States Filing Alternate Remedy Proposal for MS Anti-Trust Case 420
cbull writes: "News.com reports that 9 states and the District of Columbia will be filing an alternate remedy proposal in the Microsoft case later today. This would close some of the loopholes, better define middleware, require Microsoft to continue Office development for Macintosh and to develop a version of Office for Linux, among other things." There's also a Cringely column about the case. Somehow the phrase "Microsoft Office for Linux" has gotten people all fired up. Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? Really?
They make a product..why force them? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:2)
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:2, Interesting)
What the article says (Score:5, Informative)
is that Microsoft would have to sell, by auction, a minimum of three licenses to enable third parties to produce versions for other operating systems "such as Linux."
It does not mean that Microsoft has to produce a Linux version. Nor does it mean that the third parties have to produce a Linux version. What it means is that at least three companies will have the right to produce a version of Office for whatever other environment they want to.
Re:What the article says (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What the article says (Score:2)
Office and it's 'ease' of use... (Score:4, Insightful)
Office, and its claim of 'ease of use'...
Ok, I have some issues with the claim to MS Office suite ease of use.
I work at a university in the Midwest. I support 40 people directly, among other things (support takes about 35% of my time).
My users are decent. They are good enough that they require very little support. Once a month I lead a training sessions or two (each three hours long) and I teach them new things. They catch on quickly. There comes a point where the problem isn't the intelligence level of the user, it's the software.
I've developed an opinion about MS. I've programmed in VC++, VB, used MFC and ATL. I've done extraordinary things with ADO, and made large systems that use COM. I've used MS-SQL, and I know Win95, Win98, WinNT, and Win2000 like the back of my hand (WinME? Not much experience yet, but good luck on getting WinME personal to log onto a domain). I'm also well versed in Office95 to Office 2000.
In other words, I've used MS products to solve real world problems. I've supported MS users. I've also admined novell and MS servers, and more recently, I've been getting deep in Unix based systems (although, in the case of Unix, my average users don't use it, I use it to get info for them (think Informix and card access systems for security and POS systems)).
In my experience, I've noticed one thing about MS. There are two layers to MS software (and development environments)- the tasks that the software (or SDK) was very specifically designed to do and every thing else...
Think Visual Basic. VB gives you access to many events. Open form, load form, preview key... but try to go the next step... try to capture an event that isn't in the VB set, and welcome to the world of Win32 events. Don't get me wrong, you can do it. I've done it. Window moves and resizes (think popup text-tips. I wrote a COM control that popped up text-tips right under a custom active-x control that allowed entry of metric values with a specific range, significant digits, and resolution. The popup gave feedback to the entered value.) I don't know how many times I crashed VB debugging this solution, but I got it, and it shipped.
Another point... using COM, ATL, MFC... f-ing A, I worked my ass off to get that stuff to work right. Specifically loading dynamic ActiveX controls that each controlled a specific type of hardware. The COM spec., the ActiveX spec., Trying to find some damn good info about any MS tech and using beyond the simple stuff. It is a challenge.
Don't get me started on Access. Powerful to a point, and cripple for anything beyond the basics.
Some my users are good. And MS is good for somethings. But I call bullshit on ease of use outside a very narrow range of uses. Mail merge? Use of an ODBC data source? An Access DB that does something with more than 3 tables? Is multi user? Web access? Security?
MS usability is a layer of façade over a layer of crap.
I have yet to see something moderately complicated EASY on a MS product.
I have strong faith that SOMEONE will make it easy, and I doubt it will be MS. They will still be concerned with marketing and profits while someone else will make it easy. Use Napster as a lesson. A thousand people have thought of it, but it only take one to write it.
On the other hand, MS gets much better with each iteration. The next OS will be killer. It will be full of fluff. It will offer no choices, because everything will be preloaded, but it WILL WORK. And users will user that which is loaded.
There is hope in there, but I leave it as an exercise to the student to find it.
Mean while, Monday, I will go back to work, do some work on MS, Oracle, ColdFusion, Unix, Perl, etc... but my life will be dominated by those users using MS.
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:2, Insightful)
Development of a Linux port will cost them time and money. Having to develop for their enemy would be a bitter pill for him to swallow.
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seeing an authentic MS Office on Linux would jump an important hurdle impeding wide-spread rollouts of Desktop Linux.
OpenOffice (as good as it is) won't make large scale gains in the 'Enterprise' because it will take more than Free Software ideals for the massive MS Office massive user-base to migrate to a Linux platform.
I'm sure many IT Directors are looking for alternatives to MicroSoft's new 'software-rental' purchasing. Many know linux is a solid desktop OS, unfortunately that's when reality hits. Not having true MS Office means:
- MS Access client apps will need to be rewritten (hundreds lurk in my company)
- Any Visual Basic code and Macros will need to be redeveloped
- Retrain hundreds/thousands of end-users
- Train all new employees (When's the last time an applicant listed StarOffice as a skill?)
I believe MS Office on Linux could lead to widescale Linux OS adoption in the corporate world, and wouldn't that be the first half of the battle won? By that tme I'm sure OpenOffice will be tough to beat.
/uberman tossing in his $0.02
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me how it will *hurt* the community!
You end up with the one application that keeps everyone tied to Windows. Julee down in clerical doesn't give a rat's ass what OS she's using: she doesn't use an OS, she uses software applications -- namely, Word and Excel.
This means the boss can swing to Linux without having to retrain her. His investment in her skills, which have taken years to develop, aren't going to get thrown out the window. By gosh, maybe he'll be a little amenable to switching to Linux now!
Quit trying to be isolationist. That's the game Microsoft plays. Play bigger: encourage everyone to come to Linux.
Re:They make a product..why force them? (Score:3)
Imagine StarOffice with all the features of MS Office AND compatable files?
Imagine emacs reading a Word file.
My little mind boggles....
Don't Miss Cringley's "I Like It!" Links (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/like/like20011206.htm
to see the State's remedial settlement (Score:2, Informative)
This could have some real teeth in it and is not riddled with the loopholes that plague the M$/DoJ crafted settlement
Re:to see the State's remedial settlement (Score:2)
Office for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
YES!! Gawd, don't be such a dumbass. Corporate buyers (remember them? the ones who buy millions of PCs a year?) have STANDARDIZED on Microsoft Office for all their documents. Availability of Office for Linux would very substantially accelerate deployment of Linux desktops in business locations, which is precisely why Micros~1 hasn't done it! Forcing them to develop it would be a damn good idea.
Re:Office for Linux (Score:5, Informative)
To address the "intentionally making it suck" argument, Microsoft would be required to license the necessary code to third-party vendors to do the OS ports -- Windows version code, Mac version code, whatever the licensors need. Said licensors, having paid for licenses, would have every reason to make the port as good as possible.
To address the "get around to" argument, Microsoft would be required to pre-announce upcoming releases and to provide enough information to the licensors that they can have their ports out in a timely manner. That's timely as the Court defines it, too.
This remedy is almost everything I wanted. It's better than Jackson's breakup and it's DAMNSHO better than that platter of shit served up by Ashcroft and James.
The address for comments is microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov. Owing to the anthrax hysteria, DOJ is actually asking for email rather than snail, so there's every reason to fire off a lucid, spell-checked comment to the government. Granted, the fix is in so the DOJ won't act on the feedback, but they are required to bundle it up and give it all to Judge K-K for her perusal before she ultimately decides. With enough public support for the dissenting states and contempt for the US/pet states proposal, she just might go for it. Or somewhere in-between, even. Write, write, write. Please.
As much as I hate to say it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:As much as I hate to say it.... (Score:2)
Open Source IE too (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apparently they are also suggesting that Microsoft should
open source Internet Explorer.
It would be nice to have IE on Linux. I wonder what kind of
issues this would raise w.r.t. Windows Media and ActiveX...
Re:Open Source IE too (Score:2, Funny)
#include <windows.h>
#include <mshtlml.h>
int main(void)
{
IWebBrowser2 *ie;
pfnClassFactory ClassFactory;
HMODULE mshtml;
CoInitialise();
mshtml=LoadLibrary("mshtml.dll");
ClassFactory=GetProcAddress(mshtml,"Factory");
ie=ClassFactory();
ie->Initialise();
ie->Go();
ie->Release();
return(0);
}
All the web browser stuff is shared components - it's used by the help system and other things.
But it's not integrated with the O/S, and don't you forget it!
Re:Open Source IE too (Score:2)
IE has some real strengths when compared to Moz and the others... such as a fairly intellegent 'quickload' preloading mode that both Moz and Staroffice are trying to emulate, activex plugin archetecture, which is actually a pretty ideal environment for browser plugins (not applets), and all the microsoft specific html 'extensions' like Favicon and page transitions which the other projects haven't emulated because of their Microsoftness.
If these features were really OSS'd it in a Free manner, all the other OSS browser projects would benefit greatly.
Re:Open Source IE too (Score:2)
force Linux versions? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I think it would matter since Open/Star Office would own them in that area anyway, as most Linux users are not the sort of people that like to pay hundreds of dollars for a closed source which probably wouldn't work very well anyway. (remember MS doesn't have the advantage in controlling the system from the ground up).
Upgrade cycle (Score:3)
Re:Upgrade cycle (Score:2)
Considering my wife runs Office 2000 on an old K6 233Mhz PC with Win/98 -- and the speed is fine -- you are just spreading more Microsoft FUD.
Maybe you should actually know what you're talking about before posting.
Re:Upgrade cycle (Score:2)
Considering that Office 2000 is now more than 2 and 1/2 years old, back when a K6-233 wasn't that slow of a machine, your wife's experiences really don't count for much.
Besides, Microsoft FUD is what Microsoft does to convince you that you really don't want to use (Lotus, Wordperfect, OS/2, Linux, pick one). If the poster was spreading FUD it was anti-Microsoft FUD.
Maybe you should be more careful before posting.
Re:Upgrade cycle (Score:2)
Office 2000 is absurd and later renditions are just even more bloated. Hell, I have a P3 800Mhz and I run Office 97 because it loads a second or two faster. So take your FUD claims elsewhere.
Linux is a godsend for people stuck on older PCs if they have a techie to help them.
No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That way, Star Office, KOffice, Gnumeric, and the rest can get the import filters 100% correct.
That's really where Microsoft's monopoly is - many businesses would happily switch to Linux if they could be 100% sure that they could still reliably read and edit the thousands of documents they have already created.
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
If that means they have to distribute source that we then compile for our target OS/processor, so be it ;-)
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be a good thing is porting it to Solaris and HP-UX. Those are 2 OSes that are used as a desktop a lot by businesses, especially ones that do a lot of CAD/CAM and engineering work. One of the reasons why Sun is doing the whole StarOffice thing is because, even with the sunPCI, a lot of people are forgoing thier Sun workstations for windows so they can have IE, Office, etc.
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Office is probably coded alright, but its designed (of course!) to only run on windows. hell, the Mac versions of Office are re-writes from the ground up! Which is what would probably be done if it was ported to UNIX...
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Publish the API's for Exchange (Yes, Ximian has reversed it, but make this permament)
Force them to open their modifications to LDAP and Kerberos in the server world. I-planet's LDAP, for example, works with Solaris, Win2k, etc, as does Novel's Edirectory. Does Active Directory? Of course not.
The browser wars really are over, what is imporant now is to keep MS from leveraging their desktop monopoly into an eventual server/internet monopoly, where things like MS-LDAP, MS-Kerberos, MS-Mail, Windows Media, etc serve to tie one down to only one end to end solution. Theirs.
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Alternative suites are no where near as mature, and I doubt they ever will be, given the fact that Office is MS's cash cow, and they'd be stupid to let it slip. I mean while the latest Office sports speech recognition/dictation, the "alternative" suites are just now getting spell checking! While Office is available in 35 languages, others are just now thinking about considering getting started [openoffice.org]. And I'm not even going to go into usability (how many open-source applications do you know of that have the resources to conduct and utilize novice useability tests?)
If you're using Windows, do me a favor: using IE, find a web page with a table in it, highlight the table, copy it, and paste it into Word or Excel. See what happens? The contents are interpreted correctly, and a Table appears in Word, and the contents of the table appear in seperate cells in Excel. Now ask yourself if that's anywhere near a possibility in ANY "alternative" office suite.
Open file formats or not, I'd be happy with Office for linux, as I'm tired of having to settle for immature, poorly designed suites.
Office productivity? (Score:2)
Creating structured documents with Word (including versioning, diffs between documents etc) is a hell compared to some other solutions.
Re:No thanks on Office for Linux (Score:2)
That being said, I'd like to see a version of Office for Linux and I'd like to see the file formats opened up. This would take nothing away from the quality or usability of Office. I hear the OS X version is actually better than the PC version.
Absolutely! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now what effects will the release of MS Office for Linux have? It seems like a good idea: since most businesses are standardized on MS Office, it will speed the adoption of Linux on the desktop. (This, BTW, seems to be the only major obstacle). So, in the short run it's a good thing... except for one little problem: does anyone doubt that the Linux version of MS Office, if it is ever released, would be so crippled as to make it virtually useless? Or that Microsoft would find some other way to tie their customers to Windows? Microsoft could easily say "we coplied with the ruling" while blaming everything on Linux. So much for that.
Now what are the long term effects of this? If the scenario I described above plays out, then none whatsoever: MS Office for Linux will die a horrible death and we are back to square one. But now suppose MS Office for Linux is a success. Then corporations accelerate the adoption of Linux on the desktop; sooner or later, Linux becomes a viable choice for home PCs too and OEMs start bundling it, etc. Great! The windows monopoly is broken... but the office monopoly is perpetuated. And who know what other effects this may have. I suppose one monopoly is better than two, but it is nowhere near the ideal state.
well if it's that easy! (Score:2, Insightful)
while your at it, would you mind pointing me to the full win32 api? those wine developers seem to be too stupid to do a search.
oh, and how about SMB? those idiots at samba sure are having a hard time getting it right, it's right there on MSDN right?
oh, and darn it those Tom fools who can't figure out Exchange - could you help them out too?
thanks a lot, we're pretty naive not being professional programers you know
Re:the specs are already publicly available, fool (Score:2, Insightful)
This is utter uninformed BS. As Alan Cox pointed out, I could write a TCP stack exclusively from the RFC's and it would never be able to make a connection on today's internet. The same goes, moreso, for these file format specifications. I've looked at them, I'm a programmer, and I can tell you with absolute assurance there is no way those documents alone can give anyone enough information to properly decode the format. There are a million mysteries in just how word manipulates the format, much less OLE object formats and other counter-intuitive Windows behavior.
Other posts have it right. Let's kill Office's stranglehold by killing it's file format. This could happend by making an indisputable format standard for documents. I don't care if it's XML based like the StarOffice format and SVG, but that's surely a good idea. Get the UN, ISO, W3C, and the IEEE to rubber stamp it and get on with an era of computing without risk of getting your data trapped in a proprietary format. Make Microsoft use it, and it could happen. That way, people can still use Office to share informaton if they like and the rest of us can communicate back with them in any way we choose.
Re:Microsoft - monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're wrong.
I don't care what the stupid judge said -- Microsoft is not a monopoly. It does not have exclusive ownership of means of production or distribution channels or anything else, like AT&T or Standard Oil before them did. There are other companies out there that make OSes and office applications and internet browsers, which means there IS competition, and where's competition there's no monopoly.
There's this thing that's been talked about quite a bit since the first Microsoft case. It's called network effects. Basically it means that the value of something increases with the number of people who own and/or use that thing. Take the FAX machine as the classic example. Say you built one in your garage before anyone had ever thought of it. Great, you have a FAX machine. First one on your block to have one. What are you gonna do with it? Not much unless other people have them as well.
Software works in a similar way. If I have MS Office, and so does everyone I work with, then I can exchange files with them and we can communicate. Now, What if I go out and buy some other office suite that isn't compatible (and when it comes to MS Office, nothing is 100% compatible), all my co-workers and collegues suddenly can't open the files I send them, nor can I open the files they send me. I become a pariah, get fired, wife leaves me, takes the dog with her, and I end up scrounging for food in the dumpsters outside of Burger King. You see why this is a tough situation? Unless you can get a majority of users to switch virtually all at once, you can't ever switch to an alternative, no matter how appealing it is. You simply can't afford to lose access to your existing documents, and you can't afford to not be able to exhange documents with others.
Now, this is why Microsoft is a monopoly. Not because there are absolutely no alternatives. It's because there are very high barriers to entry in the OS market. It's not just that Windows has 90% of the market, it's that 90% of software written by practically any company is written for Windows. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. It doesn't matter whether they got where they are because they made a good product or not. The rules exist to protect the public from getting screwed. When a company gets to the point where it is utterly dominant in a market, and especially when there are huge barriers to entry in that market, it is considered a monopoly.
That, alone, is not a bad thing really. The problem is that once you become a monopoly, you have to play by a different set of rules to ensure that you don't use your power to harm consumers. Microsoft broke those rules bigtime. Many times over, knowing full well that they were doing it. They have alternately lied about it, joked about it, and claimed that they will continue to do it, regardless of what happens. Face it. We don't have unfettered capitalism in this country (or any other that I'm aware of). You can bet that Microsoft doesn't want unfettered capitalism either. We have laws that govern our commerce. Microsoft broke those laws, plain and simple. They were warned repeatedly. They did it willfully. They deserve a LOT worse than the pathetic settlement they'll get.
Do we? (Score:4, Funny)
Staroffice may be okay, Wordperfect acceptable, and VIM popular, but until a 100% office replacement exists, most places are going to continue to snub Linux as an alternative on the desktop.
Besides, I like Office. MS may have had mega-crappy OS's, but Office always worked right.
Re:Do we? (Score:2)
Re:Do we? (Score:2)
Oh, and clog the email servers.
Re:Do we? (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is this: there is very little business value added by Microsoft Office. Word is a very substandard document editor which focuses on layout over content, and at the same time is almost useless for layout. Powerpoint can only be used to create presentations to waste company time at tedious meetings. "Management Plan: Part A" can definitely be drawn on a chalk board faster than it can be written in powerpoint. Access should not be used to store any data your business actually needs, which implies that your business doesn't need Access. Excel is the sole component of Office that does anything useful. This is probably the best spreadsheet for financial and scientific applications out there, and has been since the first release on the MacOS Back in the Day. Too bad it is now bundled with all that other tripe.
My point: a "100% office replacement" really means a replacement for Excel in any business where the management retains frontal lobe function.
Re:Do we? (Score:2)
If you wanted content-only, assuming no formatting, there are text-only tools such as Notepad for the job. Truth is, layout is just as important as content nowadays with catchy visual designs being crucial.
Powerpoint can only be used to create presentations to waste company time at tedious meetings. "Management Plan: Part A" can definitely be drawn on a chalk board faster than it can be written in powerpoint.
Uh, no, not at the meeting it can't. Sure, PowerPoint presentations may take a while to make, but after it's made, it can be presented instantly. Plus, going back to my former argument, visuals are half the battle, content is the other. Slide show applications such as PowerPoint play a great role in persuading bosses in decisions, among many other uses. Besides, I'll take a presentation with PowerPoint over a PHB speech any day.
Access should not be used to store any data your business actually needs, which implies that your business doesn't need Access.
Access doesn't need to store the data. It can interact with the data, connecting to remote SQL servers provided that you install the proper ODBC drivers.
Excel is the sole component of Office that does anything useful. This is probably the best spreadsheet for financial and scientific applications out there
I agree that it's useful, but I still think Word and Outlook are tied in my book for most useful. I rarely use Excel, whereas the former are used daily.
Too bad it is now bundled with all that other tripe.
No, no it's not. You may certainly purchase it separately [amazon.com].
Anyway, besides the aforementioned, FrontPage is kind of useless, being that I don't particularly care for its WYSIWYG features, except its stellar handling of tables.
Visio is another superb program and really has a number of uses for designing physical layouts of rooms, computer networks, buildings. Hell, I even saw a segment on TV a while back about police using Visio to reconstruct car accident scenes.
Also, look for the Office XP SP1 which will be released next week to fix all of your Outlook (and other) bugs.
Re:Do we? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy that. Content is everything. If you have no content and great visuals, you don't have 1/2 a presentation, you have nothing. Powerpoint is horrible, even for presentations. The display medium is usually a projection, and that means typically an 800x600 distorted trapezodioal projection on a distant wall. Further, Powerpoint encourages you to waste what little precious space you have to work with. Logos, patterns, colored polygons, and bullets use space and add nothing. Here's a mockup PowerPoint slide:
Management Plan:
Damn, that was useful. Can we go over it again?
Next thing: Powerpoint leaves no traces. You can't take it with you unless the presenter prints it out, which is an insult to the information carrying ability of paper. You can't refer to something that used to be projected up on a wall but now isn't. Often, the presentation itself is of little use if the presenter isn't speaking any more.
A lot of businesses would do themselves a favor by getting rid of Powerpoint. A really well executed 1-page paper handout can carry enough information to accompany an hour-long presentation or class. Computer printouts are 1200dpi. 2400dpi offset printing is considered low tech. If you print a chart at 1200dpi someone might actually be able to make sense of it.
Some businesses are clued into this already. 3M has a worldwide effort to burn powerpoint at the stake. Other large companies are watching. If I were an executive, I'd fire any and all employees who invited me to a powerpoint presentation. It doesn't doesn't respect the intelligence or the value of the time of the victim ...er... audience.
Here's an exercise. Go to google. Search for powerpoint presentations. Find one that's really great. One that is really informative and beautiful. Then come back here and post the URL.
NO..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:NO..... (Score:2)
That basically equates to "no major new features for 5 years". I don't think even the DOJ is gullible enough to think that's a realistic idea.
Re:NO..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting.
I suppose the judges' next call will be that DeCSS should really be available on Windows, and be able to decrypt the latest WMF too.
Open Office file formats (Score:5, Insightful)
And make them open every aspect of the file formats, not just make them compatible. My understanding is that the way things currently are, most non-MS Office Suites can still read MOST MS office files, but not ALL MS Office files, which keeps a lot of shops from converting. Especially those that rely on specialized macros and whatnot.
open file formats (Score:2, Redundant)
MS Office for Linux (Score:2)
Like it or not, Word is a standard format (Score:2)
Not so long ago, our HR department asked for a copy of my resume. Boycotting Micro$oft as usual, I sent it in PDF and PS format... They couldn't read it of course and had no idea what to do with my files.
My resume had been created through StarOffice, but I was not going to tell them to download StarOffice when they were not even able to visit Adobe's web site and download Acrobat Reader. I eventually sent them a RTF version and all worked well. But I can't start to imagine them sending me a RTF version of any document they create. Without a doubt, they (and others) will always send me native Word document, inconsciously assuming that MS Office is oblivious. That's why I/we need MS Office for Linux.
we need the format not the software (Score:3)
Re:Like it or not, Word is a standard format (Score:2)
RTF, for the Office user is a huge pain in the ass.
It works, mind you, but opening a document in RTF takes significantly longer than the native Word format - in Word.
It's just the way it is. Who knows if MS is doing a straight translation from RTF to Word for rendering, or if there's a bunch of intentional timer loops in there to slow it down and encourage people to stick to
You're asking the wrong people... (Score:2)
Office for Linux wouldn't be for the hardcore anti-Microsoft /. reading "GUIs are for losers" old-school Linux geek, it would be for the people who want an alternative to Windows that runs on the same hardware and can still run Office. These are the people who aren't running Linux but would be inclined to switch if Office were available for it. Not all Linux enhancements (I use the term loosely) are designed to appeal to current users...
Antitrusts Greatest Hits (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the solution to the MS problem is to regulate their real problem behavior. Don't let them do illegal things. Don't let them sign crazy exclusive deals. Don't let them control (down to a single icon) exactly what's installed on a machine.
Making MS release Office for Linux is a step down the wrong road. And what do you do when it's crappy? Force them to make it better?
File Type Definition (Score:2, Redundant)
This would let me work with clients who are M$ based much easier than I do now.
Office for Linux - same rules apply (Score:2)
2. Dont run suid
3. Run Tripwire before installing, since theres no way you are gonna get to compile it yourself, and no way you're gonna get to untar the binary distributions.
4. chroot(1) if you feel really paranoid.
I think this would be a good thing, since I could leave MS (the operating system) forever, and at the same time, it would be a fairly humbling punishment for MS, forcing Linux into their own shop, and forcing them to devote resources to it.
Re:Office for Linux - same rules apply (Score:5, Funny)
1. It would only run as root.
2. You couldnt disable Clippy.
3. Word documents would be saved with extensions ".upgrade_to_windows"
4. NET extenstions would be automatically installed.
5. Visios linux box icon would look like a toaster
6. Spell checker would spell Linux as linux, and Open Source as "Pirated Software"
7. Eastereggs in office would have the BSDeality logo.
8. Office update would keep popping up, update "Microsoft Linux service pack #6805" for download.
9. MSN messenger would be required with a passport account.
10. Kernels would have to insert a new module that allows blue screens.
No, I don't want Office for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
... and since that's not going to happen, my next preferred remedy would be one something like the one Steve Jobs is asking for: a big cash fine (not a "donation" to schools designed to ensure that future generations of developers will use all Microsoft all the time). But the proposed $1 billion is nothing, pocket change for Bill Gates. Make it $10 billion per year for ten years, and you're maybe talking about real money.
Where should the money go? Although my first impulse is to say "to Microsoft's competitors and/or to free software," I don't think that's quite right in the long run, because it puts the government in the position of deciding who's worthy. Better, I think, would be to parcel the money out for public math and comp. sci. education according to some simple, objective formula (primary/secondary schools get money based on the number of students in the district, colleges get it based on the current size of their math and CS departments, say.)
Is this ideal? No, because Microsoft will still be there, as one company. But it will seriously limit their ability to crush innovation in the industry for a decade (by which time things will no doubt have changed in all kinds of ways) and produce a generation of well-educated computer scientists, and hopefully be politically acceptable to all sides.
Can I just be a satisfied customer? (Score:2)
Re:Can I just be a satisfied customer? (Score:2)
One battle... (Score:2)
If MS makes a Linux version of Office, getting linux on the desktop become easier. As we gain momentum in the battle, the ability to create a competitive Office product become easier.
I would be even happier if the had to make all the Office component open source for 10 years, but this will help just as well.
They clearly understand how MS is using Office to become entrenched in the work place, then leverage that into forced upgrades.
now if they would do the same thing for Direct X, MS would Have to start putting out quality products which would allow market forces to decide where the money goes.
Next? MICROSOFT LINUX! (Score:2, Interesting)
$700 for the package!
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? (Score:2)
Thanks a lot though. I'll be fantisizing about never seeing WinNT/9x/ME at work all weekend long now...
What Office with do for Linux... (Score:2)
More than anything, I'd like to see an alternative/stable desktop OS. Running a popular, fat, bloated application on Linux that people love (for better or worse) and are familiar with would help Linux desktop adoption immensely.
Unfortunately, Yes (Score:2)
Last summer, I was supervising the installation of GNU/Linux in a previously all-Windows shop (a certain simulation software they used required Linux). To the people who ran the simulations they ended up giving two computers, one for Windows and one for Linux. This was not the original nor the ideal plan, but Outlook is necessary to interface with MS Exchange mail servers (particularly calendars and address books), and MS Office is necessary to share files effectively with other Office users. While office alternatives on Linux are certainly viable and I personally would not need MS Office for Linux, management policies and practical realities make it a necessity for Linux to gain further inroads at corporations.
Exchange client for linux. (Score:2)
BTW, I wouldnt mind seeing directx opened up also, so more games could be ported to linux.
Somehow I wonder... (Score:2)
I have a sneaking suspicion that it would not be. Then again, I've always been more fond of Office for MacOS than Office for Windows. I know plenty of users who claim that Office for Mac is pretty darned good. I'm inclined to say that MS Software for the Mac is pretty good overall. Even Outlook Express for Mac is liveable.
That being said, MS is bad. M-kay? Long live vi / emacs and LaTeX (don't want
-Peter
Broken Office (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the Open Source Movement has shot itself in the foot by providing lots of alternative office solutions with non-interchangable file formats. One of the most well documented formats seems to be Open Office's new XML-based one. If Open Source Advocates agreed on a single format, then Microsoft could either be forced to use this format, or to provide filters. Without such an agreement, the only thing that can be asked for are 100% specifications of all Office formats, now and in the future -- this will be harder to verify since there would be no open source reference implementation.
One of the biggest threats to open source is open source itself. The fragmentation of different solutions makes migration hard or impossible.
Ummm (Score:2)
Office for Linux? (Score:3, Funny)
I heard that when they ported IE to Solaris that it required all sorts of crazy Win support stuff. I don't know about you but I'm not going to put an AUTOEXEC.BAT file on my Linux box.
Open the File Details (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft could be forced to not only open the details for Office documents, but why not Windows Media documents too? They could open details about protocols for Back Office, MSN Messenger, etc. Basically, make the files their software creates, and the protocols their software uses, open. This could make the life of writing new, better, open software that is compatible with the files/protocols more feature complete.
MSOffice for Linux.. pros and cons.. (Score:5, Funny)
In one hand this is a good idea. It would make their OS dominance go bye-bye if people actually had a choice of platforms to run the office suite.
On the other hand, do we really want to create new libraries proprietary to M$ under Linux that would allow the RandomCrashTime(), ScrewUpTheFormat() and CloseProgramIfNotSavedIn15Minutes() calls?
And I'm sure they would require us to reboot after every save of the documents.
---
If I had a funny sig, it would be here...
What about the 41 other states? (Score:2)
MS Office for Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
Expand the number of potential desktop users of Linux.
If MS Office is available, that is one less "hurdle" for Linux to overcome to become a widely accepted standard (in terms of the general uninformed public).
The goal should be to have at least three choices without hindering anyones compatability:
1. Linux
2. Mac
3. Windows
VB integrations, when? (Score:2)
A limited port is probably preferable, more than the just the file formats, but less than VB-scriptable (so to speak). Desktop acceptance of Linux is the goal here. Not the full integration of Office with the system, but the ability to share the space.
Noooooo... (Score:2, Interesting)
No flame here but... I heard from some people that when a top product marketing guy at Microsoft was asked to justify for the fact that IE didn't support Java in its browser under MacOS X very well (an understatement as it was buggy as hell. The support was turned on officially months after IE and OS X shipped and today, it's still broken for many applets), his reply was that Microsoft had assigned "CLASS C" engineers to do the task. Can you imagine what the level of the programmers assigned to developing Office on Linux would be and what the quality delivered would look like? And who do you think would benefit from the end result? It's like asking the German army during WWII to fight Nazism. Who's the moron who came up with this idea again?
PPA
Do you really want a version of Office for Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. I really don't want it for Windows. Wouldn't this make the problem worse?
MS makes OfficeNix[tm] then it crashes millions of servers everywhere. Then it's linux's fault. Wouldn't that help to broaden their powers anyways? Help them convert people?
I just installed Star Office for Windows, and I love it.
Why not solve everyone's problem and develop a Windows Layer for Linux? Basically WINE but once loaded you could run anything windoze, DirectX games, office, etc. This would keep their code secret and let everyone run Red Alert 2 [my fav] while using a REAL OS.
Plus, they could still charge 100 bucks a pop!
Too Hung up on Office (Score:2)
Office suites are stagnant: time to innovate (Score:2)
The Punishment I Suggest... (Score:3)
Office on Linux ... the sleeper hit? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Serve up MS Office to X-based thin clients, without the need for Terminal Server licensing and/or Citrix licensing, both which consume huge amounts of money.
- Users of MS Office for Linux are using Linux!!! Office on Linux is one step away from Microsoft.
- Finally, and I think this is important
... people would use it, and as a result it would force Microsoft to realize that Linux has desktop potential. Even if they wanted to kill the product later on, they wouldn't be able to do it easily, because the bean counters would say "Hey, this product is selling very well, why stop it?"
Remember, with no platform advantage, Microsoft has to play fair in the Linux world. Let them come. Let them play on the level playing field. The sooner this happens, the sooner the world can abandon Windows.Dont take this as pro-microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
First off Java for Windows? I've never had so much fun watching the windows sun fight over the last few years. First Sun makes Java, then Windows supports it, then MS extends it in a stupid way to support COM, then Sun bitches and says its platform dependant and take away their logo (Its just the logo Sun can bitch about, I mean anyone can make a piece of windows software that can do anything, but if you want the Windows logo on your box you have to do it MS's way, same thing with Java). So MS says they will take the logo off the box. Sun still bitches, so MS stops making Java. Then Sun starts making stupid platform dependant API's for Java themselves (same thing they got upset at MS for doing. The API I'm talking about there is the first gen of the 3d api). So let me get this straight, if MS makes a new Java API, they are just trying to ruin it, but if Sun does the same thing they are just adding features? Then Sun says they don't want MS to do any Java. MS says fine and sticks to just supporting one old version. Then Sun says then need an updated SDK. MS finally says, you know what we just will not even include Java period, too much hassle. Now Sun is bitching because Java is not included in Windows. Man this shit is funny. Now 9 States want to force the government to include Java. Guys its just a stupid download, my hell. MS may be likened to an greedy, sneaky asshole, but Sun is like a 4 year old kid who doesn't know what he wants.
Lets talk about the donation to the schools. I can see how Apple wants to bitch about it come on, half of their money comes from Schools, so if MS gives stuff to them for free, then why would then spend money on Apple? Apple will lose a nice percentage in sales.
Now lets talk about a stripped down version of Windows. This is lame too. I've hated all of the strong arm crap MS did (and still does), but I've always supported their rights to includes features they wanted. Does anyone remember the lantastic days? MS had windows 3.0 and DOS out, no networking support. Lantastic finds a nice niche market selling networking addons. Then MS includes it in windows for workgroups. Now Lantastic wonders who the hell is going to buy their product if its build into windows. Good question, but networking should be in the OS. Now days we have the same damn thing going on, every feature MS puts in will question some 3rd party product. That's not going to change. Should a basic explorer come with the OS? I think so? Hell every Linux distro I've ever installed has included at least on browser, sometimes even more than one.
As far as I can tell, all of these deal issues are meant to benefit other companies in other states. Nothing here is meant for the consumer. You can't tell me that the anti trust vision of everyone having to go to the store and buy 10 different products just to run a basic computer is in the consumers best interest. You can't tell me that schools getting free hardware and software is not in the consumers best interest. This case is no longer about consumers, it's about other businesses and their own self-interests. Could you image the press MS would get if it spent time trying to convince the government to make changes to Java? Or to Linux? Just so MS could be benefited.
Office for Linux? uhh YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottomline in this country is that capital has completely captured the regulatory authority of government, and through its media ownership drastically undermined the legitimacy of government oversight with a Long March of corporate subsidized pro-elite ideology - now 20 years old at least. MS therefore can be guilty as hell and yet there is insufficient political will to enforce the laws regulating behavior of monopolies. The people have been told to disengage from these matters and for the most part they have. The legislators have been told not to bite the hand that feeds them and they have pulled out their own molars to avoid giving offense. Two judges so far have pretty much wrecked their careers trying to deal with MS like they would a normal defendant so the writing is on the wall for any future judge. They see the clout of the defendant, and like the Republican T. P. Jackson, they can see the ideological slant of the Court of Appeals above them: if MS can be let go on a technicality and they can be screwed in the process, that is what the Court of Appeals will do.
Under a crony capitalism style of government, which we see perfected under Bush II meaningful regulation of monopolies is impossible. (Heck, cartels of energy firms are convened behind closed doors to draft administration "energy policy" and the Vice President goes so far as to openly defy an order from Congress to reveal who was present at these meetings!) At least you can't look for sincere effort from the Feds to obtain a restoration of free and fair markets, or anything like justice. The Dems largely lack the spine to piss off corporate benefactors although the party nominally supports antitrust regulation. It takes them too long to work up the determination to do something about flagrantly abusive monopolies. And trustbusting is just not a value that remotely squares with mainstream GOP politics anymore. It's not like they are hiding that fact either: as a presidential candidate, Bush declared his sympathies were completely with Microsoft on the day they were first "convicted" and his antitrust division chief, Charles James, publicly extolled the consumer benefits of the MS monopoly during the trial. Let's face this honestly and frankly: there can be no doubt about the ideological riptide that Justice must swim against now and for the next 3 years at least. There should also be no surprise that things have come to this sorry pass. The role of big money in elections has so far overshadowed mere votes that even a party committed to antitrust regulation can only manage to do a half assed job of it.
So if there is a block of states litigating for something that somewhat reflects the fact that MS lost the antitrust case and was indeed judged to be a monopoly, illegally shielding its core market from competition and illegally leveraging that core monopoly to pursue monopolistic dominance in related markets, then you have to get behind whatever the states came up with as their alternative settlement proposal. This is the last hope folks, whether we think it's "ideal" or "flawed". There are simply no more options on your side and criticism is a luxury you can no longer afford. You can choose to let yourself be carried out by the riptide, or throw your strength in with those who are rowing back to shore, though at a slant.
Judging whether MS Office for Linux is desirable you have to weigh it against the aboslutely certain alternative. There's no mystery about what that is anymore. The alternative is nothing. Under the Bush Asscroft regime and the settlement they agreed to with MS, there will be NOTHING in the court ordered remedies that even touches on the heart of the problem, which is the entwined OS and applications monopoly. So your choice is really between what these 9 states have proposed, hoping they can get it all, and on the other hand, a crony capitalism settlement, a legal forfeit, that amounts to a Federal imprimatur of approval upon the Microsoft Windows monopoly and essentially a GOVERNMENT GRANT of MONOPOLY, rather than any kind of remedy or punishment.
Office for Linux (plus the required inclusion of Sun's JRE in Windows) is better than that submission and by a breathtakingly huge margin.
(Just so no one says I am assuming too much, I know that a requirement that MS Office be ported to 3 other non-MS operating systems doesn't necessarily mean that Linux will be one of those.)
Re:Public comment period (Score:3, Informative)
E-mail: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov [mailto]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Mail:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Fax or e-mail are suggested...
Re:Public comment period (Score:5, Insightful)
Submitting Comments
Before you submit comments about the settlement, the Department of Justice recommends that you review the documents related to the settlement [usdoj.gov].
You may submit comments about the settlement by e-mail, fax, or mail.
Note: Given recent mail delivery interruptions in Washington, DC, and current uncertainties involving the resumption of timely mail service, the Department of Justice strongly encourages that comments be submitted via e-mail or fax.
E-mail
microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov [mailto]
In the Subject line of the e-mail, type Microsoft Settlement.
Fax
1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
Mail
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Combine /. comments as in "Interviews" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes (Score:2)
Office for Linux? Office for Linux! (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies don't really care about the desktop OS. To the business, the desktop OS is background noise, like the brand of the light bulbs in the ceiling. You might notice the difference, but it's not the basis for a business decision (an exaggeration, but more true than not). IT wants to manage support costs by using the same OS on every desktop (ideally), but the choice of which OS is based on technical nits and training issues. If you don't have to pay the yearly MS toll, you can buy a lot of training.
On the other hand, your office suite is critical. If your business exchanges information with other businesses -- and virtually all big companies do -- then potential compatibility problems are a real issue. You look unprofessional if you have to tell a partner or client that you can't open their spreadsheet because you can't afford to run "real" Excel.
Office for Linux could really shift the balance. The bad news is that as long as MS-the-OS-company is the same as MS-the-office-suite-company, Office for Linux will be an empty threat. You can bet that it will be crippled in performance, pricing, and/or reliability so that companies can't consider it seriously.
The States' heart is in the right place. They deserve credit for that.
Re:Office for Linux? Office for Linux! (Score:2)
I believe "Office for Linux" has the potential to break the Linux desktop.
Remember that many major security holes are in MS apps, not just the OS. Also remember that you'll be inviting VB macros, spyware, etc onto your desktop. Finally, remember that MS will have negative incentive to produce a reliable, stable product for Linux - and they don't do that good a job of that for their own OS.
Inviting MS software onto your desktop is like inviting a vampire into your home. It might have seemed like a good idea at the time...
Re:Office for Linux? Office for Linux! (Score:2)
That's a bogus argument.
First of all, nobody is going to force you to use Office on Linux if you don't want to, so having an extra option can't hurt you. Even if your CIO might insist you use MS Office, the alternative there is him forcing you to use it on Windows, so don't complain).
Second, once people are on Linux, MS Office will have to compete on it's own quality against the open source office apps, which a year from now will be pretty damn good. If MS Office on linux is buggy or unstable, then the migration to a completely MS free environment is much more likely.
Re:Office for Linux? Office for Linux! (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that MS isn't going to develop Office for Linux, the source code and code for all the underlying OS calls is going to be auctioned off to three seperate companies, who will then do the porting.
I think the States have really nailed this one on the head, they realized that MS has no incentive to make this project actually work, so why bother to make them do it? Turn it over to someone who does, and then, just to make sure it gets done correctly, throw parallel processing at it by allowing three different companies the right to do it.
Read the filing, the States have their heads squared on straight enough to see most of the loopholes in the DOJ agreement. File formats get left out, but bundling, phasing out old versions of Windows just to get people to upgrade, embrace-and-extend, closed API's, tying, OEM preference, they all get hit. It's a very good read.
Re:Office for Linux? Office for Linux! (Score:2)
You can bet that it will be crippled in performance, pricing, and/or reliability so that companies can't consider it seriously.
What's even more, I can imagine Microshaft using some old GUI toolkit that no one uses like whater that crap RealPlayer is based on, and then blaming their inability to us a real toolkit like QT or GTK on Linux's supposed backwardness in GUIs. I mean, think about it. If your manager uses these horrible widgets in Office LX, or whatever it'd be called, do you think that he's going to stop to think: Wait a sec... these widgets suck because M$ sucks, not because there aren't pretty widgets available for Linux. If M$ writes any software for Linux, especially under these conditions, I guarantee that they'll try to make Linux look bad. "Now if you'd just use Windows XP, you'd be able to theme your whole interface."
Re:Do I want Office for Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
I want to use linux as my desktop OS at work. Right now I can't. Having MSOffice available on linux would eliminate some of the reasons.
Having it would ease the migration for both home users who aren't power users but are willing to try something different and for corporate IT departments who want CYA, risk mitigation, and change in small doses.
OS wise open source is ready to replace MS. There is lots of good development occuring in the Office apps sector, but right now it's not uniformly ready. Even if it was, I shouldn't have to tie changing my spreadsheet to changing my word processor to changing my presentation software to changing my corporate email app. With MS Office on Linux, larger numbers of people would be able to try out individual office apps without converting wholesale.
Re:Do I want Office for Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One Remedy (Score:3, Insightful)
To round it off, why not make it bilateral? No possibility of Microsoft bringing any kind of suit for any reason for five years, no possibility of anybody suing Microsoft for any reason for five years.
If you complained about this it would imply that you thought Microsoft could be sued in the first place, and that they are not effectively above the law through ability to manipulate the system.
But if you figure that Microsoft can do _anything_ and get away with it through abusing the legal system, you conclude things like: the only reason they're not stealing Linux is because they don't want it, they are already taking action to seize still further power and control in the world, and they already take no consideration of legalities in doing so, except as a weapon.
This would be one hell of an interesting trial balloon. It'd be very revealing to see whether they'd take the 'un-sue-able' aspect as an opportunity, or freak out and refuse to deal on such terms. It would reveal the extent to which they abuse the legal system as a weapon but are themselves exempt from it.