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This discussion has been archived.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 o