to be installed as root, especially if it's going to be of any use to its participents.

    Where did you get this idea? Virtually all software I have used in unix-like systems can be installed in home directories just fine. If it's autoconf/automaked, then ./configure --prefix=/home/user. RPM also provides relocation, and I assume Debian has a way, too.

    With a file disk quota of 5 megs standard on most machines, do you think most users will be able to install Office (or StarOffice, or anything for that matter?)

    5 meg standard? We're talking desktop systems here. If an entire organisation is using it, then individual users won't have to install it themselves. Home users probably won't be using quotas.

    What I think the OP was trying to say was that it would require root privs to run, i.e. it would have to be installed suid root. Isn't this the case with their Frontpage extentions for unix? There is absolutely no need for either to be suid root, assuming good design. However, MS aren't exactly consistent when it comes to good design :)

  • Re:Hubris by White Roses (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:05AM
  • MS Thought Process (Score:4)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:45AM (#850891) Homepage
    It problably went something like "Oh SHIT! We're REALLY going to get broken up!"
  • Re:I'd like to add...Investor lawsuit? by Money__ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:05AM
  • Before anyone gets TOO excited (either way) by JackDeth (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:45AM
  • Imagine This. (Score:3)

    by be-fan (61476) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:05AM (#850894)
    You know how people joke that MS-linux isn't far off? Well, is it? Consider this..,

    MS makes a Linux distro. They make a closed-source, propriotary DE that supports most of the Win32 API. They include support for DirectX, COM, and OLE. Now, all these changes require major changes to the kernel. While these changes are GPL'ed, MS has now effectivly forked the kernel.

    People start writing apps for this new MS/Linux. Because these apps rely on the modified kernel, and propriotary DE, they will not run on regular Linux.

    Everybody switches to this new distro, because it has more apps and better technology.

    MS has won, despite the GPL.
  • Ewwwwww.... by alumshubby (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:46AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Fervent (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:46AM
  • Re:But what about the children? by Eharley (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:47AM
  • Re:A bridge to Windows? (was Re:Hmmm) by Danse (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:25AM
  • not necessarily... by option8 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM
  • by ewhac (5844) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:05AM (#850900) Homepage Journal

    The conspiracy-theorist in me believes Micros~1 is trying to steal thunder from LinuxWorld Expo without actually making the announcement themselves. However, such a move doesn't surprise me. Bill Gates has never demonstrated loyalty to anything other than making a buck. If he thinks he can make money selling Office to Linux users, he'll do it without the slightest hesitation.

    Those who remember the port of IE to Solaris, however, know that Micros~1 will not adapt their apps to the host OS, but will instead try to graft on enough of Windoze's "architecture" to make it work, just barely.

    For example, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for LinuxOffice to require a Windoze-style registry, needed to support per-user preferences. This despite the fact that .*rc files have been around forever. Also, expect a butt-load of COM/DCOM components to get installed requiring root privileges (though the need for these prvileges will never be adequately explained).

    But I suspect the biggest delays will come from trying to implement Micros~1's demands for copy protection and to prevent "unauthorized" use of "their" software. So, assuming they work out how to translate NT's methods of "license" administration, expect to be required to install a "license" manager that's completely incompatible with any other "license" managers you may have (and may even interact badly with them). Oh, and the CD key will have 96 digits :-).

    In short, this is FUD of the highest order, even higher than normal, since it doesn't come directly from Micros~1, thereby giving them plausible deniability. Even if it's true, I wouldn't expect anything to ship for at least a year and, like the initial release of all Micros~1 products, will probably work quite poorly. Thus, even if you're working on an office suite, this story may effectively be ignored.

    Schwab

  • A good thing for MS and Linux by mach-5 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM
  • Re:Yeah, that'll be the day. by talesout (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:05AM
  • Will you have to rent a license... by EzInKy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM
  • Re:M$ Apps by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM
  • Re:Source? by sethg (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:06AM
  • A bridge to Windows? (was Re:Hmmm) by schussat (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:06AM
  • Re:This is smart by DeICQLady (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM
  • Just now..as I read this . . by Money__ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:47AM
  • If this is true... by axel from afkmn (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:47AM
  • Viewers... by suwalski (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:07AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:47AM
  • Finally!!!! (Score:5)

    by ndfa (71139) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:26AM (#850912)
    PaperClip meet my good old friend xkill

  • Re:This is smart by nconway (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:08AM
  • And again I say: DUH! by FascDot Killed My Pr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:49AM
  • Re:I'd like to add... by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:09AM
  • I'd like to add... by gfxguy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:49AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by scruffyMark (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:49AM
  • MS App developers have wanted to port it by ttyRazor (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:50AM
  • Re:M$ Apps by talesout (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:51AM
  • Re:interesting? by Photon Ghoul (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:27AM
  • Re:hmm. why would I want this? by rednic (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:27AM
  • Re:Linux is screwed by piku (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:27AM
  • Re:Hoax. by afc (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:28AM
  • Leverage? (cough) by TBHiX (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:09AM
  • Re:Hmmm by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:28AM
  • Is This New? by SUWAIN (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:10AM
  • Remember the other apps they ported to *nix? by Mongoose (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:10AM
  • Not sure I believe it by gadge47 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:28AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by Fervent (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:51AM
  • Re:Source? by VP (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:29AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by nevets (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:11AM
  • Re:i feel some bloat coming oooooon! by be-fan (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:51AM
  • Re:Hmmm by Sick Boy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Mmm hmm... reeeeally.... by MrEd (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:12AM
  • Re:So much for an open source office suite by powerlord (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Recent Mainsoft press release which may be related by toast- (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:52AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by Anarkhia (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:52AM
  • I can just imagine it. by abdulwahid (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:12AM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by dazraf (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:52AM
  • Re:Hoax. by josh_freeman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:13AM
  • Oh, well, let's scrap koffice and Gnome office... by jetson123 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:52AM
  • Re:here comes ... by apropos (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:53AM
  • Re:Hoax. by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:51AM
  • Re:M$ Apps by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Re:Hmmm by lunatik17 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:51AM
  • Re:So much for an open source office suite by lunatik17 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Well... by B00yah (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:21AM
  • by infodragon (38608) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:13AM (#850948)
    Ok Mr. Troll I'll bite...

    NT itself is stable

    If NT itself allows applications, after they have crashed, to leave leaked memory or leve the system in a strange state or leave the system in a slowed state then it is not a stable OS. It may not fall/crash but it is not stable. Kinda like a ship in a storm, your footing is not stable but, hopefully, the ship won't sink. You may be flung overboard but, hopefully, the ship won't sink!

  • Re:Hmmm by jesser (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:52AM
  • Re:Anti-trust time perhaps??? by Black Parrot (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Is it really a surprise? by swngnmonk (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:21AM
  • Buy it? by StarKruzr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:30AM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:13AM
  • Office for Linux? by JReam (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:21AM
  • by softsign (120322) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:53AM (#850955)
    From the Mainsoft website [mainsoft.com]:
    MainWin is recognized as the premiere choice for creating UNIX versions of Windows applications. How do we know that? MainWin has been used to create the UNIX versions of some of Microsoft's most popular applications. These include Microsoft's Internet Explorer for UNIX, Microsoft's Outlook Express for UNIX, and Microsoft is using MainWin to provide DCOM on UNIX. Among the hundreds of Mainsoft customers who rely on MainWin for their cross-platform development and Computer Associates chose MainWin to rehost its next-generation enterprise and information management solutions on UNIX.

    So from what I can gather, these are the geniuses that brought us Unix IE. Yup. Just look at the explosion of IE users on Unix. If they do just as good a job on Office, then MS better watch out or their OS market will disappear overnight!

    My favourite part is how they say their software isn't a Windows emulator. They just build every single DLL that you'll ever need into a Unix library. And probably a registry too, for good measure.

    And you thought administrating Windows was bad enough on a Windows box...

    --

  • Re:A good idea but... by The_Ronin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • by Kazymyr (190114) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:22AM (#850957) Journal
    It's already ported :) have you checked the xscreensaver collection?
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Fervent (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • Re:interesting? (Score:5)

    by FoulBeard (112622) <chrisx&speakeasy,net> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:31AM (#850959)
    This post has some merit. Unix people pay heed. I know plenty of people that have high uptimes with NT. Think about it, do you run XWindows on you high availability Web Server, Office Applications, games. No. Ill testify to the fact that the majority of BSODs can be directed linked to bad 3rd party drivers. When properly administered NT can be be stable. I know its hard to admit to, but please try. I dont run NT on my servers for diffret reasons. I have a strong belief that mission critical servers should not run GUIs... period. There is no point for a serious machine, one that you stake you business on, to have a GUI. UNIX is also very easy to customize. REmote administration on NT blows. developing mantainance code in NT is pain (PErl vs. Win32/MFC). The artitecture for UNIX is open, as opposes to windows which pretty much ties you into an all window solution. My $0.02 -Nathan
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Fervent (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • Re:Well... by j-pimp (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:32AM
  • Some info on mainsoft.com... by talks_to_birds (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:14AM
  • Re:some comments by Nutello (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:14AM
  • That explains it . . by Money__ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:32AM
  • Weather report (Score:4)

    by webslacker (15723) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:22AM (#850965)
    Break out the snowblower, Satan! There's a blizzard a'comin!
  • Re:This is smart by jyuter (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • I work for a company that uses this. by thinkpol (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:14AM
  • FUD, or lawsuit anticipation by Hairy_Potter (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:22AM
  • M$ Strategy by OmegaDan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • Embrace and Extend by jabber (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:15AM
  • Re:i feel some bloat coming oooooon! by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:15AM
  • Don't go nuts, yet.. by Longshanks197 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM
  • Re:Hubris (Score:3)

    by be-fan (61476) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:54AM (#850973)
    No, the piont of running Linux isn't to "get away" from MS. If you're doing that, then your stupid. The point is to use a better product. Right now, MS Office is that better product. Very few people complained that WordPerfect for Linux was less than perfect due to LibWine, so why should they complain if MSs product has an OS layer around it? It can't possibly be more bloated than, say, star office, which has it's own DESKTOP!
  • What the hell? (Score:5)

    by baka_boy (171146) <lennon@day-reyDA ... om minus painter> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:55AM (#850974) Homepage
    Microsoft, who has more programmers working for them in-house than freaking God, has hired some small, crack team of Israeli hackers to work on a Linux port of Office? Then, one of those developers has stepped forward to announce the project, blatantly ignoring the NDA-from-Hell the MS lawyers made him sign before he could come within a hundred yards of the Windows source code? Sorry, folks, I don't think so.

    Porting DCOM to UNIX is one thing, but Office is another beast entirely. Microsoft nearly destroyed their market for Mac applications when they tried to offer a weak port of the Windows version of Office -- people simply started refusing to upgrade. These days, the two have pretty much completely different code -- you can't really port the Windows version of Office to any other OS, because they're joined at the hip with DLL-Hell, private system calls, etc.

  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Tim Macinta (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:55AM
  • New Microsoft Game for Linux by webslacker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:53AM
  • Sounds like a cripling tactic. by 11390036 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:53AM
  • by 0x0000 (140863) <zerohex&zerohex,com> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:53AM (#850978) Homepage
    Their strategy seems to be to use an "Office for Linux" as a bridge to Windows, similar to Mac Office."
    Can anybody expand on what exactly that means?
    I take it to mean that the *nix versions won't be fully functional, thereby trying to lure users to Windoze for 'full functionality'. May or may not work, but it's a good bet that it'll go that way, since M$ programmers (or those hired by M$) are probably not good enough programmers to implement the full office feature set under X ... hell, they can't even make it work right on their own OS, most of the time...
    MS wants to introduce new audiences to its software, so it ports Office to the Mac or Linux, thinking those users will migrate to Windows?
    Doubtful that they're targetting new users. In fact that market is probably very close to saturation. Furthermore, I'd guess it's a good bet that pretty much 99% of Mac and Linux users have already fought the battle of Windoze, and know exactly why they have left the M$ platform. This may not be quite as true when it comes to other unices, but M$ has already had a go at (some of) them with IE. Evidently it didn't go quite they way they wanted, or they would be porting IE to Linux before Office ... at least that seems to make business sense.

    I think (one of) the other thing(s) M$ is trying to accomplish with this move is to shore up the lifespan of their proprietary data formats. The targets are coorporations who have licensed Office. One of the main things that seems to slow the move off of Windoze at a corporate level is the tremendous investment in M$ Office and legacy data that is already in the Office formats.

    The Office data formats are, after all, the key to keeping their current captive customer base captive. The office applications themselves simply aren't good enough on their own to do that. A *nix Office suite is a way to keep those formats alive, which is important to M$, since if the formats are dropped in favor or, say, an open standard, then there is really no incentive for corporate customers to stay with M$.

    M$, I believe, fears that as work goes forward to make format conversions easier, it will be more cost effective for a corp to invest in data conversion and move off of the Windoze platform than it will be to keep putting up with (paying for) the spew of M$ corp.

    Other office suite software vendors are targetting the office data formats and application functionality. If one of those outfits gets there (usable in a corp environment) first, M$ would be left with their collective asses uncovered. So, for M$ to produce a Linux Office suite is also a CYA strategy...

    it seems that the only way that becomes a good plan is when you make inferior ports of the product that are just good enough to make people want them (I understand that many MS ports to the Mac are pretty sub-standard), and boom, you give them some incentive to migrate. But it seems awfully disingenuous. Am I misinterpreting that, or is it more of a speculated, rather than overt, strategy?
    Heh. Disingenuous is M$'s middle name. Their contempt for users -- and everybody else, for that matter -- is huge. They really, really don't expect anyone to figure it out, and when someone does, they apply spin. I don't think you misunderstand.

    Also, note that this effort is going to be incorporated into the spin machine. 'See, we develop apps for Linux, too!' It's a good PR move for M$, since they will co-opt a certain percentage of *nix advocates with this move. Since Linux advocates in particular seem to be the most vocal and persuasive of the M$ detractors (often because they are former M$ users, I think), anything M$ can do to cut down on their number is a plus.

    All in all, it's about Leverage.

  • Re:Good for Linux OS/ Bad for Linux Apps by lunatik17 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:55AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:23AM (#850980)
    I was at SUN when they announced "porting office applications to the "javaStation" (SUN's NC) back in '96.

    Then of course they don't do it and everybody thinks there must be a problem with the JavaStations (which there was the OS sucked).

    Now they are going to try and do the same thing with Linux... tell everyone... we are porting to Linux when they are Scared of linux because linux is going to eat the mid server market of win2000.

    Then they will come out saying "It doesn't work" and spread FUD around it. I hope star office is as good as they claim, and I know MS can't diss the os like they dissed the javastation.

    marc
  • Hope it doesn't come out like Office for Mac. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:15AM
  • Am I the only one pleased by this? by ables (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:56AM
  • Re:Hoax. by Skim123 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:33AM
  • Porting to Linux == MS preparing for split. by Money__ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:15AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by kill -9 $$ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:15AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by lunatik17 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:57AM
  • Download Freecell here!! by 586 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:33AM
  • by joeboo (5182) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:23AM (#850988) Homepage
    Then no thanks. I tried IE for Solaris about a year ago. Any piece of software that seg faults because you hit the "compose" button is not for me. I'll stick with Gnumeri, AbiWord, pine, and vi thank you.
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by phutureboy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:57AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Mtgman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:34AM
  • So much for an open source office suite by pjrc (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:23AM
  • Re:Yeah, that'll be the day. by generic-man (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:34AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by SEE (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:16AM
  • by anacron (85469) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM (#850994)
    Microsoft doesn't invest in advertising unless they *know* they're going to get a 7% ROI. I would be willing to bet that their standards for software development are much higher.

    Ok, so they port applications to *x. It's just a business strategy. It's a new market space for them to grow into ... one that's really untapped by any major software house. Prime Real Estate.

    And the bottom line, for the current CEO, is that if it pays off, the stock holders will be happy. Also, it'll probably help their anti-trust appeal because they'll be able to show that they're not only in the business of OSs, but also in providing valuable applications to the entire user community.
  • User Friendly, anyone? by Janthkin (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM
  • Re:Will you people wake up? by Spider-X (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM
  • Imagine the horror... by CaptainCarrot (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM
  • by MrEd (60684) <(tonedog) (at) (hailmail.net)> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM (#850998)
    ... and how helpful he will be!

    "Did you know: You can get all your office work done faster, with more multimedia excitement and internet connectivity with the new Windows Milennium Edition! Order today!"

    "Tip of the Day: In order to enable the remaining 95% of functionality, click here to install Windows over /dev/hda1! Windows Milennium Edition works hard and plays hard!"

  • If M$ is divided its only smart for one half by gnalle (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:58AM
  • Re:Remember the other apps they ported to *nix? by Skim123 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:58AM
  • Re:AV industry says: YES! by spectecjr (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:01AM
  • Re:How will this effect us as a community... by lunatik17 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:01AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by ndfa (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:35AM
  • Re:Hopefully, they'll port IE. by Phrogman (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:01AM
  • Re:Not sure I believe it by Todd Knarr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:35AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by jallen02 (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:36AM
  • entry point to Windows? by stego (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM
  • Re:entry point to Windows? by Frymaster (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM
  • There's a word for this sort of porting... by ackthpt (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:02AM
  • Re:At long last protection faults come to Linux by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:36AM
  • Re:But what about the children? by Eharley (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Kazymyr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:02AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by Wiwi Jumbo (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by StarKruzr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:36AM
  • Re:Imagine This. by Kiaser Zohsay (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:03AM
  • We must keep a close eye.... by LinuxBean (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:17AM
  • From the Mainsoft website by hald (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:36AM
  • Re:fp by kwsNI (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • at long last... by rob1imo (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM
  • Mainsoft link http://www.mainsoft.fr/ by Money__ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:18AM
  • by dougman (908) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM (#851021)
    as strategic as this may sound, porting the MSOffice in its CURRENT form as you and I know it to Linux is totally contradictory to their plan to try and take over the world with .net, effectively being the one mammoth server for ALL productivity /office apps making each and every one of us nothing more than a SUBSCRIBER to Word or Powerpoint sucking down the precious functionality from .net like a glorified dumb terminal, constantly paying MS for the privledge of using their precious Office.

    Porting an installable, standalone MSOffice to Linux doesn't help them get there so I would suggest you're crazy if you think this will ever see the light of day.

    Now, they may VERY well be porting some sort of ".net client" stuff to Linux. I'd expect that.

  • by Mechanik (104328) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:18AM (#851022) Homepage
    I definitely can see this as being true.

    For those that don't know (you certainly wouldn't from the article), Mainsoft produces a toolkit (MainWin) which implements the WinNT/2k kernel and MFC on various flavours of *NIX, including Solaris and Linux. This enables one to take a Win32/MFC program that was developed on windows and (in theory) have it work on *NIX just by linking to their MainWin libraries. The toolkit has been discussed some here on /. before, but I thought I'd refresh everyone's memory.

    I/we use the toolkit here at work (a MAJOR hardware company) to port our dev tools to *NIX, and we've had quite a positive experience with it. Sure there are problems here and there, but for the most part they're due to our windoze developers making assumptions based on the program being run in a win32 environment (things like endianess issues, or the fact that windows uses backslashes for dir separators rather than slashes). It has enabled us to port a product consisting of over 300,000 lines of code without having to rewrite the whole thing. I don't imagine Mainsoft would be having as hard a time porting Office as people are making out, not only because the toolkit is good IMHO, but because in my dealings with them they have seemed like a very sharp bunch of people.

    "Now," you say, "why would Microsoft want to port Office to Linux? Isn't Linux their enemy?"

    1) Further entrenching the .doc and .xls formats into the market. Right now people are trying to compete with Wordperfect and StarOffice, but I am willing to bet that if Office made it to *NIX, that would spell the death knell for WP and SO (and who knows, maybe Corel along with them). Suddenly the few alternatives you have to office are gone. Not to mention that one of SO's big selling points is its supposed "MSOffice compatibility"... why would you bother if you could just run MSOffice natively?

    2) Doing this port will lend MUCH credibility in the public eye to MainWin. If they are lucky, then people will start organizing their multi-platform development strategies around it right from the get-go, and thus Microsoft will "lock them into" using the MFC development model. Right now people tend to use Mainwin to port apps they already have on Windows to *NIX... perhaps if MainWin got enough prestige people would decide right from the start that if they are doing a cross-platform app that they will do it in MFC and use MainWin to do the porting.

    Do NOT underestimate this... Mainsoft (and through them, Microsoft) makes some serious bucks off of licensing/royalties for products that use MainWin, as their code is actually linked into yours. If you just make your app on windows and compile with Dev Studio, you pay no royalties, but with a MainWin ported app you are shipping with compiled libs that implement MFC and the NT kernel... that means $$ for Mainsoft and Microsoft.

    It especially means $$ if people start deciding that they would like to forge off into the Linux arena because using MainWin is so much more attractive than doing a native port from the ground up. Companies that before were never even considering doing ports to *NIX might start thinking about it if this MSOffice port goes off well because they will say to themselves "shit, we hardly have to do anything ourselves to do this," even though that's not quite necessarily true.

    This is very good for Linux in a way too... it means that you will be able to get much more of your favourite apps on your favourite OS.

    Mechanik
  • Hmmm (Score:5)

    by Grelli (98061) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:24AM (#851023) Homepage
    Their strategy seems to be to use an "Office for Linux" as a bridge to Windows, similar to Mac Office."

    It's a pitty it also works the other way around, use an Office for Linux as a Bridge from Windows. There is no one way sign on this bridge!

  • hmm. why would I want this? by rednic (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM
  • Stealing WINE? by aralin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • Re:"is going to become bloated"? by lunatik17 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:19AM
  • good for microsoft. not us. by Bad_CRC (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:20AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Pinball Wizard (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:31AM
  • Re:Linux is screwed by piku (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:32AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by SpacePunk (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:32AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Pinball Wizard (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:33AM
  • No suprises here by tolldog (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:33AM

  • here [yahoo.com]

    MSFT has an established business porting its applications to Solaris and HP/UX. This does not mean they will port to Linux.

    Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers

  • by JabberWokky (19442) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:04AM (#851034) Homepage Journal
    (Keep reading... the point hits about half way down... it's not an incoherent pro-MS rant)<p><i>I also wonder how many people will actually use Office on Linux... if someone was willing to pay the Microsoft tax and buy Office, wouldn't they be just as likely to buy Windows as well?</i>
    <p>
    Well, this started me thinking - I use Linux because it's one more step into Unix; I've been using GNU and Cygnus utils long before Linux was around. I just like the paradigm.<p>
    But I also REALLY like Word for Windows. WfW 97 is my favorite, and I can whip out a document in less time than it takes most people to read it. All the keycombos are hard coded into my fingertips, and I have dozens of style sheets and macros that eat perl and/or PHP-generated data.<p>
    As an administrator, I loved Exchange+Outlook. My users dug it, building custom objects that they'd mail out, stuff like that. And of course, you need Excel and Word to really get the power of Outlook.
    <p>
    But Linux -- now Linux I've had running as a server (before that, AIX or Solaris). I like the desktop, but miss Word. And I don't see anything like Outlook+Exchange out there, which of course requires...
    <P>
    WAIT A SECOND!!! Why are they porting desktop Apps? Why not Linux Apps? Linux has a greater marketshare in the server arena, anyway, and Exchange or IIS for Linux would probably ship more units at a greater profit than Office.
    <p>
    Unless... they don't consider the Linux desktop viable, and just want to make a show to the DOJ (of course, you have to run WinNT BackOffice to support the software on those Linux desktop boxes).
    <p>
    Very interesting... Office is less useful without BackOffice, and BackOffice needs NT. Office keeps people in MS, and then once they go above just a few users in an office, they start racking up reasons to move to Windows. *Especially* if Microsoft.NET turns out to be way watered down (like most MS final releases) and is just a tighter, nicer BackOffice.
    <p>
    No, I'm not paranoid, and I'm just happy that I can sed in a bash shell, not pro-Linux or pro-Microsoft, but IF a decision like this has been made at MS, it's after MUCH discussion, and both server and desktop apps were discussed, and you know DAMN well that MS thought long and hard about the long and short term consequences of every action.
    <p>
    --<br>
    Evan
  • err....always hit preview by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • Microsoft would be stupid not to have a project like this going on somewhere, but that doesn't mean that it'll ever see the light of day.

    Porting office to Linux is a huge project, and Microsoft has to be prepared for the contigency that Linux *does* take off in a market that Office addresses - if not the desktop, then perhaps in some embedded/appliance apps (imagine a dedicated Office appliance a la word processors).

    Given the lead time on such a project, they don't want to have to wait a couple of years if they decide to exploit such a market - so they have to do the dev work now.

    This doesn't mean anything other than Microsoft is hedging its bets.
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by jsmaby (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:04AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by Slad (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • There is a Port of DCOM [softworksltd.com] to Linux, but if you look closely, you'll notice that you can cannot get any support for it, even if you pay money for this.

    "Microsoft Israel" (where they put together their clone of IBM's MQSeries, which is a pretty successful product) may be doing "a port," but that is a far cry from Putting Boxes On Store Shelves.

    It may be that Microsoft is leaking this stuff so as to diminish peoples' committments to the "more nearly native" alternatives of StarOffice, ApplixWare, WordPerfect, and such.

    People that decide to wait for whatever Microsoft might release are obviously not buying what the other guys have today. This is how IBM marketed the IBM 360 back in the 1960s, to the great detriment of many other computer manufacturers.

    IBM finally did release OS 360 and related hardware, albeit late, expensive, bloated, and buggy.

    The parallels should be obvious :-).

    Furthermore, the DCOM comments really are important; "modern" MS-Office software depends heavily on COM and COM+ components, which means that the first step to getting MS Office running on Linux would indeed be the port of COM/DCOM/COM+.

    And we don't know if this "announcement" represents a product that will actually become available, or whether it is a "vaprous" experiment, intended to use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to discourage sales of the competing products...

  • Bad Idea MS. by evilned (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM
  • Re:Hmmm by MadHobbit (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • Re:Fits with the Justice Department Split by Waldmeister (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:06AM
  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by impotentmonkey (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:37AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by styopa (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:35AM
  • No surprise... by string (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:20AM
  • Entry point? by rmull (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM
  • Konqueror sucks by JabberWokky (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:06AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by Dougan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:38AM
  • Re:Remember the other apps they ported to *nix? by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:20AM
  • Re:Source? by Black Parrot (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:21AM
  • Source? (Score:5)

    by Igmuth (146229) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM (#851051)
    What proof is there that this is more than a rumor? the only source is an annonymous Israeli developer... Does he even work for Mainsoft?
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by ethereal (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:06AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by powerlord (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:38AM
  • Nonsense! by the N man (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:38AM
  • by Mr.Phil (128836) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM (#851055)
    Well, this is good for the OS, and gives office users access to a stable os, but if MS Office comes out on Linux, we can kiss any of the other office apps like WordPerfect and Star Office goodby. Honestly, how many people will choose to use something that is "compatible", when the can use the real thing?

    Like no-one is going to pirate these apps, and I bet MS wouldn't care untill they have the market, and then they bring the hammer down. (Rings true of netscape, does it not?)

    This is news, that's for sure. We are still to find out if it's good or bad.
  • Re:Linux leaks by nevets (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:07AM
  • Good! by sung (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:21AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Malic (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM
  • Linux leaks by logistix (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:38AM
  • Yes, but... by -martee (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:25AM
  • Danger, Will Robinson! by icqqm (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:38AM
  • I'll believe it when I see it... by thenick00 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:26AM
  • Re:Will you people wake up? by jlg (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:39AM
  • Re:Hoax. by BorgDrone (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • the only thing to keep in mind by slakhead (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:22AM
  • Re:Buy it? by davie (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:36AM
  • Re:Why not? by danderson (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:36AM
  • Same Strategy Different Platform by the-banker (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:38AM
  • Re:Cool but... by Altrag (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:07AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by kill -9 $$ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:07AM
  • Re:Mmm hmm... reeeeally.... by jheinen (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:39AM
  • Re:Linux is screwed by piku (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:40AM
  • Re:Hmmm by nosilA (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:07AM
  • by devphil (51341) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:41AM (#851074) Homepage

    In Dante Alegheri's (sp?) Inferno, the center four regions of hell -- reserved for the worst kind of sinners -- are made up of a gigantic frozen ice plain.

    The sinners are frozen into the ice, completely unable to move or respond to external stimuli...

    ...kinda like my NT box right now. Damn.

  • Re:Linux is not stable by infodragon (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:39AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by GypC (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:39AM
  • Re:Uhhh.... by AArthur (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:10AM
  • I can almost see it... through the vapour by the_1000th_Monkey (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:41AM
  • All these slashdotters need to remember.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:41AM
  • Re:AV industry says: YES! by cswiii (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:40AM
  • So the Frenchies and Israelies get the source? by AcquaCow (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:12AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Silpheed (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:26AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by LetterRip (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:42AM
  • OMG - VB Script Email Viruses? by spagthorpe (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:13AM
  • here comes ... by dima233 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:26AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Samrobb (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:41AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by styopa (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:13AM
  • Re:There Is A User Born Every Minute by Shagg (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:41AM
  • Wizzing Contest by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:13AM
  • So, umm, how? by FroMan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM
  • This makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:42AM
  • Yeesh. Watch out, Zealot alert. by Tridus (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:13AM
  • Cool but... by Brazilian Geek (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM
  • Win ME? Win yourself, Bill! by Picass0 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:42AM
  • Re:FUD, or lawsuit anticipation by kellin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:42AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Kevin DeGraaf (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM
  • and this is a good thing? by phranking (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM
  • They can dish it out, but now can they take it ? by Scot Seese (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:42AM
  • I see it coming by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM
  • MS Win32 layer for UN*X by Nexx (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:42AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by danderson (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:43AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by dvxs (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:45AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by 0x0000 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:13AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by LetterRip (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:45AM
  • Good (Score:3)

    by rjamestaylor (117847) <rjamestaylor@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:14AM (#851105) Homepage Journal
    The more applications the better. Why not have the most used, too?

    Anyway, all I want is IE5 (doesn't even need to be 5.5 -- 5.01 is fine) for Linux.

    As a web application developer using HTML/CSS/XHTML/ECMAScript/XML/XSLT/XSD I cannot make it without IE5.01+. (Yes, I grab the nightly builds of Mozilla but remain unmoved).

    IE 5 for Linux!

    Now hiring experienced client- & server-side developers

  • You missed the point.. by rm -rf /etc/* (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:46AM
  • An OS should be immune to external influences by Rares Marian (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:14AM
  • Re:This is smart by Andre060 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:43AM
  • Re:If it is anything like IE for Solaris... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:14AM
  • Re:Hoax. by ackthpt (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:47AM
  • Re:AV industry says: YES! by jsmaby (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:43AM
  • by kill -9 $$ (131324) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:27AM (#851112)
    ...drag them down with you.

    Seriously though, it might not be too bad. For instance, the corporation I work for's e-mail standard is Outlook/Exchange which I'd like to be able to run on Linux (my primary desktop). I haven't found a suitable Outlook clone yet so I can get my mail easily. Incidentally, I tried the fetchmail thing, they don't have NTLM enabled and won't turn it on.

    Not to mention how many times I've recieved e-mail documents containg Word or Powerpoint presentations that StarOffice couldn't convert very nicely.

    I don't know about it being a bridge over to Windows, however, some good could come out of it. You'd think they would start by helping out the wine project, but then again, thats not M$'s style. They'll probably take the wine code and make it proprietary.

  • Re:I hope its IE 5.5 by rm -rf /etc/* (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:47AM
  • Save Time: Use Wine by Tough Love (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:44AM
  • Re:Yeah, that'll be the day. by talesout (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:44AM
  • Re:Mmm hmm... reeeeally.... by Mawbid (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:15AM
  • Hoo boy.. by BigZaphod (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:28AM
  • Re:Linux is screwed by NRLax27 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:44AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Weasel Boy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:48AM
  • Is see a couple of possible reasons by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:16AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by ndfa (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:44AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by GypC (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:45AM
  • Won't catch me using it by Kyrka (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:29AM
  • Because that's how it's done baby! by evil-beaver (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:29AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by 91degrees (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:29AM
  • Re:This is smart by flatrock (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:30AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by perfecto (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:48AM
  • Re:Hoax. by Ventilator (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:49AM
  • Re:MS on Linux by ka-klick (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:33AM
  • Re:You guys are all wrong. by Alorelith (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:50AM
  • Re:Uhhh.... by Salsaman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:50AM
  • Re:There Is A User Born Every Minute by Myddrin (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:16AM
  • Re:interesting? by nmx (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:16AM
  • Re:Imagine This. by gfxguy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:36AM
  • Re:More proof of M$ Monopolism. by steveha (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:38AM
  • Re:Mmm hmm... reeeeally.... by Evangelion (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:17AM
  • Re:Yeah, that'll be the day. by generic-man (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:46AM
  • Re:Weather report by Evangelion (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:18AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by _ph1ux_ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:38AM
  • Re:Freeze the market by Foogle (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:51AM
  • Re:MS on Linux by drewish_princess (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:46AM
  • Re:First this and then the end of the world? by Altrag (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:18AM
  • Re:Imagine This. (Score:3)

    by be-fan (61476) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:52AM (#851143)
    You miss the point. Say MS retools the kernel to support DirectX. The regular Linux kernel would have not point incorporating those changes, since they require DirectX, which (hypothetically of course) kept under closed source. They could do this, since the changes to the kernel would simply give DX hardware access, and DX would still be an independant library.

    A proprietary desktop needn't be integrated with the kernel to be dependant on a specific version. If MS retools the kernel, and the desktop is an independant entity, but requires those changes, then MS has essentially tied the non-free desktop and the free kernel together. Think of it like Aqua. The changes that Apple made to FreeBSD aren't really significant in itself, but simply enable stuff higher up in Quartz and Cocoa. If MS had done the same thing, except with Linux, then effectivly they would have gained control of the OS without violating the GPL.

    As for desktop antogonism, that's not possible. If you're going to write an application that supports all the features of a DE, it is nearly impossible to be destkop antagonistic without a whole lot of problems. If MS bases it's desktop on Win32 and Win32 only, a developer would be force to choose between that, and programming for GNOME or KDE.

    I never said MS has won. In the case that this hypothetical scenario happens, it will have won. And if you look at it pragmatically, Linux winning DOES require MS losing. By definition there is one winner. In terms of OSs, there is only one winner. Windows beat OS/2. NT largely supplanted Netware and UNIX. There has to be a winner. (Especially in consumer space where the number of apps a particular person needs is greater and much more diverse than in say server space.)
  • Ugn, not another Word by AaronW (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:19AM
  • "Linux" probably means "RedHat" by bjtuna (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:47AM
  • Re:M$ Apps by talesout (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:47AM
  • by Erbo (384) <erbo AT electricminds DOT org> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:52AM (#851147) Homepage
    It is quite possible that M$ has several motives in mind for porting Office (and other apps). For example:
    • The Hedge Hypothesis: If M$ is forced to split into M$Windows and M$Apps, this gives the "apps" part of the company a leg up in breaking into a new market.
    • The Appeals Hypothesis: Office for Linux could give M$ a new argument to use in the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court: "see, we make Office for these other two operating systems, and we sell decent amounts of them, so we're not really a monopoly." Mac Office alone might not cut it, but Mac Office combined with Linux Office may tip the scales.
    • The Standard M$ Hypothesis: Shut down StarOffice, WordPerfect Office, the Gnome Foundation and their backers, etc...what do you bet that M$ gives out a "crippleware" version of Linux Office free?
    • The Poison-The-Well Hypothesis: Once you get Linux users (maybe recently switched from Windows) to embrace Office, use this as a lever to move them (back) to Windows. How? Proprietary file formats, faster upgrades available for Windows, etc., etc.
    • The FUD-Factor Hypothesis: If Linux Office turns out to be buggy, slow, etc., M$ can turn around and tell developers, "see? Linux really is hard to develop for, you should really develop for Windows instead."
    • The If-You-Can't-Beat-'Em-Join-'Em Hypothesis: This is actually a stepping stone towards a Microsoft Linux distro, which will be a replacement for one or more existing M$ operating systems. (Farfetched, I know, but...)
    I'm sure you can think of other possibilities.

    Eric
    --

  • MS on Linux by Datafage (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:30AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by cybaea (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:53AM
  • Re:That would explain by ackthpt (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:20AM
  • by Tim Fraser (16824) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:30AM (#851151) Homepage
    > Microsoft is working ... to port their apps to Linux

    And in the anti-virus industry, there was MUCH rejoicing...

    - Tim
  • If they're gonna port something, by danderson (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:21AM
  • They're not doing it with WINE? Stupid idiots. by torpor (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:49AM
  • User Friendly? by FroMan (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:30AM
  • AHHHHHHHHHH ! ! ! ! NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo MMmmka by Money__ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:30AM
  • Re:An entry point to Windows? I doubt it. by drewish_princess (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:50AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by kill -9 $$ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:50AM
  • I hope its IE 5.5 by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:30AM
  • Re:At this very moment... by necama (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @09:50AM
  • Re:Hmmm (Score:3)

    by / (33804) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:40AM (#851160)
    There is no one way sign on this bridge!

    Sure there is: down. Surely I'm not the only one who can't shake a mental image of the Tacoma Narrows bridge [bris.ac.uk].
  • Re:Hmmm by / (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:42AM
  • Re:Great. Auto-executed perl coming soon. by hardaker (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:54AM
  • Re:Imagine This. by be-fan (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:55AM
  • Re:Info on how they'll do the port, and why by Salsaman (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:55AM
  • Oink Oink!! by a.out (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:21AM
  • Re:Imagine This. by Enahs (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:55AM
  • Please, port over IE by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:21AM
  • Most software has to be installed as root ... show that supposedly buggy code can be run and not crash the whole system ...

    I'll bet you almost anything that a MS installation would chmod 06711 most of the files and make sure root is the owner.

    Buggy code will take down your system and corrupt the fs on the way.

  • Re:This is smart by steveha (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:45AM
  • Re:Imagine This. by lemox (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:57AM
  • a doorway? by TechnoNiggah (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:23AM
  • Re:AV industry says: YES! by ichimunki (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:46AM
  • Re:AV industry says: YES! by Spoing (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:58AM
  • Re:Hoax. by StudMuffin (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:59AM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by Enoch Root (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:23AM
  • Vaporware, anyone? by remande (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:59AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by ConceptJunkie (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:23AM
  • who cares? by haus (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:31AM
  • If they're already coding for OS X... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:23AM
  • I don't buy their reason by dalamar (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:31AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by nmx (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:25AM
  • If you believe this I have a bridge to sell you... by Ryan J. Evans (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:32AM
  • by gfxguy (98788) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:32AM (#851183) Homepage
    XBox gets announced TWO YEARS before it's SCHEDULED release to fud-up development on current consoles.

    Do you really think this isn't a direct response to the "GNOME foundation" [slashdot.org] announcement? I mean, come on people!


    ----------

  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by Quikah (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:32AM
  • by istartedi (132515) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM (#851185) Journal

    The article says they are having a rough time of it, even with the Windows source code. Maybe the strategy will be to flood the market with poorly written Linux applications. People will say stuff like "Office runs bad on Linux, Linux sucks".

    I have to admire Bill Gates as the PT Barnum of computing. He intends to use Linux as a gateway to get people interested in Windows. Maybe his Linux desktop will have a link on it that says "This Way To The Egress".

    Sure Linux is stable, sure it's free and all that junk. But where's the *showmanship*?

  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by kill -9 $$ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • MainWin? Argh. by azz (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:46AM
  • Re:At long last protection faults come to Linux by barracg8 (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:46AM
  • Now we can play games by themadhatter (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:46AM
  • Oh Great... by Vagatech (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:47AM
  • Re:Easy because MS will just require root privs. by KnightStalker (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:59AM
  • Re:Info on how they'll do the port, and why by hackerhue (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:59AM
  • Re:If It Was On The Internet, It MUST Be True! by _ph1ux_ (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:49AM
  • Giving up??? by lient (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:49AM
  • Re:Good for Linux OS/ Bad for Linux Apps by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:00AM
  • This is a big downside if MS loses the DOJ case by Ratteau (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:01AM
  • Re:Buy it? by Kwikymart (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:25AM
  • Finally... by thot (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:02AM
  • There are several possibilitites. by Auckerman (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:25AM
  • Threat?? by themadhatter (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:53AM
  • Re:Oooo. (Score:3)

    by jms (11418) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:26AM (#851201)
    Should MS apps be established on Linux it'd be like that only instead of dealing with a single point of development and control, MS would be dealing with little groups and individuals, threatening them that if they didn't stop work on their projects, MS would kill Office for Linux (and presumably blame said developer).

    The correct answer to this is "KYOFB"; "Knife your own baby."

    I think that most "little groups and individuals" would probably pay money to get Microsoft to kill Office for Linux. Threatening to kill Office for Linux isn't much of a threat. I know that if Microsoft came to me with that sort of threat, I'd laugh in their face and tell them to go ahead and kill Office. Would you do otherwise?

    Some of us (mac people into development) have been able to watch this sort of thing going on in the real world for longer than you linux people have...

    This says a lot about how "independent" Apple is ... but not much about Linux. Apple made the fatal mistake of trying to get cozy with Microsoft, and like every other software company that has made the same mistake, Apple has paid the price. Actually, Apple's developers and users are the ones who have paid the price.

    But Linux isn't going to Microsoft on hands and knees pleading, "Save our sorry asses by porting Office to our failing operating system", like Apple did. If anything, Microsoft is attempting to muscle in on Linux turf. Entirely different situations. Entirely different outcomes.
  • Anti Linux-Traitor Legislation by Municipa (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:02AM
  • FUD by Maltese Falcon (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • Re:Microsoft Wine: Better. Because we said so. by Enahs (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:03AM
  • Microsoft Wine: Better. Because we said so. by ajp (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:28AM
  • Re:User Friendly, anyone? by finkployd (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • Any estimates on reliability either? by pallex (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • Re:Oooo. by Shotgun (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:28AM
  • Easy because MS will just require root privs. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • Re:Weather report by Samrobb (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:28AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by Kiaser Zohsay (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:33AM
  • Will you have to be root to run all the apps? by doorbot.com (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:34AM
  • How will this effect us as a community... by Xrkun (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:34AM
  • by angst_ridden_hipster (23104) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @08:34AM (#851214) Homepage Journal
    This is probably a pre-emptive action based on the assumption that the company will be split by the justice department. It won't particularly hurt the OS company, but will definitely help the Apps company.

    The Applications company will want to have access to *all* markets. They see the writing on the wall with all the new and improved desktop initiatives in the Unix world, and figure that there is going to be some erosion of market share for the Windows desktop.

    They probably are also trageting us geeks who have to do a lot of document shuffling for work. We'll be able to have our cake, and read Word documents too. They figure IS managers will say "Hey, it's guaranteed to be compatible, since it's Office."

    Still, it'll be hard to compete with free. Star Office is pretty good!

    -
    bukra fil mish mish
    -
    Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
  • by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby@comcast ... t minus caffeine> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:10PM (#851215) Homepage

    This makes sense, it really does. Look at the following, and I think you'll see where I am coming from.

    1. PR. The whole monopoly thing is starting to get to them. They face formal scrutiny in the US, Europe and India. If they do this, they can look and say "but we really do have competition". "We did a port at X number of millions of dollars to take advantage of this competitive market".

    2. They are a business, something that a lot of people seem to forget. If they can make money on this up and coming OS (now that it is starting to break out of geekdom), why not? People seem to forget that they also make Office (and other products) for the Mac.

    3. StarOffice. People use and buy Office (which is far more profitable for them than their OS's), because it is the defacto standard. Aside from a few die-hard types, it is accepted worldwide (except for China - different standard). StarOffice is being given away for free, and MS doesn't want people to get in the "habit" of using something else. Remember they considered Sun's intro into the browser market seriously enough to spend half a billion dollars (US DOJ figure) to combat it.

    4. They need to show the world that they can play nice. MS settled the lawsuit with Mac based on a cash investment (non voting stock) and a willingness to make MS Office 98. Without MS Office 98 (pre iMac), it is was widely considered that Apple would have gone belly up. MS had more to risk by Apple going belly up than Apple did. Take Apple out of the picture at that time, and their would be no perceivable possible competition (Linux was not nearly as popular than, keep in mind.)

    5. Market penetration. There are *nix shops that don't use MS. Once you port to Linux, it isn't that great of a leap to port to *nix. MS wants these markets, and this is a way to gain a foothold there. Regardless of what you think about the company, this would sell like crazy.

    6. Microsoft.Net. This is another way to sell monthly licenses. Once people start to see some of the "features" that work with Office, they will want access to the rest of the features. It's the "collection" syndrome, people can't stand to know something is available, and they don't have it. Enough users start to demand features that would work with say, MS Exchange 2000, and management just might listen.

    7. They are losing some customers to Linux. A lot of these people despise the MS OS's, but like the office suite. If they can see a familiar face in their new unfamiliar OS, many people would jump at the chance. I think that a significant number of the people who are former windows users would say that office is the 1 thing they miss most.

    8. If they are building MSLinux (which they certainly could), this would be a way to get people to switch to "their" flavor of Linux. Make the desktop similiar to Windows, maintain the "look and feel" that someone who has used Windows knows, and they could easily become bigger than Redhat. They maintain their standards and control, and the masses would flock. Before you bash this statement, look at the first fundamental rule of marketing. Brand recognition is what counts. It is well established that the masses will flock to a brand that they know. Remember this would not be ported for the geeks that use Linux, this would be ported for the masses.

  • That'll be the EASIEST part by Tejota (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:18PM
  • wouldn't be a problem by ChadM (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:18PM
  • Re:Unlikely, here's why by _ph1ux_ (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:55AM
  • Re:crackin moderator (OT) by CptnHarlock (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:22PM
  • Here's the next step.. by motardo (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:04AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Masked Marauder (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:23PM
  • you have a fiance? by SethJohnson (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:04AM
  • SCARY--- by andersand (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:04AM
  • Re:I'd like to add... by quonsar (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:57AM
  • Pigs -do- fly by Rimbo (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:24PM
  • This is obvious (Score:4)

    by EricLivingston (162103) <eric@@@thelivingstons...org> on Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:28AM (#851226) Homepage
    Clearly (to me, anyway) they are simply doing the same thing here as they did with Netscape. First, create a free app that has the MS FUD and brand behind it. Give it away and destroy the marketshare of anything competing against it (such as StarOffice, etc). Wait until the development teams of StarOffice and all competing office suites disappear and all development of alternative Open Source office suites is dead and gone, all the while touting the benefits to be had by using MS Office for Linux.

    Then, start to make it suck and fall well behind the Windows version, forcing more and more users to switch over as they lose support. Finally, discontinue it altogether, leaving Linux users with nothing at all (when now they have alternatives), and crush all possibility of Linux reaching the desktop any time soon.

    For that matter, I'm truly surprised that there's no MS Linux distribution, which they would push and market heavily until Red Hat, Corel, and others went out of business, all other distros were ignored, and they were the only game in town (or at least had gathered like 97%+ of the market share). Then, again, just dump the damn thing. Kill it off, and leave everyone sucking wind. While it may not kill Linux off altogether, it would set the effort back a decade or so, and give MS Winblows the opportunity to actually grow into a stable OS that works sometimes, and cement an even greater share of the market.

  • Re:Hmmm by Elvis Maximus (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:04AM
  • Re:A good idea but... by mr (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:57AM
  • Re:If you can't beat 'em by nihilogos (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:31PM
  • Ummm... Why? by VivianC (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:29AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Icebox (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:59AM
  • Re:There Is A User Born Every Minute by fritter (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:05AM
  • Re:I'd like to add... by gfxguy (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:06AM
  • by multipart/mixed (163409) on Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:06AM (#851234)
    FYI, a year later it still sucks.

    I hobbled through the shared libraries and whatnot one day.

    Know what I found?

    Most of Windows! YEP! References to CONFIG.SYS, AUTOEXEC.BAT, instructions for how to configure Plug and Play devices, PCMCIA devices, a SYSTEM.INI, etc, ad nauseum.

    No wonder a Windows port isn't far behind -- the Solaris/HP ie/oe "port" isn't much of a port. It looks like they just sort of sandwiched enough shit into Solaris to give enough of a Windows-like environment to make their pathetic applications execute.

    Further evidence?

    They don't use X! Well, they use it, but they use the lowest level native (widgetless) output. No font server, no nothin'. It CRAWLS over a 1 megabit connection, and is barely useable of a 10 megabit connection. They render the freakin' fonts one bit at a time!

    HELLLOOOOOOO??!!! Microsoft! It's an operating system + Xserver, not HARDWARE! CHRIST! Do you have any unix-literate software engineers? As near as I can tell you've hired some "consultants" and a bunch of VB-mouse-click-wizard-totin' hacks!



    --
  • Wonderfull! by SpacePunk (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:31AM
  • Re:Microsoft Wine: Better. Because we said so. by FauxPasIII (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:31AM
  • Re:Office for Linux? by Fervent (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @10:31AM
  • Re:Usual attack, beware by Samrobb (Score:2) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:38PM
  • MS Linux... you all know it will happen by Catbeller (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:45PM
  • Yes, MSFT would be great, except... by antpal (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @11:59AM
  • Re:Will you have to be root to run all the apps? by Compuser (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @12:00PM
  • Come on by am 2k (Score:1) Wednesday August 16 2000, @01:47PM
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9